Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-10-22-Speech-3-149"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2003-10-22"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Initiative in the UN for a universal moratorium on the death penalty2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20031022.7.3-149"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-10-22-Speech-3-1502
lpv:speaker	lp:Michael Gahler2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; EPP-ED (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Development and Cooperation (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 vice-chair; Delegation to the EU-Lithuania Joint Parliamentary Committee (2002-02-07--2004-04-30)3 member; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, thank you for describing the efforts you are currently making. The European Union’s position is indeed clear; we are all unreservedly opposed to the death penalty, and that is why the resolution tabled jointly by this House is a relatively short one. The fundamental and primary question is what tactics we should adopt in order to make the best progress. Are we to address the UN Commission on Human Rights and demand its abolition there, or are we, in the UN General Assembly, to call only for a moratorium? Commissioner Patten set out very well how we can proceed without losing sight of our fundamental rejection of the death penalty. One might almost say that it is a bit warped: the best solution is of course the abolition of the death penalty; the second best is a moratorium; the worst of all the bad solutions is for there to be still such things as stoning to death or other even crueller modes of execution, and the second worst is to demand that people be executed ‘humanely’. So discussion of this amounts to something almost perverse. I do believe, though, that the approach that Parliament is asking the Council to take will end up being feasible, involving as it does the European Union presenting a united front in calling, in the General Assembly, for a moratorium on the death penalty. I believe that all the states belonging to the United Nations know where the European Union stands on this. Calling now only for a moratorium will not mean that we lose sight of the overall objective. I also think it would be right for this motion to be put by the European Union as a whole. I do not think it would be right for one or other government to obstruct it and thus prevent action by the EU as a whole. Still on this subject, I would be interested to know what line our candidates for accession take on this issue. As a general rule, this should already include them. I believe that an initiative of this kind carries more weight and has more far-reaching impact if twenty-five states adopt it. As our resolution indeed mentions, the individual Member States also need, in so far as they are able, to attempt to make approaches to individual states and persuade them to support at least a moratorium. I believe that would be the best way for us to proceed. I wish the Presidency all the best for its negotiations towards this end. I am sure that this House will, by way of this resolution, virtually unanimously endorse this approach."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph