Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-03-13-Speech-3-161"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020313.6.3-161"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
The Members from the National Front will vote against Mrs Izquierdo Rojo’s report.
There are undoubtedly good elements, such as the principle that fundamentalism must not be fought with other types of fundamentalism of an opposite kind (recital M). But the report also contains bad things and some very bad things.
First of all, it is astonishing to note that this report, which was originally devoted to Islam and women, has now been renamed. The reason for this was undoubtedly to avoid shocking anyone and to comply with the sacrosanct dictates of political correctness. Moreover, to create a stronger sense of guilt among us, recital A recalls that ‘the concept of fundamentalism originated in the 1920s in the USA, where it primarily referred to Christianity’. The eleven million Afghan women who were banned from all public places, deprived of education, barred from professional activity, deprived of care and exposed to beatings and floggings in the years when the fundamentalist Taliban ruled their country have a different story to tell about the origins of fundamentalism.
In this report, the European Parliament presumes to lecture us on moral theology. On what authority? With what qualifications? How can it put religion and fundamentalism, the exercise of spiritual and temporal power, on the same footing? The report systematically equates religion with fundamentalism in utter disregard of reality.
The report, in fact, is a hotchpotch of hackneyed ideas, all of which have the same purpose, namely the inversion of decent values and the promotion of decadence. What can I say, for example, about paragraph 33, which calls on the heads of Christian churches to legitimise lesbianism? This report is also yet another stepping stone in the pro-immigration policy pursued by Brussels. In fact, by some sleight of hand, paragraphs 18, 19, 21 and 24 use the fight against fundamentalism as a pretext to demand greater flexibility for governments to grant asylum to women from countries where fundamentalism is rife as well as using the framework of a preventive policy to secure the rapid social integration of the immigrants, refugees and minorities who are resident in the territory of the European Union.
For these reasons, and many others besides, we must reject this report and resist any attempts by Parliament to replace it, under cover of the struggle against religious fundamentalism, with another report, which may be even more arbitrary than this one and which is the fruit of the fickle convictions and hostility to the natural order that characterise the present majority of this House."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples