Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-04-01-Speech-4-150"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040401.3.4-150"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
These reports have, unfortunately, become a ritual in the service of a radical and sectarian ideological agenda. They no longer serve the important idea of protecting and valuing human rights in the European Union, to really benefit the citizens.
This year’s report did not break with this trend.
It frequently slipped into a maximalist approach. It made unfair, frivolous and unfounded assessments of Member States, and this is true of its references to Portugal, all of which were incorrect. Having based its approach on the Charter of Fundamental Rights, it promptly rode roughshod over this document and distanced itself completely from the charter by proclaiming a ‘right to abortion’ – when no such thing exists (whilst rejecting an amendment that I proposed, in discussions in the parliamentary committee, to protect human life) and by obsessively promoting the homosexual agenda, which contravenes the exclusive competence of the Member States in the field of family law.
Lastly, it lacked the vigour required for dealing with real threats. On the one hand, it completely ignored the fact, lost in the torrent of paragraphs couched in emotive terms, that terrorism is the main threat to human rights today. On the other, the report failed clearly to condemn the French legislation on religious symbols, which is the most disturbing recent sign of discrimination and threatens religious freedom.
I therefore voted against and welcome the fact that it has been rejected in plenary. I hope that lessons will be learnt for the future."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples