Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-07-04-Speech-3-202"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010704.5.3-202"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, as shadow rapporteur for my group for the report by Mr Cornillet, whom I should, by the way, like to congratulate on the result of his work, I should like to address the question of respect for human rights in the countries of the European Union itself.
If we look at the facts on the table two complexes of problems stand out. In the first place this time there are again reports on misbehaviour by government servants, such as police officers, prison staff, security services, and officials involved in the handling of asylum seekers.
Secondly one is struck by the number of reports of forms of unequal treatment and discrimination, especially of people belonging to so-called “weak” groups in society. Racist violence against foreigners is the most visible manifestation of this phenomenon, but it also relates to the trafficking in women, discrimination in the workplace, to say nothing of homosexuals, since I have had enough of the topic for the time being.
Unfortunately in the preparatory phase in the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs this substantive aspect of the human rights problem in the European Union was scarcely mentioned. All attention focused on the way in which human rights reports in the European Parliament should be produced in future.
I have great appreciation for the commitment and stamina of the rapporteur, Mr Cornillet, but believe that the means are in danger of not achieving their end. The discussion on the future design and organisation of this work took up a great deal of time and energy and was carried out under an undue amount of pressure. A compromise turned out to have been almost reached, but elements were lost and now we must simply hope that things will turn out all right with the amendments. Some aspects of the discussion have not yet been completely concluded and therefore I should like to raise some of these points now.
In the first place, the choice of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights as the coathanger for the report. This choice, in itself an obvious one, must not, however, become a restrictive corset. The discussion on the scope of human rights and the concept of human rights is still fluid. Human rights are also a matter of living law. Moreover, we must not forget that the Member States are also bound by human rights treaties of the Council of Europe and the United Nations and the specialised bodies. The findings of the supervisory agencies of these treaties should in fact play a much greater part in the deliberations of this Parliament.
Secondly, there is the question: who does what? There are two parliamentary committees which deal with the matter: the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights. There is a great deal of overlap both in the conclusions and in the themes, unnecessary and duplication of work is being carried out and there is stiff competition for staff and resources. This requires intervention by the authorised bodies of this Parliament in order to coordinate things better.
My third question is: where should the countries of the European Union about which there is concern regarding the observance of fundamental rights be named? In view of the nature of the supervisory mechanism itself the only appropriate answer seems to me to be in the resolution itself and not tucked away in a note, as was the original intention of the rapporteur himself. I find that in conflict with the fact that every month in this Parliament we rap third countries over the knuckles for violation of human rights."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples