Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-09-27-Speech-4-164"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070927.22.4-164"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
". −
Sometimes a parliamentarian finds himself between a rock and a hard place in the choices he has to make. The vote on this report was a typical example of that. On the one hand, we have a report which deals with the introduction of legislation large parts of which I find highly dubious; on the other hand, amendments from the ITS Group which in most cases did not remedy the weaknesses of the report but proposed the introduction of new, even worse, arguments. It is hardly possible to vote for ITS contributions. I therefore decided to abstain in the vote.
There is no doubt that discrimination is still a widespread problem in Europe and one which is hard to eradicate. I do not deny that there may be good grounds for discussing how it might be tackled jointly at intergovernmental level. In this particular case, however, we are dealing with legislation which is very far-reaching and based on a principle of law which is fairly alien to our concepts. Positive action is in itself a dubious method, but the recording of a person’s race – a condition for ensuring that such action can work – is unacceptable, both from a moral point of view and from that of safeguarding personal integrity. Equally there are sound reasons for reservations over the reversal of the burden of proof. I am convinced that our system of justice, which is based on the principle that a person is innocent until proved guilty, must be defended, however laudable the initial intention may have been."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples