Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-31-Speech-4-013"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-05-31"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Equal treatment for men and women2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20010531.1.4-013"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-05-31-Speech-4-0142
lpv:speaker	lp:Elizabeth Montfort2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Mouvement pour la France (2000-11-23--2003-09-09)3 substitute; Temporary committee on human genetics and other new technologies in modern medicine (2000-12-13--2001-11-29)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Latvia Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-30--2002-01-14)3 member; NA (2001-01-31--2003-06-01)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Mrs Hautala, no one can be against equality between men and women. However, it is essential that we should know what we are talking about, because it is very difficult to form a clear opinion on your report, since it contains so many statements that are vague, contradictory, or even absurd, like Amendment No 69, according to which it would be better to talk about ‘parental leave’ for mothers or fathers. How can we dare talk about equality if we tolerate exceptions such as Amendment No 10 or Amendment No 24? When we talk about equality, we are recognising the equal dignity of every human being, whether man or woman. When we talk about equality, we are recognising the special nature of men and women in the organisation of society. This special nature leads to a complementary relationship between men and women, rather than rivalry. I can only express my astonishment that this report, at the committee stage, was voted for by women only. So much for equality! I should also like to congratulate the men who have had the courage to stand up and speak this morning. I am also amazed that Amendment No 40 gives associations the right to go to court without making it compulsory to have the consent of the victim in a case of discrimination. Who are these associations? Surely it is the role of the state to see that the law is applied, and that it is not distorted? What exactly are we envisaging for the future? We must break away from this dialectic which promised us women’s liberation but did not propose anything other than competition with our male partners so that we become superwomen. We are not clones of men, we are not merely cogs in the production system. We cannot separate women’s rights from the recognition of woman’s special nature. Our society is aspiring towards a new feminism. We are women, wives and mothers. As women, we want to develop according to our own model, our sensitivity, our intuition and our intelligence. Man can never be the sole reference for the development of the human being. As wives, the complementary role of men and women implies the need for cooperation in professional life, in social life and in family life. As mothers, we hold the future of humanity in our hands, and you are right, Mrs Hautala, when you stress that nothing must be allowed to prevent a woman from giving the gift of life. So I say yes to equality between men and women, but at the same time, we must respect the special nature and the dignity of both."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph