Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-03-15-Speech-4-141"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-03-15"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Afghanistan2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20010315.8.4-141"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-03-15-Speech-4-1422
lpv:speaker	lp:Geneviève Fraisse2
lpv:spokenAs	member; EUL/NGL (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Temporary committee on human genetics and other new technologies in modern medicine (2000-12-13--2001-11-29)3 unknown; Indépendant (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Delegation for relations with the United States (1999-09-29--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, are these two issues, the destruction of a heritage and the systematic oppression of women, really unrelated? I would like to highlight these two points in our joint resolution. ‘Heritage’ is not the right word to use because of its significance. I would prefer to take up the distinction made two days ago in a daily newspaper by a French philosopher, Jean Luc Nancy, between the symbol and the idol. The symbol represents the human being, whose capacity for truth will never be extinguished. The nature of the symbol in this case are statues which also serve as idols. The idol is the total yet limited presence of the symbol itself. It is perhaps the inverse representation of the symbol. But, in both cases, the symbol and the idol merge into the image and the ability of the human being to transcend itself. In terms of both nature and symbol, women in Afghanistan are totally deprived. Let me explain what I mean by deprivation. Rather than describe it, I will talk about it in the appropriate terms. The word ‘discrimination’ in our joint resolution, as in the Council joint declaration of January and the texts of the UN and of the international institutions, disturbs me because discrimination operates in a space where a common minimum is allowed for there to be discrimination. Discrimination is a natural corollary of exclusion. Here we have women who are denied access to employment and education and who are excluded from public life. This is called rejection. These are the words we must use. I find it hard to believe that hanging and public beatings are the result of discrimination. I should like to point out that I believe we have become mired in a form of language, which I do not find very suitable and, as Members of the European Parliament, we must be very careful about this. This is because behind all this, all these words, behind this international language, which uses the same words to describe democracy in the West and for our Western democracies as it does to describe what is happening in Afghanistan, lies our capacity for doing anything at all. Who is protecting the Taliban? Who is supporting them? Pakistan. Who is protecting them? Do I have to answer? Can you answer with me? Why did we go to fight against Saddam Hussein? Why have we imposed sanctions against Iraq? Why do we not take sanctions against Afghanistan?"@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph