Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-04-Speech-3-192"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001004.8.3-192"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, my Group and I identify as victims of discrimination, on the grounds of our beliefs, in this very House, since we are prevented from forming a political group as everyone else is authorised to do, and we therefore wholeheartedly applaud the opportunity to set up a programme to combat any form of discrimination. Not just discrimination against men and women at work. In France, for example, men are not allowed to teach in primary education. That is a case of blatant discrimination.
The question is, however, far more significant in philosophical, legal and sociological terms. Legally speaking, there are general texts condemning discrimination everywhere. Yesterday, for example, the Charter of Fundamental Rights condemned discrimination, not just racial discrimination but even, according to the Charter, discrimination on the basis of birth. In affirming the principle of equality, all the constitutions of the world virtually establish a principle of constitutional
since discrimination is prohibited everywhere.
On the other hand, however, for forty years there have been texts in existence which are actually based on discrimination. In Geneva in 1963, the first of these, UNCTAD, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, established the principle of compensatory inequalities or, in other words, discrimination. Our own Lomé Convention itself is based on discrimination in favour of the Caribbean and Pacific States. Our entire dispute with the United States, moreover, has arisen because we wanted positive discrimination in favour of our own ACP banana producers whereas the United States wanted an egalitarian system which would serve the interests of multinationals.
Europe itself, with the GSP, the System of Generalised Preferences, which leads us unilaterally to give up our customs duties to the benefit of a whole series of States, is based on discrimination. And the national laws in our 15 countries also practice discrimination, including the Socialist France of the Socialist Mr Jospin. In 1999, with regard to New Caledonia, a preference was established with regard to employment on the basis of ethnicity, on the basis of race. So New Caledonia operates a preference based on skin colour.
In the urban suburbs of French cities, there are tax free zones, based on ethnicity once again, for these areas are dominated by specific ethnic populations. And that is without mentioning the United States where, thirty years ago, the Supreme Court invented the principle of ‘affirmative action’. On a sociological basis, moreover, there is discrimination according to birth. In this House, Mrs Ana de Palacio Vallelersundi has a sister who is a Commissioner in the European Commission. If she were not born Ana de Palacio Vallelersundi, do you think the two sisters would now be in these two places? Not everyone in the Olympic Games gets through to the final. There is no right entitling a person to go to the Olympic Games.
So, in sociological terms, there is the risk of abuse. The principle of non-discrimination is a fine one, Mr President, but it also has a flip side. I must therefore warn you, the situation is not as simple as you may imagine. This principle of …."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"jus cogens"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples