Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-12-10-Speech-1-123"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20071210.18.1-123"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, on 20 November, in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, I was pleased to support the rapporteur, Ms Juknevičienė, in her Amendment 32 to delete paragraph 1.3.2 so as to exclude the intrusive and offensive question about women’s first sexual act, dressed up as ‘consensual union’. The Commission representative at that time present in committee promised me that this ‘insensitive question’ would be removed and not come back. I took that as a victory for me, for my party UKIP, but, mostly, as a victory for common sense, and I was ready to congratulate the Commission on it. By the way, that retraction proves that I was right to describe it as being about the sex act because, if it was just cohabitation following, which it was claimed to be, why did the Commission representative promise to withdraw what was an innocent question? I am proved right.
Now, when I saw today that the vote on this proposal would not be held tomorrow as originally scheduled but postponed indefinitely, although the debate is obviously still going on, I smelled a rat because votes usually follow debates very closely. I was right. The latest version that I printed off from the computer just an hour ago shows as indicated on page 1, Text by the Commission, that a new Amendment 39 is here. It bears no relation to the original Amendment 39, which is an innocent thing about technicalities, but it is the old 1.3.2 – complete with the whole list of questions, including the intrusive question about women’s consensual union.
At the time, in committee, I did not like the fact that, when votes came up the following day, the rapporteur had allowed her Amendment 32 to be somewhat watered down to Compromise A, which only deleted the list of questions in 1.3.2, and left the 1.3 and 1.3.1 preamble paragraphs, which was a peg, of course, to hang further questions on – and I was right to be suspicious of that.
This objectionable, intrusive and insulting question has been disgracefully reintroduced as Amendment 39 by the Commission – against the Commission promise to me in committee – and I am more angry, Mr President, than I have been at any time recently. I was promised that this would disappear and it has been brought back by the Commission – a disgraceful question which no woman should be asked to put up with. It is a disgrace to women; it is a disgrace to the committee which has to debate the thing. I therefore ask all colleagues to vote against Amendment 39 and – to make sure – vote against the whole of this rotten, distorted proposal."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples