Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-02-16-Speech-3-119"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000216.8.3-119"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, what will it take to make the debate on human rights something other than what it is today: an ideological instrument which helps to enslave peoples rather than free individuals? We must start by going beyond man, who is not the master of the universe, to the source of all genuine rights and civilised values, without which the eternal claim to rights always ends in tyranny and bloodshed. We need, in the ancient and mediaeval tradition of Europe, to go back to the natural order of the universe, i.e. to the Creation, and beyond that still further, to the Creator’s intention. Then we shall see that the rights of the child are only respected within a proper family, the rights of workers are only respected in the intermediary bodies which we have recently destroyed and that citizens’ rights are only respected within sovereign states.
Secondly, the doctrine of human rights must no longer be exploited, as it is today, as an instrument of ideological warfare in the hands of a cast which claims the right to decree unilaterally who is to be the arbiter of human rights and who is to be deprived of those rights, thereby denying the legitimacy and, if need be, the freedom of those whom the party line has deemed politically incorrect. ‘No freedom for the enemies of freedom’ was what the advocates of the revolutionary Terror were saying two centuries ago, the advocates of the revolution which proved, alas, to be the mother of all modern totalitarian regimes. No human rights for the enemies of human rights is what the acolytes of the new world order are saying today, the new world order which reigns almost unchallenged in financial circles, in international institutions, in the media and cultural networks, and in educational institutions, to mention but a few.
What is left, for example, of the right of Austrians to choose their own destiny, if that choice is dictated on their behalf by those who decide what should or should not be done and if their duly and legally elected leaders are received in an insulting manner, as they were recently by you in Portugal, Mr President of the Council. I do not know if he is still present and can hear me. What is left of the human rights of those who sympathise with the
one of the most important parties in the Flemish region, if tomorrow the Belgian Parliament adopts the implausible, indecent and ignominious bill tabled by its main political rivals, the
which seeks quite simply to abolish the party? What is left of the right to engage in a critical study of history when authors and publishers are persecuted, as the young historian Jean Plantin was just yesterday before the Court of Appeal, in my home town of Lyon – he was the subject of an absurd, arrogant and offensive closing speech by the public prosecutor Jean-Olivier Viout, the smug expression of straitjacketed thinking and intellectual conformism?
It is a strange concept of human rights when peaceful patriotism is fraudulently equated with aggressive nationalism, when legitimate protests against immigration policies are equated with I do not know what form of xenophobia and the vital defence of identities is equated with racism. What of the human rights of the millions of French people who voted for the National Front and who are deprived of any political representation and vilified daily, as they were on Monday on the television channels of the state to which they are required to pay taxes, when the simple expression of justifiably exasperated views by one of our colleagues, Mr Le Pen, is used as a pretext for iniquitous condemnation, in violation of the law and in violation of all notions of justice, fairness and morals, and when attempts are made, in violation of the clearest legislation, to deprive this representative of millions of our fellow citizens of the mandate which he has been given by their vote, not received as a favour from the government.
In a word, I shall believe your talk about human rights in Europe, fellow Members, when you acknowledge that your political opponents have the same rights as you allow yourselves. I shall believe your talk about human rights in China when you name the real cause of the problem, i.e. Communism. Listen to the resounding voice of Solzhenitsyn in his letter to the Americans, in which he says that the main cause of the weakness of Western society is excessive pandering to legal individualism, an individualism which, far from allowing people to flourish, paves the way for future dictatorship, in fact the worst kind of dictatorship, because those whom it enslaves are not even aware of their terrible servitude."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Vlaamsblok"1
"Volksunie,"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples