Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-16-Speech-4-158"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000316.3.4-158"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"The annual report on respect for human rights in the European Union is usually taken as an opportunity to display a rather pathetic excess of political correctness. The champions of the libertarian ideology never miss the chance to list a whole series of demands, each more ludicrous than the next, all wrapped up in proper sentiments. Perhaps that is what this whole exercise demands. Alas, the 2000 vintage still goes along with this curious tradition.
In face of the culture of death, it is our duty to stand up for the culture of life. We believe in an exalted idea of the dignity of man, whoever he may be, without discrimination, from the moment of conception to his natural death. That means breaking with the materialistic and individualistic view of man and believing that there is something sacred in each individual, which is the foundation of human dignity.
Only then can we effectively and consistently ban human cloning or discrimination on the basis of genetic inheritance, a discrimination suffered far too often by, for instance, Down’s syndrome babies, in the name of what seem to be the best of intentions.
It is only at that price that we can reject the unacceptable hypocrisy of chatting peacefully about human rights while closing our eyes to an economic and commercial system which, in the name of the dogma of free trade, encourages child exploitation in many third world countries.
And then we will be able to move away from a policy of minorities, the legacy of an individualist thinking that is a threat to a peaceful society, away from an ideology of minorities that is a new expression of the class war, that disregards the profound unity of the human family and seeks to establish superficial divisions based on race, sexual mores, age or ethnicity and demand specific rights for each of them.
Man is neither a social security number nor a pawn on a social and economic chessboard to be manipulated at will and discarded when no longer of use. He is worth much more than that: every man is a sacred history.
Nothing has been left out, from the right of non-EU nationals to vote and stand in municipal and European elections, to guaranteeing ‘same-sex couples rights equal to those enjoyed by traditional couples and families’, to the standardisation of the procedure governing the right of asylum within the European Union, all inspired by the eternal resolve to glean new powers for Brussels.
As a member of the Committee on Women’s Rights, I shall confine myself to emphasising the equality between men and women on the one hand, and the importance of the family on the other.
While the persistence of discrimination between men and women, with regard to pay for example, is unacceptable, to set men against women, as some feminist organisations do, would be sterile and put social cohesion at risk. We therefore categorically reject any policy of quotas or positive discrimination, those pet themes of political correctness. As we put it in Brussels on 1 March, that kind of policy would reflect a profound contempt for women: women should gain access to political or administrative posts not through the mechanical workings of some form of quota but through the recognition of their merits and abilities.
Women have a specific role to play in society: they have a vital family role to play in the procreation of the new generations that are essential to the survival of society, a role to play in educating the young; they have an economic role, as mother of the family, but also a role within family enterprises (family holdings, businesses, SMEs). This role has been downgraded for far too long, although it is a key role.
On the one hand, that implies giving the wives of self-employed workers who play a part in the family business a stable status and, on the other hand, recognising the economic and social role of the mother. It also implies enabling women to reconcile family life with working life, giving all women the chance to make a genuine choice: how many women have been forced by economic constraints only to have two children when they would have liked three? How many of them have been forced to devote more time to their professional life than they would have wished?
That kind of policy would mean giving the family its due place. But this report is an extremely dangerous all-out attack on the family. It calls for equal rights for same-sex couples and traditional couples and families, forgetting the vital role the family plays in social cohesion.
Let us make no mistake: everyone leads the private life they want; there can be no question of secret policing. However, same-sex couples as such are of no use to society, they are sterile and can only lead to a sterile society; so society does not have to recognise them and grant them rights: it should ignore them. The family, on the contrary, is the community on which society is based and that ensures its stability. Its utility resides in the fact that it provides the most stable framework possible for creating new generations, for their education, and therefore for the continuity of mankind.
Even now, with the strong backing of certain European resolutions and under pressure from action groups, there are some who are preparing to recognise the right of same-sex couples to adopt children. Just imagine the psychological future of children with two fathers and no mother, or two mothers and no father! If it is to fulfil its potential, a child needs a father and a mother, a stable family."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples