Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-07-04-Speech-4-083"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2002-07-04"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Vote2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20020704.4.4-083"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2002-07-04-Speech-4-0842
lpv:speaker	lp:Georges Berthu2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Delegation to the European Economic Area Joint Parliamentary Committee (EEA) (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 substitute; ECON (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; NA (2001-01-31--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Mouvement pour la France (2000-11-23--2004-07-19)3 member; AFCO (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation for relations with Canada (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	". In our view, the proposal for a framework decision on combating racism and xenophobia, presented by the Commission, has no legal basis from two points of view. 1. The proposal aims to approximate rules on criminal matters – and sanctions – in the Member States, using Articles 29, 31 and 34(2) of the Treaty on European Union as a basis. However, these articles do not confer this responsibility for combating racism. 2. One of the objectives of police and judicial cooperation under Title VI of the TEU is, indeed, to combat “racism and xenophobia”, but the Commission’s proposal takes it upon itself to widen the definition of these words, by adding aversion determined by “religion or belief” (Article 3) to aversion determined by race or national origin. Although the meaning of the words could be changed at a later date to broaden the competences set out in the Treaty, it would be a little too easy, and we would find out. Lastly, this attempt at excessively widening the definition of racism gives rise to the fear that a European ‘thought police’ is on patrol, and for this reason too, it must be rejected."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph