Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-05-16-Speech-4-175"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020516.9.4-175"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, although I appear on the list as an author, my group is not a signatory to this joint resolution, although we are likely to support it.
As previous speakers have said, probably none of us in this Chamber would deny the devastating effects of religious extremism. In the case of Gujarat, as Mr Tannock mentioned, it is actually Hindu extremism. It was the action of those so-called "pilgrims" which resulted in an appalling massacre of 58 people. We have seen the fallout from that in what is euphemistically called "inter-communal violence".
The resolution states that whereas numerous independent inquiries by human rights organisations confirm that state officials and the police of Gujarat were involved in the clashes, this involvement runs deep. It is not just a question of a casual street brawl but orchestrated violence and intimidation over a sustained period.
The Human Rights Watch report states that the Gujarat Government chose to characterise the violence as a spontaneous reaction to the incidents at Godhra. Human Rights Watch findings and those of numerous Indian human rights and civil liberties organisations and most of the Indian press indicate that the attacks on Muslims throughout the state were planned well in advance of the Godhra incident and organised with extensive police participation and in close cooperation with officials of the BJP State Government.
On 3 April India's national Human Rights Commission released the preliminary findings of its report on the violence, a strong indictment of the failure of the Gujarat Government to contain the violence. The very authorities to whom people should have been able to look for protection were, in many cases, complicit in devastating attacks and increasing the level and ferocity of violence which makes every citizen feel threatened, whatever their religion or background.
There are now about 100 refugee camps organised by NGOs in the area. A mere handful see support from the government of Gujarat State. That authority has a responsibility for the wellbeing and care of these people now and in future.
The Indian Government has an overall responsibility to see that justice is done and that the instigators, organisers and perpetrators of this violence are brought to justice. They will also need to ensure that the police force in Gujarat is made to recognise that it owes a duty to all people who may be under threat or attack, not just their own.
Clear signals are needed from the government – indeed we have had some – that religious intolerance and incitement to religious hatred have no place in secular, democratic India. My group welcomes the ruling of the Indian Supreme Court in March this year banning any religious ceremonies at Ayodhya until the definite legal settlement of the case which we hope will be in the interests of a peaceful, long-term solution."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples