Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-07-05-Speech-4-150"
Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
---|---|
rdf:type | |
dcterms:Date | |
dcterms:Is Part Of | |
dcterms:Language | |
lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010705.8.4-150"2
|
lpv:hasSubsequent | |
lpv:speaker | |
lpv:spokenAs | |
lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, this week – as other honourable Members have mentioned – Sara Mendez was here in the European Parliament. It is sometimes good in a wide-ranging resolution and in a broad framework to zoom in for a moment on something very concrete.
Someone who over 24 years after the event is still searching for her son Simon. The military in her country took life in absolute freedom away from her, but they themselves still enjoy that freedom. I believe that it is right – and I appreciate the fact that our President, Mrs Fontaine, also lent her support – that we should support her, because it makes something clear about who these people are. Because if we eventually see the day when in the pandemonium of lawlessness the international rule of law prevails, it will be because of such brave individuals who have persevered for so long. That is why I hope that we, standing above the parties and quite apart from arguments with each other, will shortly support the amendments made on that point.
A second point on the optional protocol. I should like to ask the Commissioner something about this. So 29 countries have signed up to it. That includes all fifteen European Member States. The protocol provides for children in armed conflicts to be as it were kept out of the sphere of child exploitation and child soldiery. Only four countries have ratified it. At least ten are required for it to come into force. So there is a great need on our part to say: exert pressure in the Council too, on the various organisations in Europe and on the countries to get them to sign, so that we can achieve a success.
In conclusion I should like to say that I differ on one point from the honourable Members of the People’s Party. Not on the content of their amendments on the family. I very much appreciate them. There is no disagreement between us on that. However, in the context of the rights of the child we felt that the treatment of the subject deserves separate attention and as such does not belong here. We shall not vote against. We shall abstain, because we have no substantive objections to the texts you have submitted."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples