Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-10-12-Speech-4-135"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061012.36.4-135"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
I voted in favour of the first part of paragraph 71 of the Jeggle report, for the following reasons.
1. Bullfighting is a centuries-old tradition that is rooted in various regions of different EU Member States. Its characteristics vary according to the country; in Portugal, for example, killing the bull was first prohibited in 1836.
2. Bullfighting is responsible for the existence of the fighting bull, and, without it, this species would have become extinct a long time ago, given that rearing these animals has no economic value in terms of producing meat or milk;
3. This does not mean that the spectacle of the bullfight and the tradition associated with it should not evolve and adapt to the moral values of the time. The current trend is to be on hand as quickly as possible to ensure that animals do not continue to suffer physically. There are prestigious sports that have evolved from violent practices. One example is fencing in which, nowadays, the participants are not physical harmed. In bullfighting, the iron spike could easily be replaced by an electronic stick which, when it came into contact with the animal, could produce the same effect in terms of spectacle.
4. Paragraph No 71 of the report, by simplistically proposing an end to bullfighting …"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples