Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-07-03-Speech-3-295"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020703.9.3-295"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I am speaking in support of certain amendments but also to remedy some serious lapses of memory on the matter of the rights of peoples and ethnic groups. We should, under the subsidiarity principle, approve the set of amendments by which the decision to take criminal action should remain with each Member State. There is a point of reference, indeed, that Parliament should never lose sight of, especially on such a sensitive matter, which is that the provisions under which action may be taken to combat racism must not overstep the limit marked by the right to freedom of expression, freedom of association and freedom of opinion, as laid down in Article 9 of the European Convention. That this concern of mine is well founded is shown by the current case of the proceedings brought before the French courts by a movement that considers itself anti-racist to have the book
(‘Rage and Pride’) by the Italian author Oriana Fallaci banned in France. Leaving aside any consideration of the book’s merits – in Italy, a non-racist country, it has been an enormous publishing success – the basic question remains open, which is the risk that so-called anti-racist rules can be used instrumentally for the purpose of political and ideological censorship and to curtail the freedom to express one’s opinions, as guaranteed by the founding principles of the European Union.
According to the rapporteur, the Member States should punish crimes by their own citizens even if they were not committed within their own borders. It seems obvious to me, however, that this may lead to interference by one State in the legal arrangements of another State, unjustly restricting its sovereignty. Besides, in Europe there are entire peoples, groups and linguistic and religious minorities who, even within Member States that declare themselves protectors of the values of freedom, do not enjoy any protection at all as regards these fundamental rights. Is it not perhaps racism to prevent or hinder the use of their mother tongue in the courts, or to have road signs in the local language removed, as has recently happened in the town of Bergamo, or to stop the mother tongue and local history from being taught in schools, thus committing not only terrible discrimination on ethnic grounds but also real and actual cultural genocide? In some cases state racism, as now shown towards supporters of Breton independence, even denies fundamental rights of defence, such as the right enshrined in French law of free access without payment to court documents, as reported by me in a question to the Council.
The scope of offences involving discrimination should also be very clearly delineated; there must be racist or xenophobic intent and the offence must be threatening, abusive or insulting in nature. This will better safeguard the complete freedom to circulate historical texts and documents and especially to do scientific and historical research and process information. The difference between these activities and discriminatory acts may in some cases be very subtle, but it exists, and our liberal culture means we must guarantee total freedom for historical research and expression of one’s opinions."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples