Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-25-Speech-3-083"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020925.4.3-083"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
In the wake of the attacks of 11 September, the Council urged the Commission to examine urgently the links between maintaining domestic security and respecting international obligations in the area of the right to asylum. The Commission’s approach was disappointing, since it dealt with only one issue, that of how to deny terrorists and other criminals the right to asylum. This approach equates to viewing the problem through a microscope.
On the other hand, it is an entirely different question – a much more serious one – that is not even mentioned in the Commission’s document: what would happen if a considerable proportion of the population of a third country requested asylum in one or more Member States, because of the risk of oppression in their own country?
The world has changed since 1950. The Geneva Convention was designed to protect individuals facing persecution. Today, due to globalisation and the ease of travel, we must contemplate the fact that, one day, the Convention might be applied by whole populations or millions of refugees who would destabilise our countries.
This is the pressing issue we now face. Governments have a duty to deal with this by supplementing existing legislation with means of protection other than conventional asylum."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples