Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-02-Speech-3-071"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010502.5.3-071"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, we have two Austrians and we have two cases where press laws have been violated. In this case, Mr Voggenhuber has been accused of having described Mr Haider as “a fascist and the FPÖ is a neo-fascist party. The FPÖ and Jörg Haider exhibit all the essential features of fascism. The authoritarian tendencies, the myth of the strong man, the rabble-rousing against minorities, racism, the description of foreigners as parasites, the description of welfare recipients as spongers, the description of his own nation as a monstrosity, the description of his own country as a ‘banana republic’. All this betrays an attitude of mind which has been played down here over many years. History will blame the ÖVP for bringing neo-fascism to power in Austria”. These are the words which have caused Mr Voggenhuber to be charged in the Austrian criminal courts.
For the reasons which were mentioned previously in relation to the case involving Mr Sichrovsky, I must say that the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market showed no hesitation in concluding that parliamentary immunity should not be waived. Parliamentary immunity is granted whenever there is a link, however tenuous, however slight, between what the Member of Parliament said and the expression of a political opinion and, in the case of Mr Voggenhuber, there is no doubt that he was expressing a political opinion, even if these political views were put in, admittedly, rather forthright terms, which may cause their target to react and which, evidently, provoke a reaction from their target.
I believe that we simply must protect every Member’s right to free speech as well as the independence of our institution, especially when expressing purely political opinions in an unambiguous manner. However, I am taking this opportunity to say that in this case, just as and, perhaps even more importantly, in the previous case involving Mr Sichrovsky, that parliamentary immunity serves to protect the institution, and all Members of Parliament must see it their duty to protect the institution.
If we also tone down our words, and this is something that applies to everyone, because we can say anything as long as we say it in a measured and courteous manner, we can help to protect the institution that we represent, to enhance its dignity and the way in which it is perceived in the outside world. This applies to Mr Sichrovsky in particular. In the case of Mr Voggenhuber, however, the Committee on Legal Affairs did not hesitate in deciding to propose to you, Mr President, that parliamentary immunity should not be waived for the reasons that I have given."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples