Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-01-13-Speech-1-094"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030113.6.1-094"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"The annual report on human rights in the European Union engenders many differences of opinion and much confusion every year. There are two problems causing this. Firstly, it is not easy for any Member of this Parliament who has been elected on a national list, but who wants to be re-elected, to agree with criticism about his or her own country. If they wanted to act in accordance with their own consciences, they would have to distance themselves somewhat from national and party political loyalties, and that is sometimes expecting too much. Secondly, until recently it was unclear which human rights these reports were actually supposed to be about. What is the yardstick; what are the terms of reference?
In the past, various rapporteurs have made their own selections from the problems, and that has not always benefited continuity and credibility. The decision by the committee mainly responsible and by Parliament as a whole to make the Community Charter of Fundamental Rights the starting point for these reports was therefore a good one. The European Parliament’s control function is of a political and not a legal nature, however. For the purpose of these annual reports, therefore, we must view the Charter as a political reference framework, a sort of table of contents. That gives us the scope to use this Charter to check whether the Member States are observing the provisions relating to human rights, which are in fact binding and which are included in innumerable conventions of the United Nations, the Council of Europe, the ILO etc.
Human rights are universal, indivisible and interrelated. The human rights discourse is by definition global. The European Union’s human rights policy is therefore only credible if human rights violations at home are measured against the same yardsticks as failings elsewhere in the world. The European Parliament speaks out against specific human rights problems elsewhere at every session, and correctly places great store on human rights in discussions about the candidate countries. We must, however, take an honest look at ourselves as well. That is why I have consciously chosen the naming and shaming approach in my report. It may not be pleasant but it is certainly honest.
The European Union is a community of values. We hear that ad nauseam. We must also be willing, however, to regard serious human rights violations in one or more Member States as a European matter and to ask ourselves what the European Union as such can contribute towards improving the situation. That is why the recommendations in my report are not only aimed at one, several or all the Member States; they are also aimed at the Commission and the Council where applicable. I am delighted, as usual, to see Commissioner Vitorino sitting here again, but I am naturally disappointed that the Council is conspicuous by its absence – or perhaps there is an official hidden under the seat.
What are the main human rights problems in the European Union? I name some of them and I pose a number of specific questions relating to them. First and foremost, there is the risk of civil rights being compromised in the regrettably necessary fight against terrorism. It is therefore important to couple specific legislation with a sunset clause and to list and evaluate these anti-terrorism measures. My question is: are the Commission and the Council willing to list and evaluate them in this way?
Secondly, misconduct on the part of police and prison staff, which we observe year in, year out and in which the most vulnerable groups are often the victims, happens in all EU countries to a greater or lesser degree. Internal correction mechanisms are not particularly effective. In my opinion, the time has now come for this problem to be placed on the agenda of the European Union and for an extensive investigation into these abuses to be carried out at the very least. My question is: will the Commission investigate the opportunities for doing so?
Thirdly, racism, xenophobia and other forms of discrimination are on the increase, but protection against them is a patchwork quilt which suggests a hierarchy of forms of discrimination rather than a coherent approach. I would like to see a coherent and uniform European strategy of equal treatment. My question is: will the Commission take the lead in this?
Fourthly, partly thanks to my colleagues in the Committee on Social Affairs and Employment, I have observed a significant lack of compliance with the European Social Charter, the ILO treaties and so on by all the Member States. We need to clarify how these treaty obligations in the social sphere relate to the same Member States’ obligations under secondary Community legislation. My question is: will the Commission take the lead in this as well?
Finally I would like to ask the representative of the Council – who is not here, but perhaps the official who is hidden away somewhere can pass this on – what has become of the decision by the General Affairs Council in June 2001 to coordinate our internal and external human rights policies better? The Commission and Parliament itself should in fact also be able to answer this question. If you would allow me to make a final comment on Mr Ribeiro e Castro’s alternative draft proposal, I must say that I find it rather funny. You would have to be a true optimist to put forward that proposal. Anyone who supports this resolution obviously wants to shut their eyes to reality. It is a nice example of wishful thinking, but it is too good to be true."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples