Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-11-29-Speech-4-200"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2007-11-29"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Explanations of vote2
dcterms:Language	"sv"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20071129.41.4-200"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2007-11-29-Speech-4-2012
lpv:speaker	lp:Olle Schmidt2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; IMCO (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 member; ECON (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 member_of_the_bureau; ALDE (2006-10-19--2009-07-13)3 unknown; Folkpartiet liberalerna (2006-10-19--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (2007-03-15--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	". Mrs Roure’s report gave rise to much head-scratching. Of course I wholeheartedly endorse the ambition to fight on several fronts against racism and xenophobia wherever it might arise. There are good grounds for discussing legislation at EU level. Ideas, both good and bad, move rapidly across borders and between people. Judicial protection is patchy in Europe. At the same time, we have reason to be cautious when it comes to harmonising criminal law, not least in an area which has constitutional implications. Sweden has a generous attitude to freedom of expression, press freedom and freedom of religion. Some parts of Europe do not have the same attitude, for obvious reasons. The Council Decision, which was painstakingly negotiated into being by the German Presidency, guarantees a minimum level of protection. Mrs Roure’s report sought to go further and contained a number of very unclear considerations. In the end, therefore, I voted to reject the report. Of course freedom of expression cannot be absolute. Saying that, however, does not make it clear that all restrictions must be particularly well motivated."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph