Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-04-Speech-3-191"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001004.8.3-191"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, combating discrimination and passing legislation against it means acknowledging that is exists and that many forms of it are in a sense ‘decriminalised’ because they are so commonplace. I therefore, obviously, welcome today’s directive, whose application must also become the norm.
I shall therefore confine my remarks to the limitations which, I feel, still remain in spite of everything. Firstly, the burden of proof. The directive takes a step forward in shifting the burden of proof but does not go as far as to reverse the situation. Yet, should the law not provide the victims of discrimination with better means to escape the isolation they too often find themselves in? How is it possible to think that a job applicant, rejected in such circumstances, has the same resources as a firm, especially a large undertaking, to defend himself and prove that he has indeed been a victim of discrimination? Moreover, if it were compulsory for firms to prove that their practices were non-discriminatory, they would doubtless think twice on the matter when recruiting.
I am thinking particularly here of the discrimination affecting third-country nationals, but also the second-generation children from immigrant families. There are many examples of this in France. Given an identical curriculum vitae, identical education and identical career, a young person with a French sounding name has four to five times the chance of being recruited than a young person with a North African sounding name, and twice that of a young person with a Portuguese or Spanish sounding name. This is the hierarchy of discrimination. In a Europe that is supposed to be multicultural where diversity is respected, we must ensure that our deeds live up to our words.
Let me end on the subject of the exemption granted to religious bodies. I would like to say that I consider the exemption of Article 4(2) to be very dangerous and perhaps even a legal cover for the most reactionary ideas. Earlier, the idea of abuse of the provisions was mentioned. I feel that this may provide a major foothold for those most reactionary ideas. Mr Paisley’s objectionable intervention earlier with regard to homosexuals bears witness to this."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples