Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-10-21-Speech-2-265"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031021.8.2-265"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"I too would like to congratulate Mrs Smet, even if it is because she has managed to draft a report about genital mutilation in women, about public corporal punishment, about stoning, crimes for reasons of honour and forced marriages, without using the terms ‘Islam’ or ‘Muslim’ once. You will have to forgive me for being sarcastic, but I can only deplore the fact that it is apparently deemed politically incorrect to call a spade a spade and to penetrate through to the heart of the matter, even when we are dealing with a very complex problem, namely that of the fundamental failure to respect women’s rights in a large part of the world.
The report is remarkable in places for its euphemistic use of language, which, again, I can only regret. For example, it mentions a cultural heritage as a result of which men occupy a privileged position, or traditional views and stereotypes are imposed on women, but nowhere in the document is it named. We have to ask ourselves who, in fact, stands to gain from such misplaced diffidence. The cultural relativism that is so prevalent in Europe these days stands in the way of a correct prognosis of the problems and, as such, constitutes more of a barrier to any fundamental solution. Not every Muslim fails to respect women’s rights, just as not every Muslim is a fundamentalist. Reality, though, indicates that the oppression of women has, unfortunately, become the norm in Islamic states and in countries where Muslims make up the majority of the population. The seriousness of the situation may differ from country to country or from region to region, but discrimination against women is mainstream in the Islamic world and is, as such, not related in any way to the existence of fundamentalist, so-called minorities. I realise that this is not a comforting thought, but, on the contrary, a reason to implement the measures mentioned in the report with even more determination.
Having said this, I can largely identify with Mrs Smet’s report. As she rightly stated, when treaties are concluded with third countries, it is not sufficient to provide for clauses with regard to sanctions. These sanctions must also actually be imposed when violations of women’s rights are established and if the local government condones, tolerates or even imposes them. The report very rightly points out that the European Member States must ensure that all forms of violence against women must be recognised and punished within their own legal systems. Genital mutilations take place even on our own soil, and in that connection, there is a related form of the problem that deserves our attention, namely surgery to restore the hymen. Demand for such operations is growing rapidly and I can predict that discussions will follow about the question whether social security should soon start to fund the preservation of such backward customs.
It is regrettable that the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities has apparently decided to give the issue of headscarves, the very symbol of women’s oppression in Islam, a wide berth. You only need to jump on the metro in Brussels, Paris, or take the underground in London, to realise how popular the headscarf is compared to some ten years ago. The radicalisation of Islam is not simply something that is taking place in Pakistan or in Egypt, but also in our own large cities. Europe should therefore send out a forceful message that our standards and values, such as the giving of equal rights to men and women, are not up for discussion, and neither should they be. Those who are unwilling to accept this are no longer welcome here."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples