Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-09-25-Speech-2-217"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070925.30.2-217"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, seeking humanitarianism in the administration of justice is one of Europe’s important missions. We need to stand up against public show executions in which the remains of the executed person become an unhealthy object of excitement for the crowds. We must do everything we can to oppose executions carried out to political order from the authorities in China or Iran.
What we cannot agree to, however, is a narrow understanding of this whole problem. In particular, we cannot agree to a termination of discussion on this subject. We cannot agree to the kind of censorship proposed by Mr Schulz in his speech. It is not up to him how long Lech Kaczyński remains President of Poland, no matter how much he wishes it were. It depends on the Poles, who have their own doubts. And it is not just the Poles who have doubts about the global moratorium, or about the propaganda and social campaigns proposed by the Commission.
I have one question – is it in fact possible, from a comfortable government seat in Paris or Lisbon, to dispatch an appeal for the suspension of capital punishment to regions that are rife with cruelty and violence? Is it not hypocrisy to expect capital punishment to be abolished today in Iraq or Afghanistan while doing nothing to restore security and justice in these countries?
I do not share the conviction that abolition of capital punishment in other parts of the world will provide a solution to violence and brutality. Anyway, Poland abolished the death penalty in 1988, nearly twenty years ago now. We did this in the face of our own public opinion. We did it in the name of European unity. We want to continue supporting that decision today.
It may be that in fact our part of the world can permit itself alternatives to capital punishment. We wish to show solidarity by cooperating on this matter, in the UN forum too, but we cannot agree to European censorship on the death penalty as proposed by Mr Schulz.
The draft resolution makes unnecessary reference to the issue of the European Day against the Death Penalty. May I remind you that the death penalty is not the only place where we run up against matters of life and death in politics and law. If we are to conduct a dialogue in Europe on contemporary challenges to humanitarianism, we cannot restrict ourselves to the death penalty, on which we do, after all, have a common opinion. We cannot avoid discussing abortion on request, which is also so keenly defended in Europe and around the world by this Parliament and Mr Schulz’s club. We cannot avoid discussing euthanasia, guarantees for human dignity, or the burgeoning development of biomedical science. If one of the days on the European calendar is to be a day for reflection on the humanitarian aspect of the legislator’s work, and also ours, we cannot just shut our eyes to all of this, or we shall descend into hypocrisy."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples