Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-10-12-Speech-3-239"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051012.21.3-239"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, in the words of Father Joseph Wresinski: ‘Wherever men are condemned to live in extreme poverty, the rights of Man are violated: it is our sacred duty to unite in order to ensure that these rights are respected’. This leitmotif of the World Day to Overcome Extreme Poverty is also enshrined in the very philosophy of the European Parliament.
Poverty must be eradicated in the new Europe, going beyond strategies enabling it to become the most competitive and dynamic economy in the world. It must be eradicated in order to promote the dignity and responsibility of all of the citizens. Is not the well-being of a society also measured in terms of the way it treats its weakest members? It is true that work integrates an individual into a group, but that is not enough to make somebody a citizen, and experience has shown this. Yes, the partnership with the least-favoured citizens is needed because they are the experts in combating extreme poverty. Poor people who have not been inducted into citizenship will not be incorporated into the life of society either. Could they too not be recognised as true builders of the new Europe? In order for the poorest people to become active partners, however, they first of all need a voice, they need recognition, security and integration. Combating extreme poverty means respecting the rights of everybody.
The demand of the Fourth World committee, the oldest intergroup in the European Parliament, comes at just the right time to strengthen the social inclusion strategy, to create real conditions in which people living in poverty can participate and, finally, to assess the true impact of our European policies on the lives of the poorest families in the Member States, which is absolutely crucial. The fact that a person is living in poverty does not mean that others must decide what is best for them on their behalf. For example, why take children away from their families for socio-economic reasons relating to extreme poverty? Would it not be better instead to support their parents, who also have the right to carry out their duties as parents. They feel the same joys, the same aspirations, the same fears and the same doubts, but in much more difficult circumstances. And while poverty affects women more, it is they who have the greatest desire to defend their loved ones from poverty and social exclusion. Women, who build fundamental links and create peace, must be encouraged to promote human rights and dignity for everybody.
I would like to end by stressing that seventy-three amendments have been debated in committee. With the exception of two or three of them, they have been accepted. The report was then voted for unanimously, and I would like to thank my colleagues for their cooperation. There is one point to make, though, since my colleagues from the Communist Group propose, by means of Amendment 7, removing access to primary health care by poor women. It is true that access to public health is an essential element in the quest for a decent common life for everybody. But that is not enough. Why not support women in their fight against poverty by allowing them to remain in good health? What are we talking about? We are talking about enabling them to eat healthily, to access clean drinking water, to plan their families and to have access to vaccines and basic treatments for common illnesses. And why refuse them the right to gynaeco-obstetrical health? As a doctor, I do not understand that. In fact, I find it insulting. I would ask all of you to promote primary health care, including for the poorest women, and to reject Amendment 7."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples