GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
Mr President, in every part of the world we see examples of violence and cruelty by individuals and sometimes appalling scenes of mob violence and lynch rule. These are horrors which every civilised person, government and judicial system condemns. Some acts of savagery are doubly chilling because they are authorised by people supposedly appointed to administer justice. It is not just in Nigeria, but today we are focusing on Nigeria. The practices carried out there in the name of Sharia law are beyond the pale of any society that calls itself civilised and humane. Stoning for adultery is barbaric; flogging for sex before marriage or alcohol consumption and amputation for theft may be considered excessive. To give judicial approval to a stoning to death by a legal mob cannot be acceptable to the vast majority of Nigerians who are decent and responsible, including their president, and it certainly cannot be acceptable to us. Earlier this year, we saw international pressure helping to put a stop to plans to stone Safiya Husseini to death. Now Amina Lawal faces the same threat of death by torture. Safiya was married at 12 years old and Amina at 14 years old. They lost their childhood and Amina may now lose her life. The young couple Ahmadu Ibrahim and Fatima Usman face the same prospect, as does an older man accused of rape. This punishment is incompatible with the conventions and covenants signed by Nigeria. Tens of thousands of people have written from 110 countries to appeal for clemency in the Amina case. I believe the federal government understands that and indeed the minister of justice has also condemned the verdict. The key is the governor of Katsina state and it is important that the presidency and the Commission and the President of our Parliament add their pleas to those many of us have already sent to Umaru Musa Yar'Adua.

Political group: PPE-DE
In this instance, I ask for a vote on the legislative resolution, in particular because of items 8 and 9, on which we have just voted. In my judgment, it is sufficient if we proceed to examine the Turchi report, but because of items 8 and 9, I would really attach importance to us now actually voting on the resolution. I ask you to vote in favour of it. (Parliament adopted the draft legislative resolution.) Explanation of vote - Turchi Report (A5-0303/2001) and Report (A5-0297/2001):

Political group: PSE
Mr President, there is probably no one here in the Chamber, or outside it, who would say that he does not want to combat this type of criminal activity. I am fully aware that the police and prosecution services long for a framework directive. As politicians, we must nonetheless make an overall assessment and, just as the previous speaker said, balance various interests. I do not like texts that confuse crimes against the individual with crimes against the state. We have had problems along these lines with previous directives dealing specifically with trafficking. Naturally, we need bilateral police cooperation worthy of the name. That, precisely, is one of the problems. Directives do not help, therefore. The majority of the people being dealt with at present are women and children who are being sexually exploited. I cannot support this report because of what I take to be its cynical approach to these people.

Political group: GUE-NGL
I have previously stated in this House how vital the Channel Tunnel link is to industry in Scotland and to the viability of Eurocentral at Motherwell as the northernmost end of a trans-European network. We must get the tunnel open again as a matter of urgency. This resolution could be even stronger but I give it my hearty backing. ***

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the International Conference on Renewable Energy and this resolution, which we will vote on next, respond to a need and a general concern to increase energy sources which are clean and sustainable over time. The European Union has made considerable progress, but much remains to be done. Three years ago, this Parliament approved the Directive on the promotion of renewable electricity sources and, since then, there has been a spectacular increase in the use of such electricity sources. The European Union brings together the majority of the world’s installed capacity. In 2001, there was 17 000 megawatts of wind power installed. Today this figure has doubled. This is just one example of a long list of successes which allow us to export innovative technologies respectful of the environment to other countries. From now on, we will need to achieve greater efficiency which contributes to better management of energy resources. In this regard, I believe that the directives on energy efficiency in buildings and cogeneration will play an important role, as well as the new intelligent energy plan for Europe. I would like the 20% referred to in the motion for a resolution to be achieved, but the method that can contribute most to achieving it is unquestionably improving energy efficiency. The consumption of fuel for transport generates emissions of polluting gases, the immediate effects of which are suffered in the large urban centres. Therefore, the directive for the promotion of biofuels, approved last year, is another of Commissioner de Palacio’s commitments to renewable energies with a view to reducing emissions into the atmosphere. We are already seeing some cities incorporating transport systems using biodiesel, bioethanol and hydrogen. In some cases they are experimental projects, but in others this technology is a reality within our transport systems. These fuels can also be used in mixtures with other conventional fuels in normal cars and, as if this were not enough, hybrid vehicles which operate conventionally and electrically and are the most fuel-efficient are already being marketed. The next step must be technology for the large-scale use of hydrogen. The Commission has already opened a wide debate on this energy vector which will allow us to use forms of transport without emissions. The current legislature is coming to an end, but I am sure that hydrogen will be one of the great subjects of debate in the coming months and all these initiatives can contribute to achieving the most ambitious objectives for renewable energies and, ultimately, for the environment. At a time when OPEC has just approved a reduction in oil production, I would like to end today by calling on the Member States to demonstrate sufficient will to promote these renewable technologies which do not pollute and which come from sources which nature provides us with in abundance, since this will benefit everybody.

Political group: PPE-DE
The report again finds that EU regional policy has failed. There are still huge inequalities in the development of several areas, while the prospects for the poorer Member States are unpropitious. With enlargement, due to the purely statistical approach, numerous areas in the existing Member States risk being excluded from funding. In Greece, for example, four areas will not be funded under the fourth CSF, while another three are on the borderline. These areas account for 75% of the country's population and to date most of them were eligible Objective 1 areas, with acute and increasing social and economic problems which the proposed transitional 'temporary support' will only extend. Greece is a typical example for another reason: the promotion and concentration of resources in certain areas, such as Attica, which exacerbates the wider regional problem of the over-concentration of the population in the towns. At the same time, while there is a great deal of talk about supporting remote areas, the ΕU continues without justification – and despite our repeated proposals – to exempt the Aegean islands from special treatment for remote areas, despite the very serious problems they face. 'Cohesion' and 'increasing levels of development' clash in practice with the policies which preach them, in that these policies serve big business. In practice, only divergence, marginalisation, unemployment and underdevelopment can be created.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we hope that the participants at the Tampere Summit will remember that migratory movements, however relentless, form the basis of the history of humanity and are, in the long-term, the premise for its collective salvation. We also hope that, on this basis, in trying to create a common area of freedom, security and justice, they are inspired by the principles of solidarity and inclusion and are not thinking about creating a European Community that is peaceful and wealthy on the inside but which is impenetrable to those pushing to get in from the outside on account of hunger, war or social difficulties. Internal peace and well-being cannot last long because the nearby countries cannot resign themselves to living with insecurity, need and chaos for long. We would be terrible hypocrites to take up the fight against discrimination, racism, and xenophobia as a founding principle of the European Community and then, in our normal procedure, to implement exclusion policies which heighten the fears of European citizens of being contaminated by people who are different to us. Just how they are different is a consideration we willingly leave to the racists. We would also like the area of freedom, security and justice to aim to increase the guarantees for everyone – be they citizens of the Union or people from other countries – and that it does not stop at declaring formal guarantees but also aims to put substantial guarantees into practice, such as those concerning work, social security, personal freedom, equality between men and women and many others which nowadays are being sacrificed on the altar of competition – global competition – so close to the heart of the Commission and its President. This neoliberalist strategy, a typical exclusion strategy, makes us sceptical even of the Tampere Summit, and we would be naïve to hope that our scepticism will be proved groundless.

Political group: GUE-NGL
The task of achieving equality between men and women is a vital one for the EU, which has an obligation to be proactive in promoting all actions to this end. This excellent report seeks to establish a Community action programme to promote organisations active at European level in the field of equality between men and women. This programme for the period 2004-2005 will have at its disposal some EUR 2.2 million to support such organisations by means of operating grants. The activities of these organisations will make it possible to carry out: – awareness-raising activities and dissemination of information, – actions to promote the reconciliation of private and professional life, and the participation of women in decision-making processes; as well as actions to combat violence against women, gender stereotyping and discrimination in the workplace, – and, lastly, measures to encourage cooperation with women’s organisations in third countries and to raise awareness of women’s issues around the world. I voted in favour of this recommendation for second reading, which is the fruit of a compromise between the Council and Parliament. This provides, on an exceptional basis, for transitional clauses concerning the period of eligibility of expenditure to be introduced in this programme.

Political group: PPE-DE
Can you tell me, as you do not now know, if I will have the opportunity to express my position during this part-session, and if so when?

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, I was part of the delegation which visited Washington last week. I saw the dismay, horror and despair caused by the attack, and I shared and felt this sorrow and despair. I still feel strongly for the families of those still missing. After listening to the debate here, I have put away the script for the speech I had prepared. Instead, I would like to talk about something which has come to me while I have been listening to this discussion. I am deeply concerned both about what has happened and about the reaction caused by the events in the US and in Europe. I am convinced that, at the same time as we ourselves feel the horror of this event, there are millions upon millions of people out there in the world who have actually rejoiced in this act of terrorism. I believe that many poor people in Asia, Africa and other parts of the world have rejoiced. We have read about young people in Palestine celebrating this act of violence. I do not believe they were alone in this, but that there are millions and millions of people out there in the world who have reacted in this way. This fills me with incredible horror and fear, as it means that we are facing a world in which there are millions of potential terrorists and perpetrators of similar outrages. We must begin to ask ourselves whether we are now witnessing a sort of social warfare. Does this bear any relation to colonial uprisings? From my childhood, I remember the Mau Mau uprising, which was described as a terrorist insurrection. We all remember the Vietnam War, for example. Is it a social war which, in one way or another, lies behind recent events or which is being declared through them? In that case, ideas about mass bombings in the Middle East or about preposterous police checks on a huge scale are meaningless. Our only chance, in that case, is a huge policy of transformation and redistribution, a policy which removes the desperation and despair in the world which feed and create terrorism. Otherwise, we shall never be safe, despite carpet-bombing and despite all the security services in the world.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the free movement of workers is one of the most important fundamental European rights. The possibility for workers to move freely is important for both the employees and businesses alike. The free movement of workers ensures competitiveness and the constant growth of the Union at the same time, yet it cannot be detached from the question of social security. In terms of the social security network the acquis communautaire does not permit discrimination between employees on the basis of their nationality. One of the most important objectives of the Union that has now been enlarged to 25 Members is to significantly increase its competitiveness, and by doing so, to keep abreast with its most important challengers, the US and Japan. The Lisbon Strategy that was created in 2000 covers this, and this objective must play a key role in the near future in national legislation and also in the European Parliament. However, we can only implement the Lisbon Strategy successfully if we significantly increase both the rate of employment and the mobility of the workforce. Unfortunately, during the last few months, this quite promising process has run aground, and the voices of those who, on the basis of some irrational fear, want to delay the free movement of workers have become louder. We have all seen the labour market surveys that deal with the expected movement of workers from the ten new Member States. These data show that barely one per cent of those in active employment expect to find employment in other Member States during the next few years. The panic is, therefore, completely unfounded, the new member countries, including Hungary, will of course comply with the provisions of the accession agreement, but rightfully expect that the limitations of the labour market will not be born out of crass prejudice and fear. Provisions made in respect of the stability of individual countries must always be based on specific surveys, and the question of the expected migration of workers from the new Member States must be addressed on an individual basis. We object on principle to the approach that does not differentiate between the new Member States. It is in Europe’s mutual interest to make optimum use of the trained workforce and the strategic advantages offered by the flexibility of the labour market, and on this basis to become the fastest growing region in the world.

Political group: PPE-DE
Madam President, I believe that we must, even today, begin to deal actively with the issues that came to the fore on 1 May. For Europe, new members mean new borders and new neighbours. Among these new countries bordering on Europe for the first time, we find again, after a break of 15 years, a totalitarian country, Belarus, and also Ukraine, where democratic and economic reforms have unfortunately stalled. Next come Moldova and the Transcaucasian republics – all of them are countries with latent conflicts but which have temporarily managed to halt their civil wars. Russia, whose problems we already know, I shall pass over here, since Russia has already been the European Union’s neighbour for nine years. However, as Gary Titley has remarked, she is now in our midst. These countries are all possible conduits of migration; and nobody monitors the people entering their territories. Some of these countries are on the verge of ecological disaster. We can predict that the yawning economic, social, legal and political gulf between the European Union and our new neighbours will continue to widen. The gap is already clearly visible, but in a few years it will have grown significantly. We know what this means, and, believe me, it will become a significantly more important issue than that of the transition period for the free movement of workers. Some here have spoken of the historical and cultural borders of Europe. I warn against it. Eight years ago, in his book, Samuel Huntington drew the border of Europe; this border almost exactly matches the border of today’s enlarged European Union – a thought provoking circumstance. We must not allow such a theoretical geopolitical conception to become a material and political reality. If we do nothing, Huntington’s Europe will, however, come true. We have a choice to make: either we direct significantly more political attention and financial resources to these countries, which is of course very expensive, or, we build a new effective, but un-European and inhumane wall, a great wall of Europe between itself and its new neighbours. In this case Europe’s eastern border will soon resemble the US–Mexico border, together with all the similar problems. Paradoxically this wall will be located in the same countries that 15 years ago suffered due to the wall on their western border. A secure Europe must deal with the issues of its neighbours. It is up to us to decide whether we do so via segregation or assistance. IN THE CHAIR: MRS LALUMIÈREVice-President

Political group: PSE
Mr President, in Doha the EU must show its hand. On which side does the EU really stand in the global North-South conflict? Things are looking quite bad. In spite of the stream of protests from, for example, India and Malaysia, the least developed countries, the G77 group, China and a host of environmental and solidarity movements, the EU intends, together with the United States, to try to play its trump card by making the WTO’s free trade doctrine apply not only to traditional trade but to practically the whole of economic life. According to what Commissioner Lamy said in a statement earlier today, the EU’s main objective is to open the markets of the developing countries to EU companies. When it comes to TRIPS and GATS, too, it is obvious that the EU is on a collision course with the developing countries. In this global struggle, which is more crucial than the fight against terrorism, a number of ‘progressive’ people have believed that the EU could constitute a tool actually to combat neo-liberal globalisation. If the EU does not change its tactics, there is everything to indicate, however, that, when it comes to the crunch, the WTO meeting in Doha will be proof that all the fine declarations of solidarity are being abandoned. It is then that a ‘policy of naked interest’ appears, that is to say, a policy that places the EU alongside the United States and against the majority of the world’s poorer countries.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, in an explanation of vote earlier this week, I said that 'Mother Europe' was taking care of us. Now Mother Europe has a name: Mrs Mary Banotti. I did not give an explanation of vote on the previous report, Mr Posselt's report, because, with all the will in the world, I did not dream of Mr Posselt last night but of Mrs Banotti, and I was enjoying it so much that I slept deeply, so deeply that I arrived late this morning. (Laughter) Effectively, in my opinion, with this document tabled by Mrs Banotti we are doing the very best that is possible for our children and grandchildren.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, I am of course not speaking on behalf of my colleague Mr Sakellariou, but, as he is unable to speak at the moment, it is my turn! Let me get to the point and say that I am thinking of Afghanistan. There, we all joined together in doing our bit in a just cause; we were all glad of the degree of success we achieved in combating terrorism in that country, and there was agreement among ourselves that the people of this earth, be they Muslim or Christian, should not have to be at war with each other. It was precisely for this reason that we succeeded in Afghanistan, for we were able to make it clear to Muslims that it was side by side with Muslims that terrorists had to be fought. The situation in Iraq, though, is quite different. There, we have not yet succeeded in persuading Muslims that a war there is as necessary as it was in Afghanistan, and their scepticism is something I share. While there really are not yet sufficient reasons for it, this war is – unfortunately – a reality. My fear is that, this being so, we will, once this war is over, have to deal with the problem of huge differences of outlook between Muslims and Christians. It is probable that, after the war, much of the work we have been doing for decades will have to be done again. Where some things are concerned, we will have to begin again from the ground up in order to convince Muslims that Christians do not actually have anything against them. Unfortunately, though, it will not be possible to get that point across to the Muslims in Iraq.

Political group: PSE
The EPLP is concerned about a number of points in the report as it currently stands: - On tax we are of the view that Member States should be allowed to level tax at national rates. On salaries the wise persons' report produced a formula that was acceptable to the majority of Member States and MEPs and we see no reason for the unjustified change to a salary which is 50% of that of a European Court Judge. On expenses we firmly believe that the European Parliament has an opportunity to rectify the longstanding anomalies by introducing a system of travel at cost. The report's stance on immunities would require changes to primary law and we feel that this is not the appropriate report in which this should be included. Finally, on the question of the implementation date, the EPLP cannot accept under any circumstances a possible post 2004 implementation date. The EPLP wants to go into the 2004 election campaign with this issue clearly resolved. As the European Parliament has just voted for a date beyond that period we cannot support the final vote on this report.

Political group: PSE