Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-03-Speech-3-188"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030903.8.3-188"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, this is the fourth plenary debate in this parliamentary period on the human rights situation in the European Union. It is therefore time for us to ask what has changed in the meantime. Let us first look at the facts. Structural highlights are, and continue to be, the misconduct of government officials such as police officers, the situation in prisons, trafficking in human beings, forms of unequal treatment and discrimination, racism and xenophobia. If you take a cynical view, you say: what else is new? In addition, however, civil rights are also put at risk by an over-reaction to terrorism, and this is a new problem. We are worried about cooperation in terms of criminal justice with the United States and the exchange of personal data. All in all, it therefore seems to me that the human rights issue within the European Union has become more pronounced over the past few years, despite the efforts of many to carry out improvements in specific areas.
With regard to the collection analysis of data, I can be somewhat more upbeat. First of all, our work has become more systematic and objective, because we have taken the Charter of Fundamental Rights as our guiding principle. Our work has also become more professional since we can now fall back on the network of experts under the guidance of Professor De Schutter. Both improvements are clearly thanks to initiatives of this Parliament, and we should be pleased about this.
As far as the political response is concerned, I am a little less optimistic. Each time, the European Parliament gets cold feet as soon as the time comes for someone to be nagged and shaken up a bit, and this year is no exception. Despite this, it is clear that abuses in the Member States must be highlighted. Why else would we have a report of this kind? Consigning the abuses we have come across to an explanatory statement is, after all, not what we had in mind where human rights violations in third countries are concerned. Mr van den Bos’ sterling report, which was discussed earlier, bears witness to this. I think that we should emulate this approach where human rights violations within the European Union are concerned, and this is why my group will be giving Mr Sylla's report its unqualified support.
As far as the European Commission's position is concerned, I have to say I have great regard for its commitment, and certainly for Commissioner Vitorino’s own, about which he spoke in such quick order that it was even difficult to follow everything in detail. There is a slight problem though. The network is a fine institution, but is the Commission not hiding behind it too much and failing to catch enough of the limelight in what is always referred to in the textbooks as the role of the European Commission as the Guardian of the Treaties? Where does the Commission itself stand on this, and when will it show the political courage to raise human rights issues in the European Union? I am therefore very much looking forward to the communication that the Commissioner has announced regarding the further details of Article 7 of the Treaty of the European Union.
As for the Council, Mr President, allow me to add one thing: those empty seats over there are a downright scandal. The gentlemen of the Presidency were present for the previous topic. Should I infer from that that the Presidency takes the view that human rights only deserve serious consideration outside of the European Union? I refuse to believe that. Perhaps you can ask them on our behalf the reason for their absence."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples