Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-05-18-Speech-2-408"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100518.32.2-408"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, the European Union signing up to the Council of Europe’s Convention on Human Rights will be followed by legislation that will make the convention part of European Union law, as well as being another organisation’s document as an external benchmark. That means that the EU’s Court in Luxembourg will have the jurisdiction to interpret and enforce two potentially competing documents – the EU’s Charter and the Council’s Convention.
I have asked several experts in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs and the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs what would happen if there should be a conflict between the two documents or between different sections of the same document. Which document or which section would take precedence?
I was told, first of all, that the document or section that granted the greater amount of freedom would take precedence over the one that granted the lesser amount of freedom. I later asked what would be decided if there should be two parties to a dispute and each claimed different but competing, and possibly contradictory, rights – for example, the right to practise one’s religion without being offended and the right of freedom of expression involving criticism of the tenets of followers of a religion. This is not entirely theoretical as the case of the Danish cartoons illustrates.
This was the case of the dog that did not bark or rather the expert who did not venture an opinion. The silence was as deafening as it was clear for all to hear and to understand. Free speech will always be sacrificed because that is the EU’s default position. Denying free speech is what the EU does best!
We are talking about two different categories of right – the political right of freedom of expression against prosecution by the state and the right not to be offended by criticism. The right not to be offended is considered to be much more important than the right to debate a matter of public interest. Should there be no restrictions on freedom of speech? There should be restrictions on those who incite violence, but criticism that falls short of that should be free from interference from the criminal law."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples