Defence of the principle of subsidiarity - Display of religious and cultural symbols in public places (debate)
President
The next item is the debate on:
the oral question to the Commission (B7-0238/2009) by Mario Borghezio, on behalf of the Europe of Freedom and Democracy Group, on defence of the principle of subsidiarity;
the oral question to the Commission (B7-0239/2009) by Antonio Cancian, Mario Mauro, Fiorello Provera, Elisabetta Gardini, Salvatore Iacolino, Crescenzio Rivellini, Sergio Paolo Frances Silvestris, Aldo Patriciello, Paolo Bartolozzi, Cristiana Muscardini, Mara Bizzotto, Barbara Matera, Lara Comi, Antonello Antinoro, Lorenzo Fontana, Roberta Angelilli, Amalia Sartori, Iva Zanicchi, Licia Ronzulli, Giovanni Collino, Marco Scurria, Giancarlo Scotta', Potito Salatto, Pablo Arias Echeverría, Raffaele Baldassarre, Pilar Ayuso, Luis de Grandes Pascual, Pilar del Castillo Vera, Santiago Fisas Ayxela, Carmen Fraga Estévez, Salvador Garriga Polledo, Cristina Gutiérrez-Cortines, Esther Herranz García, Carlos José Iturgaiz Angulo, Veronica Lope Fontagné, Antonio López-Istúriz White, Gabriel Mato Adrover, Jaime Mayor Oreja, Pablo Zalba Bidegain, Salvatore Tatarella, Magdi Cristiano Allam, Mirosław Piotrowski and Konrad Szymański, on the display of religious and cultural symbols in public places.
Mario Borghezio
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the position of the group that I represent, the Europe of Freedom and Democracy Group, is crystal clear: with this oral question, we are asking the Commission to challenge the implementation of the ruling against crucifixes in school classrooms, handed down by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg which, I would emphasise, is not an EU institution.
In our view, this decision, and I want this to be absolutely clear, is an unacceptable breach of the principle of subsidiarity. This principle is a mainstay of the European Union as well as a guarantee of the rights of the peoples and of the Member States. The European Union, as we conceive and support it, would be unthinkable without the support and grounding of the principle of subsidiarity.
I will start with a general remark: obviously nobody - let us look first at the substance of this ruling - could consider the removal of someone and something which was already there to be an act of democracy and freedom, as some have claimed, but rather an action of the thought police, an anti-democratic act. If a crucifix is hanging on a school wall and it is torn down, that wall is not a secular wall but an empty wall, with the void intended as a confessional symbol, an act of negative education, the worst kind imaginable, which can be viewed as one of the many signs of the cultural and spiritual suicide of the West.
The ruling of the Strasbourg Court presupposes a concept of religious freedom which, if taken to its logical conclusion, would go so far as to ensure, to impose a sense of predominance over each citizen, required to live in an environment in keeping with the Court's beliefs. I do not believe that this is religious freedom: this distorts the true sense of religious freedom; we are dealing with a negative right, or rather the right to be free of the obligation to perform religious practices. There must be no misunderstandings when we speak of religious freedom: we are not talking about something vague by any means.
We are dealing with something quite different here: displaying a crucifix is not just a matter of faith in our culture, but something much more important, something with a universal value. The symbol of the cross, the symbolism of the cross conveys a message that is universal in scope; a message, moreover, of peace and fraternity, as taught to us by René Guénon, the great metaphysicist, to mention just one name. From the traditional point of view of these great scholars of traditional culture, this value is extremely clear but, at the same time, it is just as clear that with this ruling, we are dealing with the expression of anti-traditional views which encourage everyone to think in the same way. This is something that runs counter to the true spirit of the European Union, and this is what is astonishing.
It is almost as if there is the intention to turn the peoples away from any reminder of values and symbols that express verticality and spirituality. Leaving aside the historical facts, the link to a specific religion, this is, I repeat, a universal symbol. The European Union, on the other hand, must safeguard the right of the peoples to continue using symbols, starting with the symbol of the cross.
Europe must be bold enough to take a metahistorical perspective on these fundamental questions, and resume its role as a cradle and centre, including in spiritual terms. It must return to the European peoples the freedom to keep and venerate the symbols of their identity in accordance with a cardinal principle of the legal and political structure of the European Union: the principle of subsidiarity. The whole question turns precisely on this aspect, on the fundamental nature of the principle of subsidiarity.
In conclusion, this issue enables us to reflect on and to debate a key question: what does religious freedom mean for Europe? Well, I would like to say that it is precisely the ruling of the Strasbourg Court that is riding roughshod over the fundamental right to religious freedom, and which wants to prevent a people such as the Italians from keeping the symbol of the cross in classrooms as an indispensable reminder of their Christian roots.
Antonio Cancian
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, on 3 November 2009, the European Court of Human Rights approved an application from an Italo-Finnish citizen seeking to remove crucifixes from classrooms. Similar episodes had occurred in the past in Spain, Germany, France and also in Italy where, in 1988, the Council of State established that the crucifix is not just a Christian symbol but that it also has a value unrelated to that specific religion. The Italian Council of State, expressing its opinion again in 2006, specified that the principle of secularity of the state cannot disregard a people's cultural identity and its civilisation.
With our question, we wanted to highlight the most secular aspect of this matter, not least by pointing out that the next step could even be to take before the Strasbourg Court Catholic symbols which are part of the common traditions of the Member States, as well as the artistic and cultural portrayals found throughout our cities. Even the flag of the European Union, created for the Council of Europe, was inspired by Marian iconography according to its designer.
The decision of the Court of Human Rights seeks to impose from above - so much for subsidiarity - a secular model which many Member States cannot identify with or, worse still, seeks to lead us to nihilism: there you have the empty wall which Mr Borghezio just mentioned. The ruling calls into question our very identity, our European values of peace, love and civil harmony, of equality and freedom, and the ruling therefore undermines freedom and equal rights.
The EU institutions are champions of the prerogatives of freedom. Displaying religious and cultural symbols with which peoples identity is an expression of the freedom of thought - and the Sakharov Prize will be awarded in this very Chamber tomorrow - and should be safeguarded as such by the EU institutions themselves and by international organisations founded on democratic principles.
Jacques Barrot
Madam President, I would have been only too happy to have listened to Mr Mauro, but he will be able to take the floor after me.
I am obliged to adhere to a number of rules of law. The Commission is very committed to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, as laid down in Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 10 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. However, it is true that the Commission can act only within the context of applying EU law. The fact is, within the EU, national laws on religious symbols in public buildings come under the domestic legal system of the Member States.
The principle of subsidiarity is to be applied within the context of the Union. It is true that this principle of subsidiarity does not apply to the implementation of judgments by the European Court of Human Rights, the international court in charge of enforcing the European Convention on Human Rights. It is true that the responsibility for implementing European Court of Human Rights judgments lies with the Council of Europe. It is also true that the implementation of European Court of Human Rights judgments is mandatory for all States that are party to the European Convention on Human Rights, and Italy, like any other party involved in this case, has the right, under Article 43 of the Convention, to request a transfer of proceedings to the Grand Chamber within three months of the date of the judgment. According to the information we have - the information we have read in the press - the Italian State is using its right to appeal before the Grand Chamber.
Those are the points that I wanted to clear up. With regard, once again, to European Union law, we are dealing in this case with the domestic legal system of the Member States. That being said, I cannot answer for the Council of Europe or for the European Court of Human Rights, which have issued a decision that I understand may raise some issues for Parliament.
That is what I can honestly say, but I am going to listen carefully to the speeches that follow.
Mario Mauro
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would also like to thank the Commissioner for his clarity of judgment which effectively puts the power to regulate this area back in the hands of the Member States.
I must say that I am convinced, more than most, of the need for our institutions to be secular and just as convinced that religion is not the solution to any political problem. At the same time, we cannot solve political issues by waging war on religions.
It is precisely for this reason that I will explain my thinking by means of a paradox: what would happen if we applied the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights, that is, if, at the same time, we applied the reasoning which obliges us to remove crucifixes from Italian classrooms to all places where crosses are displayed on the grounds of public interest? What should be done about this flag, the flag of Sweden, and what should be done about this flag, the flag of Finland, and the flag of the Slovak Republic, and the flag of Malta, and the flag of Denmark, and the flag of Greece, and the flag of the United Kingdom which has three crosses, no less?
Because, ladies and gentlemen, the reason why these crosses appear on these flags is no different from the reason why crucifixes are displayed in Italian classrooms, and it is not a religious reason but rather a cultural and traditional one. Let us therefore leave it to the Member States to judge, on a case by case basis, the suitability of solutions in line with the sensitivities of their peoples, in keeping with their religious freedom and the secular nature of the institutions.
This is all we are asking and we are doing so because, above and beyond anything else, it is not the abstract concept of the law which must be upheld, but every individual's personal truth and desire for the infinite.
Juan Fernando López Aguilar
Madam President, as a lawyer and a Member of the European Parliament, I am sure that there are many citizens following our debate who share my feeling that it lacks focus. We are therefore going to try to clarify a few things.
Firstly, we are talking about a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, which is not a European Union institution but rather a court - one that is part of a concentric circle of the European Union, but is separate - which is committed to the Rule of Law, representative democracy and human rights.
Secondly, we are talking about a judicial resolution, and no resolution by Parliament can revoke or amend any resolution passed down by a court of justice.
Thirdly, the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights is highly respectful of religious freedom and its corollary, which is religious pluralism. Religious freedom is part of our common constitutional traditions and of the constitutional law of the Member States, and it is also a fundamental right protected by the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
The judgment therefore gives reasons, with a solid legal basis, for the protection of religious freedom. It does not deny it at all. What is more, it is done unanimously by a prestigious court that has influenced the formation of the culture of human rights for almost sixty years.
Ultimately, however, and this is important, we need to remember that no judgment of the European Court of Human Rights means that the legislation of any Member State that has signed up to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights has to be amended, because the judgment recognises a right in response to an infringement in a specific case.
It is only on that basis that it is up to the Member States to make the appropriate decisions about amendments to legislation or policies that might be inspired by the doctrine of the European Court of Human Rights, but under no circumstances are they obliged or compelled to do so by any judgment of the European Court of Human Rights.
There is therefore no reason for any Member State to be concerned. None of them are obliged to amend their legislation or its public policies as a result of a specific judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. Therefore, neither Italy nor any other country has any reason to adopt any general rules as a result of this judgment.
Lastly, however, subsidiarity has been invoked. We have to say that subsidiarity is a rule of European law that has no application in this case, because its concept and applications have nothing to do with this case.
I even think that a rule of European law could be invoked that allows a vote to be postponed if there are doubts as to the relevance of a vote that has nothing to do with affairs that concern the European Parliament, which, in my view, is the case here.
I therefore think that although this debate is legitimate, it is definitely lacking in focus and does not require an urgent pronouncement, and even less a protest or a revocation of a judgment that was passed down by a court of justice that is not a European Union institution.
Sophia in 't Veld
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Madam President, the somewhat misleading title of today's debate includes the word 'subsidiarity'. Subsidiarity, as I understand it, means taking decisions at the level closest to the citizen, and that level is the citizen - the individual citizen. What you are saying in your resolutions is that the rights of a national state are above the rights of individual citizens. It is our job in this House to protect the rights of citizens, not the rights of states.
Secondly, if we consider - as you claim - that this is not a matter for the European Union, I would like to understand why these matters are included in the Copenhagen criteria, and why we demand from candidate countries that they respect the separation of church and state when we cannot demand that of our own Member States.
Thirdly, colleagues, if you say that the European Parliament is not competent to talk about these matters, I wonder why we are competent to discuss matters like the shape of cucumbers but not the fundamental rights of our citizens.
As to the European Convention on Human Rights and the Court ruling, we are now two weeks after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, which requires that the EU accede to the Convention on Human Rights. Would it not be incomprehensible if we, at the same time, refused to accept the authority of the Court of Strasbourg? We cannot explain that to our citizens.
Secondly, I think - and this has been said by Mr López before - politicians have no business interfering in Court rulings. Let the judges do their jobs. We may have an opinion - we may like the ruling or we may not like it - but we should not interfere in their work. My group, the ALDE Group - the European Liberals - is the champion of a Europe that is for all citizens. ALDE believes in a Europe of diversity, where everybody has the right to their own conscience, their own religion and even the freedom from religion.
I will now conclude. The states - not the courts, the states - must ensure an environment where all citizens can live freely, according to their own conscience. They should be protected by the state, and I think the situation is very serious if they feel the need to go to court in order to defend themselves from the states. Colleagues, reject the EPP and ECR resolutions.
Mirosław Piotrowski
Madam President, in view of the historical fact that the founding fathers of the European Union were Christian Democrats: Konrad Adenauer, Alcide De Gasperi, Robert Schuman and Jean Monnet, who based what they built on Christian values and symbols, I will remind you that the flag adopted by the European Union, which shows a circle of 12 gold stars on a blue background, and which is hanging behind you, Madam President, refers to the 12 stars upon the head of the Holy Virgin Mary - the Revelation of St John, chapter 12.
Over half a century on, it is worth asking if the philosophy of the founding fathers is still relevant. In the context of the scandalous judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, which ordered crosses to be removed from an Italian school, it should be stated emphatically that no group of judges appointed by politicians, not even the Council of Europe, can order the removal of a cross, which has universal and religious significance. This verdict tramples underfoot freedom of religion and the cultural heritage of Europe.
In this connection, I would like to ask the Commissioner: do you not think that an attack on Christian symbols is also the destruction of the basis of the European Union? Could you not, on behalf of the Commission, start a debate on the role and significance of Christian symbols in the European Union?
Manfred Weber
(DE) Madam President, I am grateful for the opportunity to hold this debate. Mr López Aguilar referred to the fact that in his opinion, as a lawyer, we are not responsible. I am not speaking as a lawyer, but as a politician. Millions of people in Europe are affected by this judgment by the judges in Strasbourg. This is why it is a good thing that we are discussing it here.
The relationship between church and state in Europe has always been disputed and has led to bloody conflicts. It is right and proper that the European Union has managed to separate the state from religion. This is a good thing. However, we have a wide range of different models in Europe. France is clearly a non-religious state, while in Great Britain, the Head of State, the Queen, is also the head of the church. We have different models of how the relationship between church and state has developed. For this reason, I believe it is a good thing that we are calling for subsidiarity in this area and that every country can go its own way.
I would even like to take things a step further. I do not want to talk about subsidiarity, but about the basic issue that, from my perspective, the European values of solidarity, subsidiarity and freedom are unthinkable without a foundation in Christianity and in the Judaeo-Christian understanding of religion. Why do we not find these values in China or in the Middle East? This is because they are based on our culture and our religions. It is possible to mention this without forcing anyone to accept the same faith. We are proud of our religious freedom.
There is religious freedom in the sense that it is possible for me to decide to be an atheist. That is acceptable and legitimate and we have fought for this. However, there is also the right to have a faith. In my region, where more than one million people live, over 80% are Catholics. Just as atheists call for others to show them tolerance, so the Catholics who make up more than 80% of the population are calling for non-believers to be tolerant of their faith. They want to be able to show their faith in public, to represent it and to have Christian symbols accepted by the minority in this majority society. This is also legitimate in terms of religious freedom.
Anyone who calls for tolerance must also show tolerance to those who practise a Christian faith.
Joanna Senyszyn
(PL) Madam President, the European Court of Human Rights has rightly ruled that hanging crosses in school classrooms violates the religious freedom of pupils and the right of parents to raise their children in accordance with their own convictions. The judges decided unanimously that a cross at school breaks the European Convention on Human Rights.
The decision is simple, clear and universally comprehensible. This is why it has evoked such fury and aggression among the clergy and Right-wing politicians. They pretend they do not understand, and demand explanations from the Commission and that Parliament adopt an official position. This is unlawful. EU institutions are not empowered to evaluate that judgment, or indeed any other. Let us not forget that there is a tri-partite division of power, and that the Court is a body of the Council of Europe, and not of the European Union.
I will answer the questioners, since they have such doubts: the judgment about crosses does not violate the principle of subsidiarity. Quite the opposite, it gives help in observing the law to those European states which have forgotten that in their constitution, there is a provision, if not about the division of church and state, then at least about neutrality of worldview. The judgment of the Court helps national authorities and courts which are subject to the church to realise the fundamental rights of citizens which are being broken as a result of the clericalisation of social life. The citizens of church states cannot defend their rights before national courts. It is a good thing that they can turn to the Court of Human Rights and obtain justice.
The judgment accords with respect for the national identity of Member States and should be implemented. It does not concern a ban on displaying religious symbols in public, but only in a very small section of public space, in state schools. No one is calling for the removal of crosses from churches, squares or flags, as one fellow Member rashly said.
It is not interference in church-state relations, but only defence of citizens whose rights are being violated. In my country, too, advancing clericalisation is restricting the fundamental rights of Poles. I cannot imagine that the European Parliament and the Commission would prevent my fellow Poles from pursuing their just rights before the Court in Strasbourg. A critical position of the Commission and Parliament concerning this judgment would be unauthorised interference, and would, in addition, expose us to ridicule. I must warn you of this.
Carlo Casini
(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the decision of the European Court of Human Rights has upset not only worshippers but also everyone who, for centuries, has viewed the crucifix as a sign of hope and solidarity, something providing solace and freedom from fear and pain.
We hope that that decision will be modified by the Grand Chamber since it is clearly irrational. Should we do away with the very name of the Red Cross? Should we remove the huge crucifixes on mountain tops which tower over cities and valleys? Will it be prohibited for the Queen of England, as has already been mentioned, to be the head of the Anglican Church?
Nevertheless, the case invites a very important reflection from a civil and political point of view: are human rights merely the rights of individuals, as parties isolated from a social environment, or is the right to express a specific form of piety also a right of the peoples? Do tradition, history, intelligence and art count for nothing when, for millennia, they have characterised a people's identity?
Furthermore, the question also rightly concerns the relationship between subsidiarity and human rights, and I note that the latter, aside from certain fundamental principles which must be considered universal and irrefutable, may be interpreted in different ways, and human rights may even conflict with each other. Why should a state be denied the chance, through its laws, to resolve these conflicts and to interpret and implement human rights according to the ethical views of its people? The issue therefore goes beyond the question of crucifixes.
On other occasions, the European Court has recognised, with regard to the right to life, the exclusive power of the States to decide on the most controversial matters, such as the regulation of abortion and euthanasia. Now, the Treaty of Lisbon requires us to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights and consequently, as the European Union, also to respect the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights.
Therefore, we ought to think about the new and different direction currently being taken by the Court. It would be a serious matter if a supranational power, especially if exercised by a limited number of people and not as the democratic expression of popular will, were to become repressive and demeaning, insensitive to people's feelings and hearts and therefore ultimately opposed to freedom. This is why I hope that the resolution tabled by the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) will be adopted with the votes of a large number of Members.
Miroslav Mikolášik
(SK) The history of Europe, its individual states and therefore also the EU is, like it nor not, closely connected with the Christian heritage. Consequently, even the constitutions of many states contain a reference to Christian traditions. Even the Treaty on European Union in its preamble draws inspiration, inter alia, from Europe's religious heritage, from which universal values have developed.
Fundamental rights in the EU are today guaranteed in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and in the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms but, above all, they arise from constitutional traditions common to the Member States which have developed over centuries. I therefore believe that the EU must fully respect national history, culture and traditions and resolutely refuse to penalise Member States who defend their right to their own special make-up and character, including the Christian heritage and Christian symbols. In conclusion, I would merely like to add that neither the Charter nor the European Convention enlarge the powers of the Union.
Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra
(ES) Madam President, I would like to start by asking to borrow some words that I am going to make my own. The crucifix is not a sign of imposition. It is a symbol that represents positive values, which are part of our history, our culture and a society that dates back more than 2 000 years. We cannot claim to protect fundamental rights by denying the very values that created them.
Democracy works through freedom and respect, facilitating the exercise of rights, not through imposition or limitation. Yes of course, the principle of subsidiarity must be respected and recognised by all European institutions, organisations and courts, especially freedom, whether it is freedom of opinion or freedom of belief.
The authority of the Member States to display religious symbols in public places as a symbol that represents the traditions and identity of their peoples should not and cannot be infringed. Freedom is an essential element of our society and the basic pillar on which the single area of freedom, security and justice is built. If it were to be limited or censored, the very foundations of the European Union would collapse.
Georgios Papanikolaou
(EL) Madam President, I, too, consider that the Court is wrong to find that having a crucifix in schoolrooms is tantamount to disrespect for other people's religious faith. The issue we are debating today is a social rather than a legal issue. Obviously we must abide by the principle of subsidiarity. The presence of religious symbols is not a sign of religious discrimination or coercion. It is a result of the tradition and history of every country and often of its Constitution, as is the case in my country, Greece.
In Greece, we have religious icons in schoolrooms, not in order to impose some specific religion on pupils, but because it forms part of our tradition and is directly connected to the values and structures of our society, directly connected to four centuries of persecution and religious oppression by the Ottoman Empire.
Anna Záborská
(SK) I would like to respond briefly to three points. On this evening at the close of the year and in the run-up to Christmas, before midnight on a Tuesday, almost sixty years after the founding of the European Union, we are still discussing one of the pillars of European integration. We are discussing the principle of subsidiarity.
Secondly, the question of Mr Borghezio relates to the decision of the European Court in Strasbourg that the presence of crosses in Italian schools is a breach of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights. This decision has provoked fears in many states. The Slovak parliament last week passed a resolution in which it stated that this decision is in conflict with the cultural heritage and Christian history of Europe.
And finally, I did not feel entirely comfortable during the reading of the draft joint resolution on which we will vote on Thursday. I am disappointed that we lack the courage to include in a resolution that talks about subsidiarity those points from the Lisbon Treaty that are directly connected to the programme that has been passed.
Magdi Cristiano Allam
(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, if we consider that hardly anyone is here right now to talk about the question of crucifixes, given that to discuss crucifixes we must invoke the question of subsidiarity, the only logical conclusion is that we find ourselves in a Europe which is ashamed of the historical truth of its own Judeo-Christian roots and the historical truth of Christianity which, as Goethe said, is the common language of Europe.
Within the European Parliament, there are 23 official languages which demonstrate that there is nothing that unites Europe if not Christianity. I would like to ask Mr Barrot a question: why, after a popular referendum in Switzerland said 'no' to minarets, did the European Commission, the European Union, the United Nations, the Arab League and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference all rally round to condemn the outcome of that referendum - even though Switzerland is not a member of the European Union - yet today, you are taking a neutral position over a question which concerns our roots, our identity and our soul?
Csaba Sógor
(HU) As a Protestant clergyman, whose tradition regards the eight-pointed star and not the cross as the most important symbol, allow me to make a brief contribution to this debate. I am actually from an electoral constituency where 99% of the electorate are Catholic. My four children go to school with Catholic children. The cross does not bother us. I would like to make a distinction here - if I may, on a technical point - between the crucifix and the cross. We must be aware, even though it does not bother me personally, that there are people who are bothered by the cross or crucifix because the cross or crucifix reminds them of the Inquisition.
I feel that this is appropriate in those countries where the practice has developed because of the Catholic tradition of having a cross in schools, especially in faith schools. However, Parliament should not be discussing these matters, but rather poverty, the economic crisis or how Eastern Europe is going to catch up. This is an unproductive debate we are having. We need to look at who it was who protested in that Italian school and why. We should have examined this one-off case rather than discuss a matter here which is already something from the past.
I want, of course, to emphasise once again that I have nothing against the cross as I, too, live everyday looking at the cross, which does not bother me. We must create the right living conditions in Italy or Romania so that this does not become a subject of debate.
Diane Dodds
Madam President, in recent years, we have witnessed an ongoing campaign to suppress freedom of religious expression. Christian nurses have been disciplined for offering to pray with patients and, only today, Lillian Ladele, a Christian registrar who was told to perform civil partnerships or face dismissal, has lost her case for religious discrimination at the Court of Appeal in the United Kingdom.
Equality laws have failed to protect Christians - indeed, quite the opposite. An amendment to the Equality Bill to protect the religious liberty of churches was voted down in the House of Commons two weeks ago, amid accusations of interference from the EU Commission. The Commission, in their reasoned opinion, argued that the UK needs to narrow the religious liberty safeguard in its employment laws. I say: shame on the Commission. There must be a recognition that people have faith and have the right to express that faith. Christians ought to be protected, and not punished, by the law.
Jacques Barrot
Madam President, the country with which I am most familiar has seen some harsh confrontations on these subjects, and I would like very simply, but on a personal level, to express the wish that the European Parliament's policy remains one of mutual tolerance and respect.
There are, in fact, families that wish to follow a Christian tradition. There are families that may question that tradition. This religious and cultural diversity is what makes us, is what makes Europe. I believe that we must remain very prudent when dealing with an issue such as this. I take the liberty of saying this quite simply because I myself have suffered, in the country with which I am most familiar, from extremes on both sides.
That being said, I am a lawyer and, quite honestly, I do not see how this debate can be held here, when it should have been held first at the Assembly of the Council of Europe and in our national parliaments. That is where I believe this debate should really take place. Moreover, we are obliged - I am obliged, on behalf of the Commission - to say that the Commission is certainly very committed to respect for the principle of religious freedom and that it would obviously be compelled to react against any form of discrimination against persons belonging to a particular religion.
Having said that, the Commission may not act outside the legal framework laid down by the treaties. Moreover, it may not intervene as guardian of the treaties on issues concerning a Member State when those issues do not relate to European Union law. I am obliged to say this, quite simply. The Commission can only note the various positions that have been expressed in this House, but it cannot express an opinion on an issue that does not come under European law. Once again, these issues come under the domestic legal system of the Member States. That is what I can say for my part, as a lawyer.
Nonetheless, I believe that this debate is useful and that it was interesting, of course, even though I would quite simply encourage all those who have taken part in this debate to keep a necessary sense of proportion and to allow the Council of Europe and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in turn to usefully debate the interpretations that could be given to a European Declaration of Human Rights. Quite honestly, however, as guardians of the treaties we cannot intervene in a debate that essentially concerns the Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights.
I apologise for not being able to give you a better answer this evening, but I am obliged, in all honesty and in accordance with the law, to respond in this way. I honestly believe that we are talking about problems that are dealt with today in the Union within the framework of the domestic legal system of each Member State.
President
I have received six motions for resolution tabled in accordance with Rule 115(5) of the Rules of Procedure,.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday, 17 December 2009.
Written statements (Rule 149)
Herbert Dorfmann
in writing. - (DE) The ruling of the European Court of Human Rights is the expression of an aggressive secularism and gives authority to those who want the public domain to be religion-free. In so doing, they are overlooking the fact that our continent cannot exist without Christianity. Christianity has defined Europe, its people, culture and art and its way of thinking to the extent that the continent would lose its identity if all traces of Christianity were to be removed. It is certainly not about calling into question the freedom of religion. The separation of the Church and the State is a supreme benefit of our democracy and I would like us to take care to ensure that both carry out their own tasks with mutual respect for one another. However, this respect is exactly what it is all about. The Christian Church must not demand that everyone subscribe to its beliefs, but it is entitled to demand to be respected by everyone.
Martin Kastler
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, what does freedom of religion actually mean? The answer is quite simple. It is the freedom to practise religion. Freedom of religion is not freedom from religion but the freedom to have religion. Freedom of religion does not create a religion-free society, but rather gives people the right to practice their religion openly within society. A crucifix in the classroom does not force anyone to believe, or not to believe. Therefore, it does not violate the freedom of religion. Nor have I ever heard of a right entitling someone not to be confronted with religious symbols. If this were the case, we would, in fact, immediately have to prohibit all crosses on gravestones and all church spires. The crucifix ruling of the European Court of Human Rights is therefore not only an attack on the principle of subsidiarity, but it also violates the right to religious freedom itself. We, the European Parliament, cannot and must not accept this ruling. The European Court of Human Rights should administer justice and not become a puppet for ideological and anti-Christian interests. Otherwise, we will have to seriously consider whether this Court actually still has a purpose at all.
Joanna Katarzyna Skrzydlewska
In my opinion, the ruling of the Court has nothing to do with protecting freedom of religion. The presence of a cross in a classroom does not, on its own, exert pressure on a person's worldview and does not violate the right of parents to raise their children in accordance with their own convictions, just as that right is not violated by wearing clothes which testify to the profession of a particular faith. A mutual understanding and openness to others lies at the foundation of a common, united Europe, as does respect for cultural differences between countries and the roots and traditions of the nations which make up the European Union. It is no secret that the sources of our European identity derive directly from the Christian tradition. Therefore, for a clear majority of Europeans, a cross is a religious symbol and, at the same time, a symbol which represents their values. I do not imagine that the mutual dialogue which we conduct with each other every day should be devoid of the values which we hold. Neither do I imagine that, in the name of religious freedom, we should be forced to deny what is, for us, an important and sacred symbol, irrespective of whether it be a cross, a Star of David or a crescent moon. Just as no one has the right to force anyone to adhere to a particular religion or value system, so also no one has the right to compel, in the name of freedom, anyone to remove symbols which are important for the whole of humanity. By its ruling, the Court of Human Rights is not, in fact, upholding religious freedom, but is discriminating against all those in whose lives symbols of faith have significant meaning.


8. Organic production and labelling of organic products (vote)
- Following the vote on Amendment 111:
Roberta Angelilli
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in accordance with Rule 155, since Amendment 167 tabled by my group is reproduced in full in Amendment 171 by the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, and since I believe it is important to bring together the largest possible number of votes in order to eliminate accidental contamination of organic produce by GMOs, on behalf of my group I would like to withdraw our amendment if we can co-sign Amendment 171 by the Socialist Group.
(The Socialist Group in the European Parliament agreed to the inclusion of the Union for Europe of the Nations Group's Amendment 167 in its Amendment 171)
- Before the final vote:
Marie-Hélène Aubert
rapporteur. - (FR) Mr President, on the basis of Rule 53 of the Rules of Procedure, I would ask that the report be referred back to the committee.
Indeed, Amendment 1, which requests a double legal basis - that is to say, Articles 37 and 95 - had extremely broad support in this House, being adopted by 585 votes. Now, the Commissioner replied yesterday that she did not accept this amendment. I therefore think that we must go further in negotiations with the Commission, while retaining the report - which, I am very pleased to say, is constructive - in its present form. We must go further, however, and I therefore ask that the report be referred back to the committee.
(Applause)
(Parliament decided to refer the report back to the competent committee)


Situation in Lithuania following the adoption of the law on protection of minors (debate)
President
The next item is the debate on:
the oral question to the Council by Sophia in 't Veld, Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, Leonidas Donskis, Gianni Vattimo, Sarah Ludford, Ulrike Lunacek, Raül Romeva i Rueda, Jean Lambert and Judith Sargentini, on behalf of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe and of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, on the Lithuanian Law for the Protection of Minors against the Detrimental Effects of Public Information - B7-0201/2009),
the oral question to the Commission by Sophia in 't Veld, Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, Leonidas Donskis, Gianni Vattimo, Sarah Ludford, Ulrike Lunacek, Raül Romeva i Rueda, Jean Lambert and Judith Sargentini, on behalf of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe and of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, on the Lithuanian Law for the Protection of Minors against the Detrimental Effects of Public Information - B7-0202/2009),
the oral question to the Council by Rui Tavares, Cornelia Ernst, Cornelis de Jong, Marie-Christine Vergiat, Willy Meyer and Kyriacos Triantaphyllides, on behalf of the Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left, on the Lithuanian Law for the Protection of Minors against the Detrimental Effects of Public Information - B7-0204/2009),
the oral question to the Commission by Rui Tavares, Cornelia Ernst, Cornelis de Jong, Marie-Christine Vergiat, Willy Meyer and Kyriacos Triantaphyllides, on behalf of the Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left, on the Lithuanian Law for the Protection of Minors against the Detrimental Effects of Public Information - B7-0205/2009),
the oral question to the Council by Michael Cashman, Claude Moraes and Emine Bozkurt, on behalf of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, on the Lithuanian Law for the Protection of Minors against the Detrimental Effects of Public Information - B7-0206/2009), and
the oral question to the Commission by Michael Cashman, Claude Moraes and Emine Bozkurt, on behalf of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, on the Lithuanian Law for the Protection of Minors against the Detrimental Effects of Public Information - B7-0207/2009).
Sophia in 't Veld
author. - Madam President, I think this is a very important subject that we are discussing here today. It is about European values. We put in the oral question and we have also drafted a joint resolution about the Lithuanian law, which is allegedly about the protection of minors. But it actually does the contrary, because this law may well foster ignorance, taboo and stigma. It will expose young and vulnerable gay, lesbian and transgender people to bullying and exclusion. It will therefore lead to immeasurable distress and suffering by young people, the very people that this law is designed to protect. Instead of protection, it inflicts harm on young people.
Therefore we have addressed this question, and I am very happy that in the summer, we received a letter from Commissioner Barrot expressing the European Commission's concern about this law, saying that the European Commission will keep a very close eye on it and make sure that any national legislation is in line with European legislation and principles. I think that is very important, because the European Commission should not only intervene when market rules are being violated but also, and in particular, when European values are being violated. We cannot tolerate discrimination. Europe is a community of values - values which I know are shared by the majority of our Lithuanian fellow citizens. We are all Europeans.
With reference to the resolution, colleagues, I would ask for your explicit support for the resolution and, in particular, for the amendment that seeks to insert a reference to the existing anti-discrimination directives, because I think that is the very minimum. I also ask for your support for the request in the resolution to ask the Fundamental Rights Agency for a legal opinion on this law.
Finally, I think we can be proud, as a European Parliament - if we adopt the resolution tomorrow - to be the voice of the shared values of Europe.
Ulrike Lunacek
Madam President, as the previous speaker said, this law passed in Lithuania endangers European values, European law and also the freedom of people, namely the freedom of young people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or perhaps transgender, to live their life without fear. According to this law, factual information on this is supposedly damaging to these young people. I can tell you what that means: it means that these young people must live in fear and possibly suffer depression. We know that there is an increased rate of attempted suicide among young people who are lesbian or gay or who are confused in their coming-out phase about how they will live their lives.
This law flies in the face of European values, which is why I was delighted that Commissioner Barrot responded on this back in July. You also told the European region of the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) that the Commission would analyse this text and explain what its next steps would be. What I am interested in today is what you intend to do. What have you - and the Council - already promised the Lithuanian Parliament? We know that the former Lithuanian President and the new president, who used to be a commissioner, do not approve of this law, but the parliament is insisting on it. I am delighted that a proposal is on the table today, including a motion for a resolution.
I truly hope that we shall all accept the resolution tomorrow and can petition the European Union Agency on Fundamental Rights to take a position on this law, as that is what it is there for. In the meantime, it should be quite clear in our common Europe that lesbians and gays will not disappear from families and schools merely because a law prohibits information on them. Being different is normal, including in this, our common Europe.
Rui Tavares
Ladies and gentlemen, this law begins by claiming to protect children against the promotion of homosexuality in public information. What does that actually mean? Does it mean that if I have a cinema in Vilnius and want to put up a poster for the film Brokeback Mountain, I cannot do so? Does it mean that if I give a lecture on homosexuality in a public place, theatre or university in Lithuania, I cannot do so? Does it mean - as has already been discussed in the Lithuanian Parliament - that I will have to pay a fine of up to EUR 1 500 or do a month's community service under the changes to the criminal code that are currently being debated in Lithuania? Can a television programme, for example, show a homosexual couple that is happy, or must it only show one that is unhappy?
Ladies and gentlemen, there was a date that surprised me when these amendments to the law on the protection of minors in Lithuania were passed: it was 14 July 2009. 14 July is, of course, the day when we gathered here for the first time in this seventh parliamentary term, and also the day marking the 220th anniversary of our European principles, including the right to seek happiness, the principle of freedom of expression and even the principle of freedom of assembly. Now the freedom of assembly is also at risk, because the Lithuanian Parliament, again, has more recently been discussing the possibility of banning events such as 'gay pride' marches.
Well, when we gathered here for the first time on 14 July 2009, it was because we had a duty - I would say a sacred duty - to defend these values, and these are the values that are at stake. We know how those things begin, and we also know where they always lead. What are we going to do next? Appoint a committee to see what is and what is not promotion of homosexuality? Where - in books, theatres, cinemas, advertising?
Vilnius is one of this year's European capitals of culture, deservedly so, and certainly much to the delight of all Europeans. Being a European capital of culture also entails responsibilities, however: the responsibility of promoting European culture for the best reasons and not to put it under the spotlight this year for the wrong reasons.
I therefore appeal for a vote in favour of our resolution and call on the Agency for Fundamental Rights to issue an opinion on this very serious topic. That is certainly the least that the Members of this House can ask.
Michael Cashman
author. - Madam President, can I say, as a gay man, I am proud that this House and others are speaking out against this proposed law. This proposed law will clearly breach EU treaties on human rights, particularly Article 6, as well as the Employment Framework Directive and general policies on non-discrimination. It also, interestingly, breaches the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, in that it encourages discrimination against young lesbians and gay people. So, whom does it protect, and from what?
The British Conservatives introduced in Great Britain a similar law in 1988. It was recognised then, and recognised now, that these laws lead to censorship and the promotion of discrimination and homophobia: discrimination and homophobia which destroys people's lives and blights the souls of those who practise it. The proposed law has been condemned by NGOs, including the International Lesbian and Gay Association, the Council of Europe and Amnesty International, as well as others. It affects young lesbians and gay men - teachers, public officials - and could be used to prevent young people having access to any material - films, books, plays, works of art - created by a gay man or a lesbian. Are they going to try and stop young people studying the works of Plato, Shakespeare, Oscar Wilde, Walt Whitman, Tennessee Williams, Tchaikovsky and others, the music of Elton John, or idolising tennis greats such as Martina Navratilova? It will affect the very way young people and others speak, think and act. And why? Young people need education, not isolation; they need to understand the world in all its diversity and be taught respect for those who are different. The love of one human being for another is never lessened by gender or sexuality: it is love.
Lesbians and gay men are ordinary men and women made extraordinary by extremists' preoccupation with our sex lives and the defamation that lesbians and gay men are a threat to society. That is a vile misrepresentation. Any civilised society is judged not by how it treats its majority but how it treats its minorities. So I say to Lithuanians and people across Europe: reject this dangerous step back to the past.
(Applause)
Cecilia Malmström
Madam President, allow me to start by underlining that freedom of expression and non-discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity are cornerstones of our democratic societies. Our Union is based on various principles and values that all the Member States are expected to support. We cannot insist on and stand up for respect for human rights in other countries if we cannot uphold these fundamental principles ourselves within the EU.
These fundamental rights and, in particular, freedom of expression and the right not to suffer discrimination, are recognised in Article 6 of the Treaty establishing the European Union and are also contained in Articles 10 and 14 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights. These principles are further stated in the European Union's Charter of Fundamental Rights. There is legislation at Community level to safeguard this area. Directive 2000/78/EC prohibits discrimination in the workplace on the grounds of religion or creed, disability, age or sexual orientation. Last year, the Commission tabled a proposal to extend this protection to other areas.
This proposal is currently under discussion in the Council and Parliament has submitted a positive opinion. We welcome this initiative and hope it will be adopted before long.
This is about legislation at European level. At national level, Member States can adopt national legislation in the area of fundamental freedoms and rights provided - and I repeat: provided - that this legislation fully respects the Union's and the Community's primary and secondary legislation, falls within an area in which the Community does not exclusively have competence, and is justified by the fact that there is no legislation at Union or Community level.
The law in question that was adopted by the Lithuanian Parliament in July and the proposed amendment of the Criminal Code and administrative law that is being discussed are a cause of great concern for the Swedish Presidency. However, we must not forget that the law has not yet entered into force.
From our perspective, a law that aims to ban the promotion of a certain sexual orientation violates fundamental values such as freedom of expression and the fact that all people are equal. The Presidency has made this position clear in contacts with the Lithuanian Government on repeated occasions.
As regards the more legal issues raised by Members in their speeches, it is important to point out that the Council does not have a formal role here. Compatibility between national legislation and the treaties is not a matter for the Council, nor is it a matter for the Agency for Fundamental Rights. It is up to the Commission to judge whether a Member State is meeting its obligations under the treaties. That involves not only monitoring whether Union and Community legislation is correctly transposed and implemented nationally, but also ensuring that primary law at European level is fully respected. As I am sure Mr Barrot will say, the Commission can initiate appropriate proceedings if it considers that a Member State is not complying with primary or secondary legislation.
Where Article 13 of the Treaty establishing the European Community is concerned, the Council would be deeply concerned if it were to find cases of discrimination on the grounds of gender, race, ethnic origin, religion, disability, age or sexual orientation. However, a proposal from the Commission is required if the Council is to initiate a discussion of whether discrimination is taking place and the measures to be taken if so. In the same way, under Article 7 of the Treaty, the Council can only take action if a third of the Member States or the Commission put forward such a proposal with due justification. Since the law has not yet entered into force, no such proposal has been tabled.
I can assure Members that the matter of discrimination against LGBT people is on the Swedish Presidency's agenda. We will be discussing it at an equality summit in Stockholm on 16-17 November.
Naturally we take the European Parliament's concern very seriously. It is about respect for fundamental rights and human rights. In formal terms, however, this must be dealt with within the legal and institutional frameworks. As the Council's representative, I have tried to answer the questions as correctly as possible and explain the limitations. I look forward to hearing the viewpoints of the representatives of the Commission on this matter.
Jacques Barrot
Madam President, the Minister has explained very well the legal elements of this problem.
I would like to say here that the Commission has repeatedly expressed its firm condemnation of all forms of homophobia. The phenomenon represents a flagrant violation of human dignity. The Commission notably repeated this position before the European Parliament on 23 April 2007, during the plenary session in which the Resolution on homophobia in Europe was adopted.
In areas that fall under the umbrella of Community competences, the European Union, as well as the Member States when they implement Union law, are required to respect fundamental rights. These are binding principles of Community law.
The Lithuanian law for the protection of minors against the detrimental effects of public information largely falls within the scope of Community competences, as its contents concern implementation of the Directives on audiovisual services and on electronic commerce.
Therefore, the Commission informed the Lithuanian authorities, even before the adoption of the draft law, that some measures of this law would raise serious concerns in relation to their compatibility with fundamental rights and Community law. In spite of this warning, it would seem that the current version of the law adopted on 14 July last does not dispel the concerns expressed by the Commission beforehand.
In this context, the Commission can only express reservations, and serious reservations, on the compatibility of this law with the principles of freedom of expression, the principle of non-discrimination, and with children's rights, including their right to access information necessary for their development.
The Commission will not hesitate to take every measure necessary to ensure respect for Community law, including, of course, fundamental rights.
According to information made available to the Commission, a working group has been established in Lithuania on the initiative of the President, Mrs Grybauskaitė, in order to introduce additional amendments to this law. These amendments should be proposed at the end of October. The Commission will, of course, await the outcome of the work of this committee and the contents of the amendments before giving a definitive opinion on the law such as it will enter into force. Indeed, I can only support Mrs Malmström's very clear point that it is up to the Commission to monitor the situation and ultimately to propose sanctions and to punish breaches of European Union regulations and of fundamental rights, a fortiori.
That is the information that I wanted to give you, showing you that our position on this matter is extremely clear.
Vytautas Landsbergis
on behalf of the PPE Group. - Madam President, the law that is being criticised and debated, despite the fact that it will not enter into force until March, contains only one single line prohibiting the promotion of homosexuality to minors; that is the greatly troublesome part.
The President of the Republic of Lithuania took the initiative by tabling clarifying amendments immediately. Thus, our resolution is practically knocking on an open door. What we should be doing is concentrating on Parliament's intention.
The key words in the troublesome line about the promotion of homosexuality to minors are 'promotion' and 'minors' - not 'homosexuality', as some would have it. The possibility of direct promotion to minors has been dealt with by the adoption of a law. 'Promotion' is a deliberate action going beyond the simple and necessary information currently provided by sexual education, which should include a clause of tolerance to homosexual appeal and love.
The promotion of homosexuality to minors, if we open our eyes, may quite often mean significantly more - from encouraging them to try it, to the seduction of minors, even for homosexual prostitution. The media might benefit from such business, probably by disseminating such promotion to minors.
Dear colleagues, parents and grandparents, please now listen to your hearts. Would you be in favour of opening up this whole area of challenges to your own offspring?
(Interjection from the floor)
OK, that is the case for you.
What if they are exposed to such special 'promotion' regularly and without restriction? It seems as though we are stumbling between two trees: the first, if someone likes tricky doctrine, is the right of children to be mentally abused, while the second is the right of children to be protected from abuse. Let their self-determination come with maturity.
My proposal is to support the positions recalling both the Convention on, and the Declaration of, the Rights of the Child, and to delete paragraph 1, which is irrelevant at the present time and therefore inappropriate for Europe's highest House.
Claude Moraes
Madam President, Mr Landsbergis has given a deeply unconvincing justification of this law. I was surprised; I thought he would justify it more. The Council and the Commission have expressed their deep concern, and that is the correct line. Anti-discrimination and freedom of expression are absolutely fundamental principles in European law.
In my own Member State, as Mr Cashman said previously, we had such a law in 1988, but it is now history and this law will become history because, as a Community of values, one of the EU's greatest strengths lies in our common endeavour to raise the bar on human rights and the protection of our fundamental freedoms. It is also difficult when one Member State is under the spotlight for a potential breach of this law but it is because of our Community of values that we can analyse those laws and we can say, as the Commission and Council have said, they cause deep concern for us.
The Fundamental Rights Agency should do its job and give its opinion and, as the Commission and Council have said, there are problems within existing law, anti-discrimination laws in this European Union; let us defend what we have and let us ensure that the Socialist Group, along with our sister party in Lithuania, condemn this law, and let us hope that that is what will happen - that it will be consigned to history.
(Applause)
Leonidas Donskis
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Madam President, the Lithuanian Law on the Protection of Minors from the Detrimental Effects of Public Information struck human rights defenders and media people in Lithuania and beyond as overly homophobic and profoundly undemocratic.
Please let me draw your attention to the fact that this law was vetoed by the former President of Lithuania, Valdas Adamkus, but he was overruled by the Lithuanian Parliament. In addition, this law has been severely criticised by the current President of Lithuania, Dalia Grybauskaitė. The law was assessed in vigorous terms by the Lithuanian media, commentators, and civil liberties and human rights defenders, who stressed its homophobic substance along with its extremely dangerous political implications, such as censorship and self-censorship.
This law has little, if anything, to do with the protection of children. Instead, it is against gay and lesbian citizens of the country. Whatever the case, the equation of homosexuality with physical violence and necrophilia is morally repugnant and deeply disgraceful. Still, it is difficult to believe that the adoption of such a law is possible in an EU country at the beginning of the 21st century. Personally I take this law as an unfortunate move and as a profound misunderstanding, to say the very least.
Changes to Article 310 of the penal code and Article 214 of the administrative code are being debated in Lithuania's Parliament that will criminalise, with the threat of a fine, community work or imprisonment, anyone involved in the promotion of homosexuality in any public space. If this is not our slide to state-sponsored homophobia and criminalisation of public expression of our gay and lesbian citizens, what is it then?
Last but not least, this law is a disgrace, but even more so would be an attempt to obfuscate, trivialise and, in effect, justify it. This is to say that I strongly support the resolution.
Raül Romeva i Rueda
Ladies and gentlemen, this is a crucial moment in the process of European integration because, until a short while ago, we would surely not have had this type of debate. This is simply because no parliament would ever have considered adopting a law of this nature.
This means that this is not an internal issue of Lithuanian policy. Put simply, we must conclude that we are facing an issue that directly affects the survival of European credibility. No part of the European Union - and here we have the three institutions - can remain silent while a Member State adopts laws which persecute and criminalise something as universal as the right to choose the person with whom you have emotional or sexual relations, regardless of gender or age.
Mr Landsbergis, talking normally about homosexuality, bisexuality and transexuality is the best guarantee of a child being able to live with his or her own sexuality, with respect for himself or herself and for the rest of the community.
This is important because what we are specifically calling for at this time is a guarantee of healthy growth, without coercion or negative stereotypes or criminalisation of childhood. We can do this precisely by holding a normal debate on this situation, as we are doing, and not by prohibiting or criminalising it.
Konrad Szymański
The law on the protection of minors in Lithuania was drafted out of concern for the emotional and psychological development of the youngest consumers of media which have an increasing presence in children's lives. Another concern of the Lithuanian legislators was that children should be brought up according to their parents' convictions. I do not believe that there is anyone in this House who would not agree that these are important and burning issues. These intentions deserve appreciation, and not criticism, although that is not the main point here.
There is no article of this law that infringes European law, and in most cases the law does not even touch upon European law. The issues raised in the written question are firmly within the remit of the national laws of Member States. Nobody has given the European Union authority to act in these areas. That is the fundamental reason why we are opposed to the issue being raised at European level, and why we will never agree to any particular ideology justifying European law in exceeding its authority.
That is also the reason why we cannot support any of the resolutions tabled in this matter.
Eva-Britt Svensson
Madam President, this is not about ideology. I would say it is about the equal value of all people. I would also like to thank both the Commission and the Council for their unusually clear position. I feel convinced that Parliament, the Commission and the Council are now acting in consort where this violation of fundamental values is concerned.
We are talking about the EU and the EU's respect for fundamental human rights. That must also apply to all the individual Member States. In practice, this proposed legislation risks making any information about LGBT issues illegal. Just imagine if people were suddenly banned from fighting for the equality of all people regardless of sexual orientation.
It is beyond doubt that the proposed legislation is an attack on human rights. I will not even count how many human rights it violates. I will simply say in brief: I fully support this resolution. I hope that Parliament will be as unified as possible in voting in favour of this resolution tomorrow.
Véronique Mathieu
(FR) Madam President, above all, I would like to point out how important the fight against all forms of discrimination, particularly discrimination based on sexual orientation, is to the European Union, to Parliament and to all our colleagues.
What are we talking about today? We are talking about a draft law in Lithuania which is causing a problem, which is causing such a problem that Mrs Grybauskaithas become involved. She has exercised her veto; she has even set up a working group, which will propose amendments to us. I therefore have complete confidence in her, and I am sure that this problem will be resolved and that the Member State concerned will find a solution to this serious problem that is discrimination based on sexual orientation. We have consulted each other, some groups have proposed a resolution and we have fortunately come to a joint resolution. I am therefore convinced, ladies and gentlemen, that this joint resolution will be adopted tomorrow and that this problem will be resolved.
It is, of course, important that the intellectual and mental health of our children is protected, but I would still like to remind you that the fight against all forms of sexual discrimination is important. We have worked for this for many years. We have the Agency for Fundamental Rights. It does have a purpose. We have battled for it to be established and there is no question today of it being abandoned or being thrown out.
I would therefore like to thank you for your willingness to adopt this joint resolution. I thank all of my fellow Members who have put so much into these negotiations. It is a great pleasure to see that we have succeeded in putting together this joint resolution and I hope that it will be adopted in this House tomorrow.
Vilija Blinkevičiūt
(LT) I welcome the European Parliament's initiative to begin a debate on the question of the Law for the Protection of Minors against the Detrimental Effects of Public Information, passed due to the efforts of the Lithuanian right wing parties. It is regrettable that the law was passed without its compliance with international and European Union law being sufficiently debated and assessed. The voice of non-governmental organisations also fell on deaf ears. Under the guise of the noble goal to protect children's rights, in actual fact, a legal basis has been created to divide society, limit information and discriminate against individual groups of society. The former President of Lithuania vetoed the draft law, while the new President has set up a working group, which will submit a new draft of the law to Parliament in its session this autumn.
I hope that there will be sufficient political will in Lithuania to improve the law, all the more so because we have experience adopting and implementing progressive laws in this area. Six years ago, the Law on equal opportunities was adopted thanks to the efforts of the Lithuanian social democrats and this prohibited any direct or indirect discrimination on the grounds of age, sexual orientation, disability, race or ethnic origin in all areas of life. At the moment, a similar draft directive is being debated in the Council of Ministers. This European Parliament resolution should encourage the Lithuanian Parliament to adopt such a law, which respects human rights and freedoms, and in which there is no place for any form of discrimination, including discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.
Emine Bozkurt
(NL) Madam President, Commissioner, Minister, ladies and gentlemen, like all of you, I, too, am shocked by the fact that there is a parliament in Europe that is capable not only of proposing regulations of this kind, but also of actually adopting them. This law is not only an unacceptable violation of the rights of gay men and lesbians in Lithuania, it also does serious harm to the position of homosexuals throughout Europe. The parliament of Lithuania is telling them that their sexual orientation is something that they should be ashamed of and from which children need to be protected.
I expect the Commission and the Swedish Presidency to make it absolutely clear to the Lithuanian parliament that fundamental values such as equality of treatment and non-discrimination are non-negotiable in Europe - not now, not ever, not by anyone! For that reason, I would like the Commissioner to pledge specifically, here and now, that the Commission will not hesitate for a moment to take Lithuania to the European Court of Justice if this law enters into force.
Miroslav Mikolášik
(SK) Lithuania has passed a law which provides important protection for children and young people against the external effects of information which might seriously harm their further development. It is clear that social and family policy fall under the competence of the individual Member States of the EU and therefore no European initiatives can condemn Lithuania for this.
The law in question does not contravene any international standards in the area of human rights. I have studied the issue and that is the case. I firmly believe that, on the contrary, the law strengthens processes for protecting children from exposure to information or images which - and I stress this - their own parents want to protect them from.
I would like to call for a consistent application of the subsidiarity principle which Ireland has secured in the protocol to the Lisbon Treaty. For all that, such 'warnings to member countries and states' are setting a serious precedent in clearly sensitive areas such as the family.
Justas Vincas Paleckis
(LT) For the first time in the history of the European Parliament, in this honourable House, the actions of the Lithuanian Parliament are being debated in a negative context. No matter how innocent or good-willed the authors and supporters of the laws under debate are, they definitely did not lead us into the 21st century Europe. I think the fact that the Seimas majority's overconfidence in its sense of justice had a role to play - above us only sky, we do what we want and we do not care about international commitments. This debate is a very serious reaction by the Council and the Commission; it is a warning sign to Lithuania's legislators that we must not step backwards, almost to the Middle Ages, but act by looking forwards, taking advantage of the experience and traditions of the countries of the European Union. Therefore, these discussions are needed as is the resolution.
Cecilia Wikström
(SV) Madam President, all people are born equal and have the same inviolable value. Consequently, Parliament must make it very clear today that we are talking about the citizens of Europe, irrespective of the Member State concerned. Since the EU's fundamental values are tolerance, openness and freedom, I am pleased that the newly elected President of the Commission has made it clear today that he is going to appoint a commissioner whose portfolio will encompass precisely these issues of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
It is particularly regrettable that a country such as Lithuania - which once experienced repression and dictatorship - has now, as a free and independent state, instigated a law so despicable and which represents censorship, lack of freedom and intolerance. All of us who support democratic principles and have any common sense must now emphatically denounce this Lithuanian law, and we must vote tomorrow. Let the Members of this House remind each other that the greatest of all is love.
Anna Záborská
(SK) In 2006, Slovakia was condemned for asking for freedom of conscience. Today Lithuania finds itself in front of this community because it wants to protect children from the sexualisation of society. I consider this discussion to be a manipulation of the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights, a document which is legally binding.
This House is ignoring the legitimacy of a national parliament which has twice voted through the law without criticism. This House is requesting an opinion from the Human Rights Agency. The Agency, however, does not have the authority to examine the effect of national laws. I have a question: what must the Irish be thinking ahead of the forthcoming referendum? They must be thinking that the time will soon come when they will be criticised here in this House over their laws protecting the family and protecting life.
I am sorry that here in this esteemed Parliament, we fail to respect European values, we fail to respect diversity and national culture and we fail to respect child protection and the right of parents to educate their children.
Cecilia Malmström
Madam President, I think the three institutions have made their viewpoint in this debate very clear. Respect for human rights, tolerance, the inviolability of the individual and the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of - among other things - sexual orientation are fundamental values of the European project and must remain so. The Member States have a duty to respect both these values and the actual laws that apply in these areas within the EU.
The Presidency is greatly concerned about the law in question, but we know that it is also subject to debate and criticism in Lithuania. As has been mentioned, President Grybauskait- who was formerly a Commissioner and is well-informed concerning the values and laws of the EU - has herself initiated a process in which this law will be reviewed and made compatible with EU legislation. I am extremely pleased that the Commission has been so clear about what will happen if, contrary to expectation, the law enters into force in its original form.
Jacques Barrot
Madam President, I fully agree with the Minister's conclusions. I would also just hope that the working group that Mrs Grybauskaithas put in place will be able to prevent the introduction of a law which, in some respects, would be at odds with European law.
I would like to stress one point: we feared that some of the provisions of the law would go against certain directives, on audiovisual services and on electronic commerce. It is not actually our job to determine family law, which is one of the competences of the Member States. This being so, everything that has been said previously and in the course of the debate shows that matters need to be assessed better at national level, in this case in Lithuania.
President
At the conclusion of this debate I have received five motions for resolutions tabled in accordance with Rule 115 of the Rules of Procedure.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow, Thursday 17 September 2009.
Written statements (Rule 149)
Carlo Casini
My judgment on the motion for a resolution on the protection of minors in Lithuania is intended to demonstrate a very serious institutional concern. Often, individual MEPs or political groups claim to address issues that relate to the domestic policy of individual States: that does not seem right. In the case in point, the plan is seemingly to make the European Parliament express an essentially negative opinion on a Lithuanian law - the full content of which is unknown - with the laudable aim of protecting minors, while surreptitiously imposing a position that the individual Member States have been left to establish at their own discretion. This, I might add, is something which the European Court of Human Rights has stipulated on many occasions. The principle of equality is beyond doubt, and no one is trying to call into question the dignity of persons with particular sexual orientations. My reservation is of an institutional nature because it concerns the relations between the European Union and individual Member States.
Joanna Senyszyn
Discrimination is prohibited under European and international law. There are provisions to this effect in the treaties, the European Convention on Human Rights and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. No Member State may enact laws that contradict these documents.
The Lithuanian law is inadmissible, as it is absurd and homophobic in nature. Homophobia is a disease. People who are afflicted by hatred for homosexuals deserve no sympathy. They are not so much homophobes, as sexual orientation chauvinists. And like all other chauvinists, they must be challenged and appropriate laws enacted against them.
In 1990, the World Health Organisation removed homosexuality from the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Health Problems. It also confirmed that no type of sexual orientation is a disorder.
In any societies, including Lithuanian society, there are lesbians, gays and bisexual. They make up about 4 to 7% of the population. They are a minority who are entitled to full rights. The Equality Marches, which cause such concern to some people, are organised, amongst other reasons, to remind people of this basic, fundamental principle of equality.
For this reason, I appeal to the Council and the Presidency to take appropriate steps to prevent Member States from enacting discriminatory legislation. We must show that the European Union says a firm NO to all discrimination and intolerance.