Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-09-05-Speech-3-124"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010905.5.3-124"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
In its explanatory statement, the report calls on the Commission and Member States to show a greater commitment to culture. There is a reason for this, since the report also states that, in 2000, a mere 0.1% of the Community budget was earmarked for the cultural and audiovisual sectors.
What does the report mean, then, by the terms relating to ‘European culture’, which are constantly used by the authors? Apart from the fact that this expression itself is ambiguous, how does European culture differ from universal culture, which is rich with contributions from every continent?
In one of its recitals, the report includes sectors such as copyright, resale rights, liberalisation of the telecommunications market, international competition law (including funding of cinematographic works, resale price maintenance for books, theatre subsidies and media concentration) in the context of culture. We claim that we are talking about culture when we are actually referring to markets, if not business!
On the other hand, the report does not raise any of the most basic questions. Is everyone living within the European Union guaranteed access to culture? Do they all have even a reasonable level of literacy? Were they all able to receive an education that suited their abilities?
These questions do not interest the European authorities, which are too preoccupied with regulating competition in the cultural business world.
We therefore voted against this report."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples