Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-02-15-Speech-3-016"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060215.2.3-016"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Hannah Arendt described freedom as being disturbing and painful, saying that men may even flee from it, as it can sometimes be difficult and unpleasant. I believe that there is one thing that we, as politically minded people and politicians, must not do, and that is to attempt to define boundaries for the press, for example. That is something that politicians cannot and must not do; only society knows what is common sense. We politicians can of course discuss those actions of ours that are causing offence – for example where, as in Denmark, legislation on foreign nationals has been passed that offends and fails to respect immigrants. That can be criticised here, as the Council of Europe did in Denmark’s case. We can also express criticism where, for example, a questionnaire for Muslims has been drawn up by German
that shows Muslims a quite blatant lack of respect. Politicians can by all means criticise and discuss such things.
Ladies and gentlemen, this whole discussion on limits is a matter for society. Commissioner Barroso is right: people are entitled to publish caricatures poking fun at us politicians, at me, at Mr Poettering or anyone else. In society, we are entitled to express disapproval. Muslims are entitled to hold demonstrations in protest – we respect that – in the same way as members of the Jewish community demonstrated against a play by Rainer Werner Fassbinder. This is a debate that should be held within society. We cannot draw up a code of conduct for the press; either the press does that itself or it does not – it is not our job.
In the international debate, it is always pointed out that religions are to be respected. That may be so, but religions are in the public domain, and as such will be the subject of blasphemous caricatures. That is as integral to religion and democracy as air is to breathing; it is just the way things are. It does not mean that one has to approve of these caricatures or consider them to be in good taste. Freedom is not a matter of good or poor taste. Freedom is something we have fought for, and no civilisation has yet fallen on account of too much freedom, but always on account of too little; much too little.
I can tell you, therefore, that I do not sympathise with the caricatures. I can tell you which ones made me smile, which ones made me laugh, which ones I found repellent. I do sympathise with all those who have fallen victim to violence in this dispute. I think it dreadful what, for example, large European enterprises such as Carrefour and Nestlé have done, running advertisements in Saudi Arabia with the slogan ‘We are not Danish, we are French’. That is in bad taste, that is a legitimate target for our criticism. I ask that we all refrain from self-righteousness.
Let us not exempt religion from the social debate, as religions, too, have the right to say what is right or wrong. We are not supposed to caricature them when they talk nonsense on the issues of abortion or homosexuality; yet we have the freedom to do so, and this is a freedom that we wish to defend.
If we were to show immigrants more respect in this world, if our laws were to show them more respect, they would have the opportunity to discuss our freedoms differently. Give them the freedoms that we claim for ourselves, and they will use them responsibly."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples