Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-04-Speech-3-190"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001004.8.3-190"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I too would like to congratulate the rapporteurs and those working on the equivalent opinions on their commitment to this work and their willingness to cooperate with all of us in this House who wish to see progress in combating discrimination.
There is no doubt that it is a complex, sensitive and controversial area and it combines at least three of those elements I was always taught you were not supposed to discuss in polite society: politics, sex and religion, along with the equally important issues of age and disability. The importance people attach to this has been reflected in the fact that I have received more lobbying on this directive than on any other so far in this session and from a wider range of people.
The aim of this work, based on Article 13, is to make equality of opportunity a reality by removing that smiling face that so often cloaks prejudice and bigotry, predominantly in the workplace. That is a challenge to all of us because we all judge people on initial impressions. Employers will now have to be clear and transparent in all aspects of their employment policy and practice and able to justify the choices they make on the basis of the real job requirements. They will also be expected to respond to the needs of the potential workforce, particularly in the area of disability.
My group welcomes both the framework directive and the proposed Community action programme and sees them as an important step towards tackling prejudice in other aspects of people's lives. For that reason we shall be supporting Amendment No 18 to the Mann report which calls for Member States to repeal all penal code provisions discriminating against homosexuals. We know that that is not within the scope of the directive but we think it is an important marker because if, quite rightly, discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is not to be permitted in the field of employment, then we should not be supporting the potential criminalisation of employees for what they do in privacy and in a consenting relationship.
Concerns have been raised with me about the potential interpretation of the explanatory notes to Article 1, which again may seem a bit obscure, but these distinguish between sexual orientation and behaviour. I would ask the Commission to clarify this point. Does it mean that you can still suffer discrimination in the workplace if you engage in homosexual activities in your private life? Or, does it mean, as I would hope, that we should learn the lessons from the Clinton experience and all behave appropriately in the workplace, whatever our sexual orientation.
In dealing with religion, my group welcomes Amendment No 37 to the Mann report. It is important that, while we recognise the desire of organisations based on a particular religion or belief to employ people who share their views, it is also right that this desire should not become a reason to deny employment to people who are perfectly qualified to carry out a job which is not directly connected to that belief and who conduct themselves appropriately while at work. There are very few jobs where having a particular belief system is an essential qualification. Being the British Monarchy is one of them. Driving a school bus for a religious foundation is not. I found it particularly offensive to be asked that I should support changes which would make it possible for any religious body to deny any employment to homosexuals. I would urge any group campaigning for the right to discriminate against another group to consider how such freedom might also work against them and to consider if they think that would be just.
Age discrimination is also rife and no voluntary code can really combat gratuitous discrimination. Article 5, as it currently stands, has been criticised for seeming to justify what it aims to combat. That is why we shall be supporting Amendment No 38 which limits itself to essentials on the basis of a strictly defined legitimate aim. This would hopefully exclude the boss's desire to be surrounded by attractive young people to enhance the company image or their own.
(
)"@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples