Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-12-12-Speech-3-291"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20071212.28.3-291"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I consider that today’s debate has been of extraordinary interest – of extraordinary interest and also of a high political level – and I should therefore like to thank all those who have spoken, including those who have said things with which I do not and cannot agree. Some speakers have questioned whether it is necessary or important to raise such an issue in this House; I believe, however, that it has been very important.
An issue which is certainly a highly political issue has been raised: striking a balance between the right freely to express our thought, which is one of the rights that the Charter of Fundamental Rights recognises, and other fundamental rights such as the dignity of the human person, equality and non-discrimination. May I say that those who have raised this issue, taking the view that freedom of thought makes it possible to cause offence and to stir up values running counter to the fundamental rights of the person, have distorted what freedom of thought actually means.
I always speak as I find, even when my opinions run counter to those who spoke before me. Someone said: ‘if, in a referendum, citizens come out against the Charter of Fundamental Rights, that will be an expression of freedom’. I do not agree, because calling for a referendum against the Charter of Fundamental Rights would be to call for a referendum against citizens, since those citizens are clearly the holders and protagonists of the fundamental rights that we must now safeguard. It is not because that principle has to be refuted, but because those who defend fundamental rights are not extremists, while those who violate and refute them, those who wish to affirm the right to incite a mob or a group of violent people to destroy Jewish graves are extremists. That is not freedom of expression, that is violence that has to be eradicated through policies and has to be punished by the instruments of the law. These are, in my view, the two measures for which Europe must steadfastly press.
We must not play it down. We must not think that a single event can be underestimated because it is a single event, if that single event is a symptom of racism and intolerance, of a profound scorn for human values, we must also be worried by a single event, by a single act of violence!
Many of you have raised another, very important, issue: can the propagation of a racist message by political forces be tolerated in the name of the free expression of political thought? Because they are elected by citizens, I believe that those in politics have a special responsibility and must not incite the mob against other citizens or other people: a sense of personal accountability.
In my view, it is difficult, and I say this frankly, to use the instruments of the law, the police or the secret services to undertake a far-reaching investigation of this or that party. However, when this or that party publicly says that its intention is to restore racial supremacy, that is not free expression of thought, but an attack on a deep-seated foundation of Europe. It is for those reasons that repressive action is justified, and there can be no talk of censure or of violation of the freedom of expression.
I will defend the right of those who do not agree with me to say what they wish to say, but I cannot defend the right of those who do not agree with me to incite the mob or other people to attack and to wound and kill. In no way is that free expression of thought!
That is why today’s issue is a key issue and I shall put forward similar arguments when we debate the appalling form of extremism represented by terrorism, because we can surely not draw a line between the message of racial hatred and the message of those who consider that killing people in terrorist attacks is a possible answer to society’s problems. Both are issues which – in my view, through education and prevention, by fostering tolerance, and by using the instruments of law and the instruments of enforcement – must be tackled at European level. We can only be satisfied when we are sure that there is no room for racists, bigots and terrorists in Europe."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples