Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-03-08-Speech-1-083"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040308.7.1-083"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, on this 8 March, I should like to speak about the reports and oral questions tabled by the Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities and to make some general remarks about the legislative period that we have just completed.
It strikes me that, in our respective countries, we are not sufficiently aware that Europe has been a pioneer in the field of women’s rights and gender equality. Europe may be a pioneer on paper – more on that later – but it is still a pioneer just the same.
I should like to ask you a question. The legislature that has just finished has, among other things, made the framework decision against trafficking possible, promoted the Daphne programme and revised the 1976 Directive and Article 23 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights – all of which, as far as I am concerned, are welcome developments. What I would like to know is how is it that we are incapable – at least in France – of conveying to our fellow countrymen the amount of work that Europe does for women’s rights?
I say this not only in order that we should raise Europe’s profile, but simply because I hear people saying the opposite in my country. They say that Europe is unravelling women’s rights and that Europe does nothing to help women. I do not wish to spend my time reopening old wounds; what I would like to know is why people do not see, hear or know what goes on here, as I feel that, at a stroke, we could establish a better link between what we do and what goes on in practice.
A good example is my own country, where the government, of which I am not a supporter, makes proposals for professional equality, and I welcome these. Yet it does not make one single reference to Europe, nor to the renewal of the 1976 Directive, which took place two years ago. Why should this be, when these proposals are the result of transposing the Directive?
What I would like and what I ask both the Commission and Parliament is, therefore, to examine how we can speak differently and convey differently what goes on here. This is not to say that I see things through rose-coloured glasses. Let me remind you – as I know you are well aware – that there are issues that genuinely make us angry and to which we are vehemently opposed, such as part-time work, prostitution and abortion. These are three subjects that genuinely make us angry and that prove that not everything in Europe’s garden is coming up roses. We are here to move things forward and I feel that it is in our interests to improve relations with the Member States.
This will not stop me from putting to the Commission the question of Article 13, which was raised just before. How is it that we have had a directive to combat racism since the year 2000, yet we do not have a directive to combat sexism? What is being proposed today is a pale shadow of what the Commissioner hoped for when she tabled the proposals last year. We have lost education, taxation, media and advertising. All we have left is insurance, as my fellow socialist has just reminded this House, and even this is in the hands of the lobbies, who are opposed.
A transversal group of Commissioners has been set up, but can this group be more proactive? We also drew up a report – Mrs Gröner is no longer here – to encourage greater parity and equality between men and women within parliamentary institutions. The Commission itself has made strenuous efforts with regard to what happens in our respective countries, and certainly in France. To my mind, the implementation of Article 13 is severely weakened, which causes me great concern."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples