Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-12-15-Speech-2-367"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2009-12-15"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Defence of the principle of subsidiarity - Display of religious and cultural symbols in public places (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"it"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20091215.21.2-367"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2009-12-15-Speech-2-3682
lpv:speaker	lp:Carlo Casini2
lpv:spokenAs	chair; AFCO (2009-07-20--2012-01-18)3 substitute; AFET (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 member; Delegation to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 member_of_the_bureau; EPP (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 unknown; Unione dei Democratici cristiani e dei Democratici di Centro (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 member; Conference of Committee Chairs (2009-07-20--2012-01-18)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the People's Republic of China (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the decision of the European Court of Human Rights has upset not only worshippers but also everyone who, for centuries, has viewed the crucifix as a sign of hope and solidarity, something providing solace and freedom from fear and pain. We hope that that decision will be modified by the Grand Chamber since it is clearly irrational. Should we do away with the very name of the Red Cross? Should we remove the huge crucifixes on mountain tops which tower over cities and valleys? Will it be prohibited for the Queen of England, as has already been mentioned, to be the head of the Anglican Church? Nevertheless, the case invites a very important reflection from a civil and political point of view: are human rights merely the rights of individuals, as parties isolated from a social environment, or is the right to express a specific form of piety also a right of the peoples? Do tradition, history, intelligence and art count for nothing when, for millennia, they have characterised a people’s identity? Furthermore, the question also rightly concerns the relationship between subsidiarity and human rights, and I note that the latter, aside from certain fundamental principles which must be considered universal and irrefutable, may be interpreted in different ways, and human rights may even conflict with each other. Why should a state be denied the chance, through its laws, to resolve these conflicts and to interpret and implement human rights according to the ethical views of its people? The issue therefore goes beyond the question of crucifixes. On other occasions, the European Court has recognised, with regard to the right to life, the exclusive power of the States to decide on the most controversial matters, such as the regulation of abortion and euthanasia. Now, the Treaty of Lisbon requires us to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights and consequently, as the European Union, also to respect the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. Therefore, we ought to think about the new and different direction currently being taken by the Court. It would be a serious matter if a supranational power, especially if exercised by a limited number of people and not as the democratic expression of popular will, were to become repressive and demeaning, insensitive to people’s feelings and hearts and therefore ultimately opposed to freedom. This is why I hope that the resolution tabled by the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) will be adopted with the votes of a large number of Members."@en1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph