Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-23-Speech-2-094"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030923.4.2-094"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
The reasons for rejecting the Austrian initiative are more fundamental than those relating to the rapporteur’s recitals. Basically, the concept of ‘safe third States’ runs counter to the international obligations arising from the 1951 Geneva Convention. This is most striking in the case of gypsies fleeing the racism and discrimination that they suffer in countries such as Romania or Slovakia – States that the EU considers to be ‘safe’.
As the rapporteur acknowledges: ‘Even if a list of safe third states were to be established, an application for asylum cannot be automatically rejected, as this would override the Geneva Convention’
Declaring that a request for asylum is ‘clearly unfounded’ is already common practice. The list of ‘safe States’ will be used as a pretext for further encouraging a hasty examination and the systematic rejection of requests.
The idea of keeping refugees in their regions of origin breaches the principle of non-refoulement. This is refoulement by another name. In France, the Villepin law calls this ‘internal asylum’! This means choosing refugee camps over welcoming refugees.
The Austrian initiative must be rejected on the grounds that it authorises attacks on the right of asylum in Europe and anticipates the way in which, in the context of drafting European legislation, the Member States intend to abandon any consideration of the right of asylum and of the Geneva Convention."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples