GwendalTsang/DEFT09-parquet huggingface dataset:
It was suggested earlier that the war in Chechnya is linked with the war on terror. I wish to make it very clear that I believe that what Russia is doing in Chechnya is not a war on terror, but that it is actually giving rise to terrorism. We need to be quite clear that Yelena Bonner, Andrei Sakharov's widow, is right when she says that what is happening in Chechnya is genocide. I shall not mince my words – I believe that this is a colonial war driven by the energy interests of Gazprom and others. That is what it is really about. So it is vital that we should not deceive ourselves. Many well-regarded international human rights organisations came to the conclusion that the so-called referendum was a total sham. Convenient partners for bogus peace talks have been created. The OSCE has already observed elections in Chechnya. There has already been peace in Chechnya once. Mr Mashadov was democratically elected in the presence of OSCE observers, so why are we not negotiating with him? Why has he been forced to go underground? This has happened precisely because he represents his people and is not a puppet. This will not lead to peace, Mr President-in-Office, so the basic presumptions underlying this debate are utterly false. Choosing puppets as your partners in talks has never been effective and has never led to peace. I would therefore like to make one point very clear: what I regard as being dishonest about this debate and about many of the speeches we have heard – including speeches made by Mr Putin, who used Chechnya as the bloodiest election platform in history in order to come to power – is the word ‘normalisation’. When was the last time we heard about ‘normalisation’? It was in 1968, when the national uprising by the Czech and Slovak peoples was put down. That is not the sort of normalisation we want! (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, in the original paper in English, the Commission uses the words ‘information society’ and not ‘knowledge society’. These are two different things. Information is only a raw material of knowledge. Information is chaos, while knowledge is order: order out of chaos. The information society is the chaos society. The knowledge society is more than that, and it may also be a society of social order, cultural diversity and human solidarity. The information society has to date made its presence felt in the form of price quotations on a chaotic stock market. The prices of shares in technology have risen in a such a way which cannot be justified economically. Neither has the money often gone into new investment for business but to the owners, who have become millionaires and billionaires. In that way the information society emerges as a bubble economy, a symbol of social inequality and imbalance. The information society has been a matter of millionaires causing a social revolution: they have innovatively destroyed the old structures of society. Their revolution has been to sell computers and software to everyone. The rest of us should start a counter-revolution. We should set our aims higher than the Commission has done. We have to demand a knowledge society for all rather than the chaotic information society we are getting. It cannot just be a question of whether everyone has a mobile phone, how e-mail gets sent and what to buy over the Internet. At its best the knowledge society can be a social dimension of the new capitalism. The information society for all is too undemanding, too commercial and too culturally restricted a goal. We should want a knowledge society for all: that is democracy.

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, on behalf of the Group, I can say we will be supporting this compromise text on the situation in Burundi. We were all shocked by the brutal murder of Monsignor Michael Courtney – the Apostolic Nuncio, and a man who had been playing a key part in the peace process in Burundi – in a road ambush on 29 December 2003. All the indications are that he was murdered by Agathon Rwasa's rebel FLN. Despite the murder, we welcome the fact that the FLN has now expressed for the first time a willingness to engage and meet with the President of the Republic with a view to opening peace negotiations. Last November saw the peace process gather momentum, with the signing, on 16 November, of a peace agreement between the transitional government of Burundi and the Forces for Defence of Democracy movement. Yet fighting is still going on in several provinces, especially in rural Bujumbura. The UN Secretary-General has rightly said that the Burundians must experience an improvement in their living conditions if this peace process is not to be jeopardised. The human rights situation continues to get worse, and so we urge the African Union and its Member States to exert every possible pressure on the FLN with a view to bringing them to the negotiating table in an attempt to seek a peaceful political settlement. We call on the UN Security Council to consider the rapid constitution and deployment of a UN peacekeeping operation to support the peace process at this crucial moment and to strengthen and complement the African Union's peacekeeping mission, which has already been deployed. We also call on all states participating at the Donor Conference for Burundi to make sure there are sufficient funds for human rights promotion and protection.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, we have just spoken at length about transparency in relations between the Commission and Parliament. I think that we also need transparency in our debates. Consequently, before an important vote such as that which are about to take, we must not be under any illusions as to what is at stake. I should like, if you will allow me, to make two basic comments. First, the Echelon system was treated somewhat tritely in a number of parallel discussions, including at the Conference of Presidents. It was said that surveillance took place anyway, it was even added, some even said that it was important to have surveillance systems in order to track down serious criminals. This is undoubtedly true, but surveillance must take place within a legal framework first of all, which is not the case with Echelon. Finally, an important distinction needs to be made: Echelon is, in fact, a surveillance system which targets not specific communications but all communications and data transfers. Consequently, all communications are intercepted and then analysed by super-computers and classified on the basis of a lexicon of key words. This global bugging strategy clearly infringes the confidentiality of private communications and, as such, violates the Treaty and directives ...

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, I would like to congratulate Mr Blokland on his report. The particular issue I would like to focus on is recovery. A number of people have referred to the European Court judgment. It is long overdue for the Commission to clarify exactly what 'recovery' is, because it is an issue that crosses into the packaging directives and a number of other EU directives as well. It does not take a genius to work out that recovery does not mean incinerating waste. This is an appalling waste of resources. We should not allow Member States to move in that direction, particularly those that do not have incineration at the moment. I am speaking in particular about my own Member State, which would like to have the opportunity to build incinerators. When one considers the lobbying regarding the Blokland report, a lot of it is from people who operate incinerators and want to ensure that they remain economically viable. It is quite clear that if incineration is allowed to be classified as recovery, then there is an incentive to burn and dispose in this way and that creates a disincentive for governments to get their act together. This is a very bad example to set to other Member States joining the European Union. In my own country in particular, the Irish Government looks for derogations right, left and centre, despite the fact that it has made no effort whatsoever to provide the public in Ireland with the possibility to have effective recycling possibilities or to create recycling industries. We are throwing away a large amount of jobs by allowing the waste to be burned. This is not an economical way of dealing with waste in the long-term nor it is good for the environment or public health.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it could perhaps be said quite simply that witch-hunting has started up once again in Egypt, since a number of writers and artists are now being censured and their basic rights are being threatened, One example of basic rights might include the one laid down in Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights for which we have just voted, protecting individuals’ private lives. If Mrs El Saadawi is found guilty of apostasy, she will have to divorce, which is a violation of her private life. We could go down that road, but first of all, we should talk about her, because in 1972, this woman was brave enough to condemn female ‘circumcision’. This was thirty years ago, at a time when making such a condemnation was no easy matter, especially if you were from one of the countries in which this is practised. Since then, Mrs El Saadawi has ceaselessly pursued her feminist struggle, in newspapers, articles, books and by maintaining a considerable public presence. We are fully aware, then, of who this woman is. In treating her as she is being treated today, a lack of respect is being demonstrated to all her commitment. Perhaps we should focus on the fact that the prosecution is now recommending that the charges against her be dropped. As Mr Dupuis has just said, her trial will take place next week, but perhaps under international pressure – and I thank Mrs Bonino for having made this appeal, which I myself signed – Egypt will, as we hope, reconsider its decision. I would nevertheless remind you that divorce... (The President cut the speaker off)

Political group: GUE-NGL
Mr President, Mr Duisenberg, Mr Solbes, I share the satisfaction Mr Radwan expressed in his report regarding the importance of the objective of maintaining price stability, which the Central Bank achieved by bringing the rate of inflation in the euro area down to minimal levels. Furthermore, I share the rapporteur’s satisfaction in noting that the ECB has stood by its commitment to publish information regularly on the financial variables in its possession, the economic forecasts and the econometric models used as the theoretical basis for the monetary policy it has implemented. It is important that the principle of transparency is affirmed and it is a good thing that the ECB has set communication standards which could be an excellent point of reference for the activity of the central banks of the individual countries. However, let us guard against interpreting the principle expressed in Article 105 of the Treaty too freely, for Article 108 reads: “When exercising the powers and carrying out the tasks and duties conferred upon them by this Treaty and the Statute of the ESCB, neither the ECB, nor a national central bank, nor any member of their decision-making bodies shall seek or take instructions from Community institutions or bodies, ... or from any other body.” The monetary policy is certainly a lever which is capable of determining a country’s economic performance, for better or for worse, but it is for this very reason that we must not give the ECB responsibilities which cannot fall within its remit, either under the Treaty or in the light of the basic rules of economic policy. The poor development of the macroeconomic variables in some of the countries of the euro area has been linked, very superficially but incorrectly, to the creation of the single currency: imbalances and unfavourable trends in some countries cannot be blamed upon the euro and still less upon the Central Bank’s monetary policy, but they can be attributed to the absence of an unambiguous economic policy in Euroland and the lack of structural reforms at the level of the individual national systems. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, first of all, I would like to thank Mr Vander Taelen for the excellent work he has done and for his constructive approach to this report. Today, we find ourselves faced with a terrible paradox. Europe produces more films than the United States, and these are often of a very high quality, but the market share of European films has never been this low before, it stands at 22%, whereas films from the United States take 73.7% of the European market. Furthermore, European films secure only 26% of their box office takings from sources outside the country where they were produced. These are just some observations. This is a good report because it does not limit itself to providing an analysis of how things stand. It tackles the very reasons why the European film industry is weak, namely, its capacity for development and distribution. In order to render the European film industry more competitive, the rapporteur makes very specific proposals which, in my view, are excellent. Of course, and I agree with him, we must urgently adopt an ambitious multiannual plan to improve the competitiveness of the European film industry and to strengthen the transnational distribution structures for European films. We must develop research into digital film distribution and projection techniques; we must promote the creation of a European Heritage Foundation and perform a feasibility study of ‘interconnecting’ support funds of Member States so as to increase the sources of financing. Of course, when revising the ‘Television Without Frontiers’ Directive, we must ensure that we include a requirement for television broadcasters to invest a certain amount in the European film industry, and the obligation to promote and broadcast European films. This should also be an opportunity for Member States, which do not yet benefit from them, to consider the appropriate fiscal incentives. I therefore hope that the Commission, as well as the Council, understand the challenges we are faced with, and that they take appropriate action. Today, we are debating something that is not only a major challenge in terms of the economy, but also something that is an integral part of the European Union, in other words, culture, creation and identity. That is why this is so urgent.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, on the basis of previous information I had written that there was still 13 000 tonnes on board the wreck. Yesterday I spoke to the people who are trying to bring this oil up to the surface, and they told me that there was still 14 000 tonnes in the wreck. I would therefore like to amend these two figures. (Parliament adopted the resolution) *** President. That concludes the vote. EXPLANATIONS OF VOTE - Report dell'Alba (A5-0283/2003)

Political group: ELDR
Blokland rightly raises serious concerns regarding waste disposal, including incineration. Coming from a country with over 90% landfill use, I face the conclusion that properly controlled incineration is both necessary and inevitable. Commitment by the Irish Government to serious recycling and separation of waste is far from evident. Separation of waste, including use of organic waste for composting, must be a priority in any waste strategy.

Political group: PPE-DE
Mr President, there is no need for me, or for any of the Spanish MEPs, to say we are against this type of practice and against all types of violence. But I must say, Mr President, that this is happening within a context in which millions of Spaniards are demonstrating against the war and in which the Spanish Government of Mr Aznar is comparing States such as France and Germany ... (Protests) ... with Saddam Hussein, in the Congress of Deputies. Just yesterday he described the States who are against the war as allies of China and Russia, rather than saying that this is a European position which is opposed to that of the United Kingdom and Spain. (Applause)

Political group: Verts-ALE
We welcome the trend whereby the European Union is setting aside the traditional fisheries agreements in favour of new fisheries partnership agreements with third countries. The old fisheries agreements were insufficiently generous towards countries that transferred fishing rights to the EU. The new partnership will hopefully lead partly to more sustainable fisheries that take account of third countries’ local needs and partly to these countries’ having the opportunity in the future to exercise control over their fisheries themselves.

Political group: PSE
Madam President, It was a deplorable feature of the document to which Mrs Gebhardt's report responded that, as I said in the explanatory statement, Parliament commented in detail on the protection of individual rights, which did not feature at all in the Council text. It seems to me that every step that we take and justifiably take in this direction must be, at the same time, one which recognises in the highest degree protection of the rights of the defence and of the rights of persons accused of crime in all parts of the Union. This should not become a way of achieving a lowest common factor of protection. It must be the case that at all points people involved in criminal processes achieve the highest level of respect for their rights of defence. May I remark that the provision on national representatives allows for substitutes? I hope that the United Kingdom in appointing persons will take note of the fact there are two distinct systems of criminal justice in the UK.

Political group: Verts-ALE
Mr President, Commissioners you will be beginning to find our speeches repetitive. Great: in a multi-national and cross-party body, that means our message will get through. We all agree, for example, that energy is the largest contributor by far to the emission of greenhouse gases. Some of us think that nuclear energy is expensive, outdated, potentially dangerous and no solution at all to energy problems. But we all agree that transport is the key energy problem: fossil fuels must be replaced by alternatives, and very soon. How? We agree that renewable energy and energy efficiency are key solutions. This was recognised in Johannesburg, but unfortunately, only to a limited extent. However, we should act quickly on this through the EU. Remember that the key role of energy in poverty alleviation was recognised at Johannesburg, and that the new EU programme, COOPENER, on renewable energy and energy efficiency in the developing world, will help to access some of the funding which will be available, this programme is important. There is, incidentally, a very strong gender implication to the provision of energy, because of the tasks of women throughout the developing world. The failure to achieve targets for renewable energy – a failure for which the United States, to their shame, are largely responsible – can be overcome with goodwill and effort from the European Union. On the matter of implementation: Carrying suitcases from summit to summit does nothing. It is what happens in between the summits that matters, and I urge you, Commissioners, to use your legislative powers and your monitoring ability to ensure that what was said at Johannesburg, even if it is not enough, is carried through. IN THE CHAIR: MR DAVID MARTINVice-President

Political group: PSE
Our colleague, Thomas Mann, has invested a great deal of work in a report on the proposal for a Council directive establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation. His report was adopted unanimously in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. However, we then had 13 improvement amendments to consider, in addition to the 60 contained in the Mann report on the directive proposed by the Commission. There is a saying we would do well not to ignore in our efforts to amend the Commission proposals, which are actually well thought through as a rule, and this is how it goes ‘what is better is the enemy of what is good’. That is only common sense in fact. One could not help but wonder if common sense had always prevailed in the drafting of certain, no doubt well-meaning, proposed amendments that were now before us. If the directive is to be adopted and implemented, it must not be encumbered with a literary approach and wishful thinking, which have no place in a legal document. That is most certainly true of the amendment which proposes that this directive should end the sexually discriminatory practice of stipulating that only male personnel can wear a tie. If absurdity could kill then the authors of such an amendment would definitely no longer be with us. I think it is also going too far to expect employers to provide statistics on all aspects of their employment of people falling within the scope of this directive. The authorities already have their work cut out. This brings to mind another sound rule of thumb: ‘no one can achieve the impossible’. I also think that we can do without the entire contents of the new Article 12 (a). The Commission rightly refrained – on the basis of the subsidiarity principle, of course – from instructing the Member States to set up new institutions for monitoring the application of the principle of equal treatment, which could be consulted by every conceivable, and inconceivable, group of people or association etc, requesting free handling of their complaints, and which could even be granted access to confidential personnel files. Despite all the inconsistencies and superfluous proposals, which do nothing to help the cause, I did not want to vote against the report at the final vote. But here too, I feel that ‘less would have been more’, and the Commission proposal, without the superfluous amendments, is the better and more logical instrument for ensuring equal treatment in employment and occupation, which is, after all, what we want.

Political group: PPE-DE
Commissioner Bolkestein, women are not very patient but I will try to be patient and wait for you to come up with proposals which, hopefully, will balance all the interests you have mentioned. I look forward to a thorough discussion and cooperation.

Political group: ELDR
Mr President, the Group of the in this Parliament agrees with the report that Mr Berend has just presented and congratulates the author, both on the quality of his conclusions and on his flexibility, which ensured that the different groups were able to incorporate amendments in committee. It must be remembered that, currently, the European Union’s overall competitiveness is, in general terms, 81% of that of the United States of America and that this figure will only improve if the figure for our competitive units, that is the regions, also improves. Furthermore, this is at a time when technological development, economic globalisation and our problems, which are enlargement and the single currency, demand that the regions, as well as businesses and individuals, make more of an effort to be competitive. The European Commission’s sixth report presents very valuable conclusions. I shall summarise two of those highlighted by the rapporteur, one positive and one negative. The first is that important advances have been made in regional and social cohesion throughout the Union and that the Community Funds have been a major, although not decisive, factor in reducing regional inequalities. The negative conclusion is that the great effort made has been more efficient in harmonising the European regions’ GDP and productivity than in harmonising its levels of unemployment. It is therefore necessary to link structural financing more closely to job creation. This, Commissioner, is the first commandment for the coming period. Thus, Mr President, I ask my fellow Members to approve this report and I ask the Commission, as other speakers have done, to take good note of the conclusions of their sixth periodic report when they address the programming for the period 2000-2006.

Political group: PSE