Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-04-24-Speech-3-078"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020424.4.3-078"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, it is right and proper that the European Union should focus strongly on human rights issues. I have been in the forefront of those campaigning for human rights, democracy and the rule of law in countries such as Burma and Zimbabwe, where the re-election of President Mugabe last month and the political violence and intimidation that continued to accompany it, were a matter of great concern and make a mockery of international actions.
If we are to be more effective in our efforts, then it seems to me that we need to focus more specifically on such areas of genuine human-rights abuse. We should not define the concept of human rights so widely that every human desire and affliction is embraced. We must take care that we do not allow extremists and terrorists to exploit our concern for human rights. While we must be ever watchful of the civil liberties of our citizens, we must ensure that human rights legislation does not intrude excessively into operational areas which affect our ability to protect our law-abiding citizens and our democracies, particularly at a time of heightened threat.
Human rights must not become a device that helps give comfort, even financial compensation, to those such as terrorists, themselves the worst abusers of human rights. The reports before us today are commendable for their coverage, but they sometimes stray into areas best avoided. To some extent they lose sight of the original concept of human rights. They make no mention of the need for good governance and the fact that corrupt governments in failed states are often the prime source of human rights abuse. These are general points, but there are some specific points that we cannot support. For example, while we strongly support a ban on the horrendous exploitation and abuse of children as child soldiers in countries such as Uganda and Sierra Leone, we cannot support a ban on the recruitment of soldiers under 18 in our own countries. The British Army is probably the best in the world. Some 5 000 personnel, 4.5% of its strength, are under eighteen. More than a third of its personnel proudly and voluntarily sign up before they reach adulthood. They are not deployed to areas of conflict until they turn 18. It would be a gross mistake and an intrusion into an area of uniquely national competence to try and ban such recruitment.
We cannot accept the incorrect interpretation of the Geneva Convention, or the excessive criticism of US actions in its handling of prisoners at Guantanamo, when the United States administration has made it clear that it will ensure that the basic human rights of all those held in custody will be respected. We do not share the enthusiasm for an international criminal court, as currently proposed, which might easily become a political instrument and whose jurisdiction over real human rights abusers, such as terrorists, is unclear. We do not support the communitarisation of foreign policy in the European Union. There is much we can support, but I have outlined those areas which we cannot support.
Instead of constant self flagellation, hand-ringing and searching for flaws in our own democracies we really must be more effective in correcting the constant and massive abuse of human rights which is the daily lot of people is so many far-flung countries."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples