Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-04-01-Speech-3-100"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090401.14.3-100"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, when the European Union is, at times, seen as over-keen on regulation and quite rightly criticised for this, this can be traced back, quite simply, to reports such as the one we are now discussing.
As much as I support realistic measures to combat any form of discrimination, I must also criticise the points being discussed here, because they are simply not justified and will not have the desired effect.
It is unacceptable that, as has already been mentioned, faith schools, for example, can be sued for rejecting teachers of a different faith, or no faith, or that insurance companies can be sued for undertaking a risk assessment if it results in a distinction on the basis of age or sex, or that there is a risk of absolutely all residential buildings having to be constructed to be barrier free. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, that is the direction we are heading in; we will no longer actually be supporting disabled people, but making all housing unaffordable. Housing that nobody can afford, instead of assistance for disabled people – surely that cannot be what we are aiming for here. Then there is the criticism of the reversal of the burden of proof. If I think that, as an MEP with 25 applicants for an assistant’s position, I could have a case brought against me just for the appearance of discrimination or a feeling of discrimination, I will simply not be able to work any more, but spend all my time battling with the evidence I need to provide just because the feeling is there, even though I have not discriminated in any way.
On top of that, there is the vagueness of many of the terms. Overall, this factsheet that has been published is a precursor to this directive, which starts to discuss whether we are still allowed to use ‘Miss’ and ‘Mrs’, or whether we need to get rid of all words ending in ‘man’, such as statesman or sportsman, because it could all be discriminatory.
Ladies and gentlemen, some of what is being called for here is quite simply nonsense, and I will therefore be voting against the report."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples