Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-12-14-Speech-3-083"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051214.10.3-083"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Ladies and gentlemen, I should like to begin, of course, by thanking you for having awarded us, the entire team – some of whom are present - this Sakharov Prize, and by letting you know just how important this is to us.
I shall now present at random some perhaps rather more critical points, and the prize awarded to the Ladies in White enables me to address them.
There still continues to exist a ‘variable geometry’ capacity for indignation that shocks me to the core. How can one fail to understand that, on the one hand, the detention of 24 journalists in Cuba and, on the other hand, the situation I described to you a moment ago, whereby the US army is holding journalists in Iraq without ever having justified its actions, might be deemed equally scandalous? A choice should not have to be made between the one and the other. An equally hard line should be taken in both cases.
In the case of Cuba, I am completely astounded by the attitude displayed by a number of people. As I was saying to some friends yesterday, if a journalist from Reporters without Borders denounces the dictatorships in Burma, North Korea or Laos, there is no one to come and tell us that we are overstepping the mark, that what we are saying is bad or that the situation is more complicated than that. We only need, however, to say that there is a dictatorship in Cuba too, and we receive tons of insulting letters from people finding excuses for that dictatorship.
I am not going to give my opinion in this House on whether or not it is necessary to keep the US embargo. That is not my problem. My problem is the fact that there are 300 prisoners of conscience in Cuba, whose only crime is to have called for democracy and to have challenged Mr Castro’s authority. That is all! It is unacceptable that they should be treated in that way, regardless of the political positions one upholds.
I am astounded to see people here who are ready to take to the streets if their freedoms are interfered with in the slightest way, but who are also ready to applaud scoundrels from far off places just because they are ‘exotic’!
Another person I should like to mention, Mr President, is Mrs Florence Aubenas, because you have been exemplary in the way you have rallied people. You, in Parliament, have been extraordinary – and I am not one to mince my words, as you will see – you have been extraordinary where Florence Aubenas is concerned. I have come to this House several times to defend her. The French, Belgians, Italians and Germans – everybody joined forces. How unfair for the others, though. There are others like Florence Aubenas, but they do not belong to great Western media organisations and they do not come from the West. In their cases, it is a job and a half mobilising you, the press and even, at times, ourselves, as though double standards were being applied, as though some lives were worth more than others and as though there were some freedoms that affect us and others that do not. It is imperative that we put a stop to this way of thinking.
One cannot be credible and one cannot say to people ‘we, in this House, are democrats who fight for democracy’ if we fight a thousand times harder for such democracy when our own people are involved than when others are involved. Doing so strips us of any credibility, including where our position on human rights is concerned. I wanted to say this to you because I see this happening every day.
I also wanted to tell you to stop feeling guilty about the developing world, to stop thinking that you are defending Western values in this House and to stop chastising yourselves all the time and trying to find excuses for people who have none at all. The democratic values that you defend in this House are universal values; they carry the same weight whether in this House, in Cuba or in Nigeria. Let us stop thinking that we have this kind of inexorable duty to remember, with these anniversaries and never-ending commemorations. We have had just about enough of all that; let us focus on the present. I do not have a guilty conscience with regard to what took place in the past. I have a guilty conscience with regard to what is happening today and to what I am not doing.
I should like, if I may, to address another point in relation to our own intolerance. It is so easy to defend the ideas of people who think like us. It is so easy to fight for people who are like us. That is not democracy, however. Democracy means fighting for the freedom of expression of others, including those who will pose a threat to our democracies in the future. This is the paradox and the problem faced by you and me. As I often tell friends – I can see Dany opposite me – at Reporters without Borders we sometimes go to countries in which we defend people, and I say to myself that these people are scoundrels. I say to myself that on the day when that character comes to power, my God, I will return in a hurry. At the same time, I say to myself that my place is here. The difference between those who merely talk about democracy and those who live it – and you live it in this House – is being able to say what I have just said and to defend people on the grounds that they do not benefit from a certain number of legal rules, even though those people will pose a threat to us in the future. This paradox is our weakness at the same time as our strength.
I should like to make two or three further small points. No, not all the attacks on the freedom of the press are the same. Let us stop making remarks such as: ‘Hang on, I do not know how things were done in the past, but the arrest of a conscientious objector in Switzerland (when conscientious objection existed) and the 30 years of gulags in the USSR are the same thing’. No, they are not the same thing. We have to fight in these two different cases.
Let us stop making others think, or ending up making them think, that we do not live in democracies. We do in fact live in democracies. Democracies exist. Half the countries in the world are not democratic in their dealings. To equate the problem of media concentration in our own countries with that of the arrest of journalists in China or Burma is terrible for the people who are imprisoned in China.
Allow me just to mention one name, that of Mr Jean-Marie Cavada, who is a friend of mine; I know how much he campaigned for Reporters without Borders to be awarded this prize. Thank you, Jean-Marie.
It is a despicable thing to do to them. I can say what I like in this House, and that includes expressing my opinions about you. Such freedom of expression is impossible in half the countries in the world, so let us stop blurring the distinctions. Yes, there are things that do not work in our countries. Yes, there are things that do not work in the field of information. Yes, we need to reflect. Yes, like you, I am scandalised from time to time by the attitudes of my colleagues and by what I do as a journalist. We must be careful, though, not to say that it all boils down to the same thing and not to confuse countries in which, generally speaking, attacks on the freedom of the press are the exception with countries in which they are the rule. It is not the same thing, for heaven’s sake!
We are not asking you to agree with everything we say. I do not believe that you are in a position to do so. We, for our part, are irresponsible to a certain extent because the only thing we defend is freedom of expression. As for you, you are required to take into account other things, such as the economic interests of your countries and of Europe and diplomatic and military interests. I hope – indeed, I am sure – that you are aware of this. That is why I am not calling on you to say that the policy of Europe and of this Parliament is guided only by human rights. That is happily not the case. I call on you, when you say something to us and when you make a commitment, to abide by it and to abide by your own words, which is something that you do not always do.
A short while ago, Mr President, you were speaking to us about Tunisia. Yet, for heaven’s sake, an association agreement exists with Tunisia!
You will tell me that what we are concerned with here is not Parliament but the European institutions as a whole. What is delaying this association agreement from being implemented? Clauses exist; you make sure they are voted in favour of. You are the ones losing face in cases like these.
In this case, it is not human rights that are being talked about. When they are, however, being talked about, it is a question of abiding by one’s word and one’s commitments. We need you, you know. You are magnificent – I said the same thing to you yesterday, Mr President – when you vote in favour of reports and resolutions. Do not think for a moment that it is pointless to do so. We rely on your doing so. It is useful for people, so continue to do it, but follow it through to the end. Speak the truth. That is the only thing we ask of you. We have had enough of people waxing lyrical. We have heard enough quivering voices. We want to hear people telling us: ‘There you are, I can do that. I cannot do any more than that, but that at least is something you can count on us to do.
I wanted to make yet another final point. I, along with others, believed that it was possible radically to change the world. I am now less certain about that, as are others. Knowing that the world cannot be radically changed can be reassuring, you are right, but in other respects it can also cause anguish. At the same time, we cannot be content with the world as it is, Mr President. Each time I open the newspaper, the world makes me sick. I have a small daughter aged four who is going to grow up and who will have a thousand times more opportunities than a young girl of the same age in 90 countries that I can list for you in this House. This injustice is unacceptable. Do you know what is good about human rights? The fact that it works. I am not saving my soul. I believe in neither the dear Lord nor the devil. In simple terms, I believe that we can get up and do something and improve, day after day, the lives of each and every individual. To do that, we need you.
I should just like randomly to share some positive and more negative observations with you. I shall begin with the positive ones and leave the negative ones until the end.
I should like to begin by congratulating you, the men and women of Parliament, on having recognised the qualities of - and, above all, on having awarded a prize such as this to - journalists who are, all the same, a constant thorn in your side and towards whom you often do not hold back your criticism – for good reason. You are, in fact, right: journalists do not do their jobs very well - far from it – but to award this Sakharov Prize to Reporters without Borders also goes to show that, in spite of everything, there is an awareness of just how vital journalists are for democracy, in the same way as elected representatives are.
It also goes to show – allow me to make this point here, even if you are already aware of it – that, notwithstanding the gossip columns, there also exists the kind of journalism that involves taking risks on a daily basis. Such daily risk-taking is represented by our 74 colleagues killed in Iraq - a figure twice that recorded in 20 years of war in Vietnam - and the five Iraqi journalists being held today among the 120 journalists detained in Iraq by the US army, with no information at all available on why they are being held, what they are accused of or how exactly they can be defended. It is to them, through us, that you are paying tribute. I believe, once again, that they deserve such tribute, even though there is good reason to be irritated by the behaviour of the press.
Allow me to mention another name in this House, one that I believe is in the news: that of the most recent journalist to have been killed. You will know to whom I am referring: Gebran Tueni. I am not the only one in this House who knew of Gebran Tueni; he was a leading political figure in Lebanon. He was the fourteenth victim of targeted attacks that have been taking place in the country for some months. We must support the Lebanese people and we must support the Lebanese democrats. You are aware that, through Gebran Tueni, it was, again, democracy and genuine Lebanese independence that were being targeted. I wanted to pay tribute with you to the memory of Gebran Tueni."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples