Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-04-01-Speech-3-085"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090401.14.3-085"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"−
Mr President, on Monday, the daughter of a friend of mine received a letter, a rejection letter from university. She had been rejected not on grounds of intellectual ability, but because she has a disability. The letter stated that the university was unable to offer her the care she needs. She got through secondary school fine, so it was no problem there, but now she has been sidelined.
The report we are discussing today touches the heart of our society. Do we want people to be considered second-class citizens on grounds of their age, sexual orientation, religion or belief, or disability, or do we prefer a society in which everyone can participate fully? When people are turned down for rented housing or loans on account of who they are, not only are they themselves unfairly treated, but society as a whole also sells itself short by writing people off.
I have looked forward to today with eager anticipation. There is a great deal at stake in tomorrow’s vote. The European Parliament has been calling for European directives on equal treatment between persons ever since 1995, and the Treaty of Amsterdam gave us a legal basis for this at long last. In 2000 some important directives resulted from this: the Directive implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin, whose scope covers both the labour market and the supply of goods and services, and also the Directive intended to combat discrimination based on religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation – although the latter directive is restricted to the labour market.
That began to cause problems, as discrimination is banned in more spheres even in the gender field. Parliament has always opposed the hierarchy of grounds for discrimination that has arisen. After all, why should it be possible to refuse someone a loan for being homosexual, but not for being black? The protection should be equal. We have all argued in favour of this horizontal directive, and there are differences between us, in terms of the tone and sometimes also of the precise substance. Yet up to now the vast majority of Parliament has had the will to put right the current imbalance, and it is this message we must convey to the Council tomorrow, so I hope for as broad a majority as possible.
There are many people I should like to thank for their contribution to the report. First of all, the draftsmen, in particular Mrs Lynne of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. Many of her suggestions have been incorporated into the text. I should also like to thank shadow rapporteurs Mr Gaubert, Mrs Bozkurt, Mrs in 't Veld and Mrs Kaufmann. In Dutch we have a saying that translates literally as ‘jump over one’s own shadow’, which means surpassing oneself – looking beyond the point one has always been harping on about – this is a good point for shadow rapporteurs. In my opinion, we have succeeded in doing this. I am really proud of the compromise adopted by a vast majority in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. It has improved. I also wish to thank many more people who contributed to this, but one in particular: Mr Cashman. I wish to thank him for all the advice he has given me, for all his lobbying activity, and also for his inspiration and friendship over recent years.
Moving on to the content, the report prohibits discrimination on four grounds. We had already regulated this for the labour market, but it now applies also to the supply of goods and services, social protection – including social security and healthcare – and education. Not all distinctions are regarded as discrimination, however. For example, insurance companies are still permitted to differentiate according to age or disability, provided they can give an objective justification for this. Provision must be made for many people with disabilities, but limits have been laid down as to what is considered reasonable. Derogations are permitted under certain conditions, therefore, but equal treatment is the rule, and that is what the vote is about tomorrow. Do we see Europe as nothing more than a market, or do we see it also as a fount of civilisation?
I must say that, in any event, Amendment 81 shows where Mr Weber and 41 others stand. You do not want to see equal treatment legislation full stop. It makes no difference what compromises I attempt to reach, as you simply object in principle to anti-discrimination legislation. Thus you are not making amendments, you are rejecting the whole proposal. This is where our paths diverge – no middle ground is possible. Let us wait and see tomorrow which way the majority in Parliament wishes to go."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples