Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-01-13-Speech-1-098"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030113.6.1-098"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I wish to begin by thanking the rapporteur.
The Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party supports Mrs Swiebel’s report. We think that the report provides an important and useful survey of the situation regarding fundamental rights within our own European Union. Certainly, the issue can be raised of the scope of the report as regards both choice of subjects and political content. We can also dispute a number of the wordings and examples, but I believe we can probably learn from the work in time for next year’s report. We do not therefore agree with the basic criticism made of the report.
We require many other countries to comply with the demands concerning fundamental rights. That is why it is all the more important for us to examine what kind of order our own house is in. It is good to look elsewhere, but sometimes it is good to look at one’s own situation. Unfortunately, there are all too many indications in this report that the situation could have been significantly better in our own countries.
We all agree about the importance of doing everything in our power to combat those who would use violence and terrorism to damage the foundations of our society. There is of course a broad consensus on this issue. There is perhaps, however, cause to stand up and ask ourselves whether the end always justifies the means. Might the repressive means that the democracies are sometimes compelled to use in the fight for democracy and the open society also constitute a threat to the values we are defending? The question deserves to be asked. To make it a rule to introduce sunset clauses, that is to say time-limited legislation when it comes to this type of special legislation infringing personal privacy, is, we believe, a reasonable route to go down.
An adjacent and current topic that is really only indirectly related to this, namely the debate on torture in the United States, addressed by, for example, The Economist, obviously influences us too here in Europe. We Liberals also welcome open discussion of the inadequate conditions in many EU prisons, as well as of action by the police. It is my conviction that the democratic institutions are sufficiently robust to cope successfully with such a discussion. Our democracy is also strong enough to enable its expedients to be discussed openly. My own country too is criticised in this report. Mrs Swiebel’s report is important, and it is important that the debate on racism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism be conducted here in Parliament. Let us not therefore turn the discussion into an internal and national affair. It is about something much larger.
Allow me in conclusion to emphasise asylum and refugee policy within the European Union. Many crimes against fundamental rights have taken place, and continue to take place, in these spheres. In particular, the children of refugees have a bad time of it, something which should cause all governments to feel ashamed. If we cannot agree on anything else, we ought in any case in this Assembly to be able to agree that all children require additional protection.
Opinion forming is important. Let us not forget that. Let us perhaps look at what happened at the weekend in the United States as evidence of the fact that opinion forming can in actual fact also be effective. We have amendments by the ELDR Group on the subjects of family relations and the concept of the family. These are by way of clarification."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples