Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-12-16-Speech-4-105"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20041216.9.4-105"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
We would like to observe that financing of actions for natural and man-made disasters is so limited that, essentially, it cancels out any possibility of material intervention and efficiency.
For us, damage prevention is more important than cure, by which we mean supporting policies, actions and infrastructures which limit damage and losses in the event of disaster.
However, how can this happen when everything is judged by depressing financial criteria and the interests of big business? When a series of public competences is transferred to private individuals, how can anyone talk seriously of the adoption of a fundamental policy of protection against any sort of disaster?
When no money is available for anti-flood works, when anti-earthquake standards are not met, when forests are left at the mercy of arsonists and land cannibals, when shipowners remain unaccountable and unpunished after huge ecological disasters, what protection can we talk of? How can efficient civil protection be organised when public goods and services needed in critical situations, such as the fire brigade, are being transferred to private individuals or turned into repressive mechanisms?
And then, what use is being made of even these crumbs of so-called 'restitution? If you want a silencing answer, ask the victims of the 1999 earthquake in Greece still living in containers."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples