Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-05-10-Speech-2-326-875"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110510.60.2-326-875"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Using a judicial procedure to try to prevent Members of Parliament from expressing their point of view on matters of legitimate public interest and concern and from criticising their political opponents is unacceptable in a democratic society and constitutes a breach of Article 8 of the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, which aims to protect its members’ freedom of expression. I wholly support this concept. However, as far as Mr Rapkay is concerned it only applies to Mr De Magistris, who is being prosecuted for libel, and not to Bruno Gollnisch, who is being prosecuted for expressing political opinions. This is a case of double standards. How is it more in the public interest and more democratic for us to know what Mr De Magistris thinks of a fellow Member than for us to know what the
thinks about the riots in Romans or the dangers of mass immigration? It is precisely because the opponents of Bruno Gollnisch did not like the press release in question, even though it is of greater public interest, that he is losing his immunity. Freedom of expression for this Parliament’s elected representatives should not be a movable goalpost and should not depend on whether or not a person’s face fits. It is unworthy of you to adopt this report."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples