Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-01-17-Speech-3-171"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-01-17"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Council priorities for the meeting of the United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva2
dcterms:Language	"da"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20010117.5.3-171"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-01-17-Speech-3-1722
lpv:speaker	lp:Pernille Frahm2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation to the EU-Poland Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-29--2002-01-14)3 member; Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Socialistisk Folkeparti (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Temporary committee on the Echelon interception system (2000-07-06--2001-09-05)3 vice-chair; EUL/NGL (1999-10-13--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Mr Vitorino, President-in-Office of the Council, in preparing a resolution on a subject like human rights, there are in fact two possibilities: we can state principles and avoid naming specific areas; or we can do as we have in fact done, namely name a number of specific areas and so run the risk of forgetting some things. That is partly what this speech is about. However, I want first of all to say that I am very pleased indeed that something about the situation in China has been included, and I want heartily to support the amendments tabled. Something ought perhaps also to have been included about the situation regarding religious freedom for the Falun Gong sect, but it was not. There is nonetheless some quite sharp criticism, and I am very glad about that. I am also pleased that Chechnya has been mentioned. I think this is an area to which we do not pay enough attention. It is an area which may yet become a powder keg for security policy in that area, and perhaps also in our own area. There are some areas to which I think too little priority has been given. The Swedish Presidency says that it will give high priority to the work done towards abolishing the death penalty. I am extremely pleased about that, and I very much agree that this is an area to which high priority should be given. In this connection, we need to keep our eyes on our so-called friends. I think we have to be aware of the situation in the United States. Following the American presidential election, the number of death sentences carried out in the United States will reach record levels. We are in a situation in which there are people on death row in the United States who, we are quite convinced, have not been given fair trials, nor who will in fact be given fair trials unless outside powers help them, for the system will not of itself produce these. I also think we have to remember another of our ‘friends’, namely Turkey – an applicant country – which we do not mention at all in this resolution. It is a problem that we still have a country so close to us which will not abolish the death penalty, which will not introduce general democratic rights for ethnic minorities and which has not acquired control over the methods its police use, either on the street or in its jails. Turkey does not comply with the Convention Against Torture. By establishing a Fortress Europe, we are not doing much to help those people who flee from countries of that type, and allow me, in conclusion, to say to the Swedish Presidency, ‘Remember, we do not improve the situation of refugees by building a Fortress Europe around ourselves.’"@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph