Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-02-15-Speech-3-019"

PredicateValue (sorted: default)
rdf:type
dcterms:Date
dcterms:Is Part Of
dcterms:Language
lpv:document identification number
"en.20060215.2.3-019"2
lpv:hasSubsequent
lpv:speaker
lpv:spoken text
". – Mr President, when discussing the right to freedom and freedom of expression, one of the Supreme Court judges in the United States, Oliver Wendell Holmes, said that there are no absolute rights; rights can be restricted. The example he gave was that you do not have a right to shout ‘fire’ in a crowded cinema, unless there is a fire. One of the difficulties we face in our discussions is the justifiable desire to ensure that the press and media in Europe have freedom of expression, the freedom to poke fun, the freedom to satirise, the freedom, in some cases, to insult people. A democracy, by its very nature, needs the safety valve of humour and offence in order to operate properly. I do not think anybody in this house could in any way condone the violent reaction in certain countries in the Middle East to the publication of those cartoons and caricatures. Unfortunately, what has been forgotten in the debate, discussion and media coverage, is that there were also many peaceful protests, where Muslims and non-Muslims came together because they found the cartoons and the images they represented offensive, not to their religious belief but to them as human beings. Respect for human dignity is as important a right in any democracy as the right to freedom of expression. One of the greatest challenges facing us in the European Union today is to ensure that we do not have a knee-jerk reaction to every horror or outrage. For me, coming from a small country like Ireland, it was shocking to see a Danish embassy burned and the flag of a country that has stood up for freedom and against intolerance burned in public. Likewise, I found it particularly distasteful and very hard to watch the media coverage of a minority element at some of those demonstrations who were inflicting pain on themselves, especially young people. There is an old saying in the media that if it bleeds, it leads; the more dramatic the image, the better chance it has of making the headlines. How can Europe respond? President Barroso rightly said that Europe stands in solidarity with our Danish colleagues, because a boycott of Danish goods is a boycott of all European goods. We must ensure that we can help our colleagues in the Danish Government withstand the pressure they are being put under by voices in the media to go back on their present position. Even if we are critical of the politics of the Danish Government and its exercise of tact and skill, Prime Minister Rasmussen did stand up for one principle. He said that he would not be backing down on the question of government or parliament controlling the media. In 50 years’ time he will be feted for that; it is one of the bulwarks of democracy. My last point is that some people on both sides of this argument will try and present it as a clash of civilisations or religions or cultures. Respect and tolerance are needed more than anything else now. We must respect differences and give a proper and meaningful role to the different religions in the European Union, but we expect mutual recognition. Freedom can never be given away. It can be taken from you, but the freedom that allows us to have the passions that burn in our hearts and souls must always be preserved and protected."@en1
lpv:spokenAs
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata

Named graphs describing this resource:

1http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/English.ttl.gz
2http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Events_and_structure.ttl.gz
3http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/spokenAs.ttl.gz

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph