kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
two thousand and fourteen human rights defenders intellectuals journalists and civil society activists continue to be victims of this horrible crisis and so is the two thousand and eleven sakharov prize winner razan zaitouneh who was kidnapped together with her husband and two other human rights activists more than four months ago.
a negotiated peace will require buy in from all stakeholders including iran the gulf states and russia and it should lead to a society where all syrians can live freely.
the assad regime has used sectarian polarisation as a survival strategy so may we ourselves be careful not to fall into the trap of emphasising differences in the plight of one minority over another.
we call for her release.
let us stand united in recognising that the rights of minorities are inextricably linked to the upholding of other fundamental human rights and freedoms such as the right to liberty security and equality and the right to freedom of expression.
two five million syrian refugees in neighbouring countries and no end in sight for this horrible war what more do we need to be convinced about?
with more than one hundred and fifty thousand people killed more than.
may the contrast between the horrors on the ground and the lack of members in this house for every human rights resolution debate be a wake up call to all of us and a reminder of how much more the eu can and must do to protect human rights.
mr president the plight of minorities and refugees in syria is indeed terrible but who have they fled from?
i went to syria twice last summer and wrote the letter that the syrian government sent to help sway the uk parliament's vote against a bombing campaign that would have killed and displaced even more innocent victims.
while i was there i met christian alawite and muslim refugees. i can tell you that huge numbers of them have been forced from their homes by the same jihadi rebel terrorists that the eu has done so much to help.
as you know the european union is very committed to the protection of whales and has put in place legislation that ensures a high level of protection in this regard.
based on this strong will to conserve whales last year the council adopted a decision on the eu position for the next three annual meetings of the international whaling commission.
the european union is encouraged by the current efforts to break the long standing deadlock within the iwc.
the eu is assessing proposals such as the current iwc chair's compromise and commissioner potonik who is in charge of the assessment will inform you accordingly in due course.
however we cannot accept a final compromise unless this paves the way for a truly effective regulatory framework of the conservation and management of whales a framework that would guarantee a significant improvement in their status in the long term.
this means ensuring unity in external representation and sincere cooperation among the member states of the european union. madam president honourable members i can assure you that the european union will work constructively in the international whaling commission
so the eu calls for effective protection of whales worldwide and in this respect we still view the iwc as an instrument to achieve this objective at global level.
the priority issue in relation to this forthcoming meeting of the international whaling commission is to find a solution for the future of the iwc.
we already have a problem in the mercury negotiations and i think we have to resolve these problems in time.
i would like some clarity on media reports about the council's position.
could you clarify the exact position and tell us how close we are to having a common position for these crucial negotiations?
it is not good enough to see the eu abstaining like this. it does not do much for our credibility if that is the case.
it would be a terrible shame if the eu could not find a common position. if we cannot find a common position on whaling how on earth are we going to find common positions on other major international issues?
will we ensure that the southern ocean whale sanctuary is just that a sanctuary for whales and will we rigorously defend the moratorium on commercial whaling?
however i would like to press the commissioner and the council on what are our specific red lines.
for example will we ensure that the endangered species of fin and sei whales are actually absolutely protected?
the gunners themselves admit that if whales could scream the industry would stop for nobody would be able to stand it.
i must stress that i am appalled that my own home country sweden has been pushing for this compromise and i want to bring to your attention the fatal weaknesses of any of the compromises that have been discussed.
and last but not least that any additional cost for monitoring control and enhancement are met by whaling nations.
and it is threatening our biodiversity.
the british were once heavily involved but have consigned the mistake to a previous century. if the uk is stopped by the eu from voting against this while the japanese and others murder these beautiful sensitive and intelligent mammals the uk public will vote to leave the eu in uncontrollable anger.
it will be the kiss of death for britain's membership of the eu.
i would like to thank you because i have understood that all the remarks agree we have to keep the moratorium on commercial whaling and we will do that.
we will not accept a compromise that cannot secure this option. we cannot accept a framework that would not guarantee a significant improvement of the status of whales in the long term.
we have not reached a common position yet and we have to respect the decision of the council.
we have to discuss more and we are doing our best.
i have no enthusiasm for whaling and i would like to see the moratorium on commercial whaling retained for as long as the species or some of the species are endangered.
however i recognise that for some european countries including denmark and iceland and iceland is hoping to be a candidate to join our union shortly whaling is so much more than a mere commercial activity. it is central to these countries' identity culture and heritage. bull fighting continues lawfully in the european union and this is a so called sport. at least no one can say that whaling is pursued as a sport.
if whaling is to resume officially or continue for scientific research or so called scientific research outside of the moratorium we should at least insist on strict regulation and on the type of whale being hunted because obviously some are more abundant in the oceans than others and catch limits must be strictly enforced.
we must also insist on whaling vessels using more rapid more humane and efficient ways of killing that minimise the distress of these magnificent cetaceans.
as a member of a reformist group the ecr i am inclined to respect the right of sovereign states to hunt whales for food although this should not prevent me and others who care about animal welfare from lobbying those countries to stop it.
i believe this proposal would trigger legal uncertainty by creating an additional legal regime next to the legal regimes of the member states and raises questions of subsidiarity.
there is a reason why the consumer rights organisation in the uk is warning us about this proposal and we have had it confirmed in the chamber this morning that their concerns are justified.
i believe that the optional instrument is far from optional when the power to use it rests not with the consumer but with the trader or the business involved. this proposal undermines the level of consumer protection in scotland and the rest of the uk and therefore i will be voting against.
in her remarks ms reding said this would benefit small businesses because they would not have to deal with twenty eight legal systems.
i would love to know whether you two had a conversation about this because what you are saying is completely contradictory.
we are not proposing to simplify the law but to add a new twenty nine th regime into the eu.
it will reduce consumer confidence and i am left asking why we are debating this issue at all.
the answer is of course that it will be the business that chooses.
mr zwiefka says oh no the consumer will be able to choose whether to use it. will he?
unfortunately she supports it just because it introduces a new body of european law and in her rather strange view of the world anything that increase the power of the eu at the expense of the member states however flawed it is must be a good thing no matter that consumers and businesses are against it.
you cannot both be right on this subject.
how will he be able to choose it if according to ms reding that small business will not have to deal with twenty eight systems?
my group will vote against this proposal and i know that there are large numbers in the epp and the sd who will support ms gebhardt's motion to reject this proposal.
what will happen is that there will be a little box that you have to tick and if you do not tick it you will not be able to complete the transaction.
does that sound optional to you for the consumer?
i fear that this proposal will undermine and fragment the single market.
cesl is an optional instrument for e commerce but it will be for businesses to decide when it applies not consumers.
i think the answer is in this chamber the answer is ms reding because this is a vanity project.
just one single law and one single it platform to sell the products throughout the european union;
now they will have a real deal one that means they can compare offers select the best order it from anywhere in europe with the click of a mouse button. and they will be well protected when they buy cross border. and that is exactly
well we give them the certainty that their rights will be preserved.
cross border e commerce because they are not sure that their rights are going to be preserved.
we need to keep up the prospect of real benefits for both in these negotiations.
if they do not want it they do not choose it.
the businesses have benefits. one of the reasons why i have been constantly against the idea of transforming the optional common european sales law into a minimum harmonisation directive is exactly that one because such an approach would mean a change of national laws and we do not need to change the national laws.
the proposed level of consumer protection is equal to or higher than the existing eu harmonised rules.
we would have less protection and we would have more red tape.
we do not need red tape we need to eliminate red tape.
let us give our consumers a guarantee of real tangible protection when they shop cross border and let us finally bring back trust to consumers buying cross border is not a risk i am protected as a consumer.
they should be ready to choose. so let us provide these new business opportunities;
it is at least at the same level if not higher and it is of an optional nature.
choice is at the centre of what we are doing here choice for businesses choice for consumers.
it is comparable to and higher than almost all non harmonised areas of national law.
it would require all businesses to adapt to new legal requirements.
that is why for the first time we have chosen a very new way of going ahead leaving the national law in place;
the core of the common european sales law the guarantee of consumer protection.
going to a harmonisation directive would mean the opposite of what we do here.
we hope that this will lead to a bigger exchange of goods across borders and create jobs in this movement.
that is a win win situation for businesses and consumers alike in their cross border dealings. we really hope with this that we will break through this wall the real wall which exists today because neither businesses nor consumers trust
the consumers have benefits;
for our consumers there are undeniable advantages to shopping cross border online. they do not do it today because they are mistrustful about what is happening when they are shopping on the other side of the border.
a whole new continent of business opportunities mostly for our small businesses mostly for our start ups.
mr president honourable members the common european sales law is meant to allow businesses and consumers to choose a single set of contract tools
no more legal fees to adapt contracts to different rules;
let me start with businesses and in particular small and medium sized businesses.
twice the length of the uk sale of goods act it is a minor masterpiece of legislative flatulence which will benefit only lawyers. it is voluntary for the uk at the moment but on past form our british consumers will eventually be deprived of the tried and tested benefits of english law
mark my words uk electors have had enough of this.
every out of touch arrogant utterance from you gains the uk independence party an extra mep.
one thing which we can be sure of and which i predict now is that we shall have a very different parliament in may which would vote down this arrogant out of touch useless piece of legislation which actually comes out of a commission which acts against the interests of the people and not with them.
every day in britain millions of people and thousands of businesses buy and sell under contracts governed by the sale of goods act.
now along comes the commission in its self absorbed wisdom proffering a common european sales law.
and our government will be powerless.
but i do not think that the issue of consumer rights is probably the biggest obstacle to cross border trade. i suspect it is an issue of language.
i suspect that language is the biggest single obstacle to cross border selling.
consumers will not use a website in another country unless it talks to them in their own language and i would have thought that businesses that want to sell to consumers across the eu have to have websites in twenty four different languages.
so we go from thirty days to two years. i do not believe that this is a reduction of the right of the consumer who always has the right under national law to buy at the shop next door.
in the uk a consumer has under british law the right to return a product thirty days after delivery.
but if the consumer wants to buy cross border then he has a guarantee that his consumer rights will be very highly protected if he does so as a choice of course. there is a question which has been raised by the two rapporteurs and this
only. if that is the wish of the parliament and the council in negotiations i will not oppose it.
new law because they know that they face many problems in selling across borders. concerning consumer protection in the same country i will give you just one example and this concerns the free choice of remedies in case of defective products.
i hear a great deal of it from your side of the chamber on occasion and i think that a little bit of humility on all sides would better serve politics.
what he described was a rip off' when buying goods online within the european union delivered into ireland.
can you explain how this will improve consumer confidence?
for example a german consumer buying something over the internet in the united kingdom will enjoy a lower level of consumer protection if the business decides to use this optional instrument and contrary to what mr nbsp zwiefka said earlier it is not for both parties to agree;
it is the business that decides not the consumer.
i have to say what i thought you said was completely flawed.
from the alde from the greens from the ecr and never not at all from us.
much of the system is already operational and works well so far.
these developments do not just affect the euro zone as i have said and we believe that this will bring benefits to consumers businesses and banks including for my country which is outside of the eurozone and will remain outside of the eurozone.
the latest developments will in theory make the country in which a bank account is held immaterial in future and so ultimately will mean that there can be a great deal more competition between banks and businesses throughout the european union.
although i am still to be convinced of the need for a new eu institution to be tasked with data collection and exchange of good practice i am prepared to support this initiative so long as it will provide a robust and efficient method to deal with infringements of intellectual property rights in the internal market.
this seems a necessary move by the eu to ensure that intellectual property rights are well protected and that best practice for the enforcement and harmonising of these intellectual property rights is delivered for businesses operating in the eu as a whole.
i voted alongside my group the ecr in favour of the report on the office for harmonisation in the internal market.
we believe that the formal establishment of a european observatory for infringements of intellectual property rights is an important step towards fighting counterfeiting and piracy. this observatory will also promote the sharing of good practices in many areas and will be able to collect a wide pool of data.
the existing system of having separate national regional business registers has proved quite cumbersome over the years and has often seen a great variance in the type and quality of data being stored.
this can make it difficult to interpret for businesses hoping to engage in cross border trades as data cannot always be relied upon.
the proposal to create a single eu register for businesses to provide a platform where companies themselves can access information on other eu companies thus facilitating cross border trade is one that i can support.
it could potentially save time and money for european businesses as trading partner information would be accessible in a more efficient and timely manner.
importantly this proposal needs to ensure no additional burden of red tape is placed on our companies whilst facilitating the overarching objective of completing the single market.
mr president i too voted alongside my group the ecr in favour of the report on the interconnection of central commercial and companies' registers.
the commission will continue to remind member states of their obligations under eu law and will keep fighting homophobia and promoting equality for lgbt people in the european union within the limits of its competencies.
the commission is therefore addressing this issue by including good practices within the european portal for action on health inequalities and working with the member states and also at global level putting the health and well being of lgbt people in the agenda of the world health organisation. the commission is also supporting dialogue within the world health organisation to depathologise' transgender and remove
homophobia and transphobia are indeed violations of human dignity and are incompatible with the values and principles upon which the european union is founded.
providing legal protection and special assistance to victims of homophobic and transphobic discrimination and crime is more likely to have a direct positive impact on the lgbt community than the development of a roadmap.
the commission is aware of the problems faced by lgbt people in europe including discrimination violence and harassment and reiterates its commitment to fight discrimination within the limits of its competencies.
also with its proposal of an equal treatment directive the commission is insisting on extending the scope of protection from discrimination on all the grounds foreseen under article nineteen of the treaty including sexual orientation beyond the workplace for instance to include access to goods and services
the commission's assistance to and monitoring of member states' implementation of relevant legislation for lgbt people such as the employment directive or the directive on victims of crime is another example of action bringing real benefits to lgbt people.
it from the category of mental disorders used in the international classification of diseases.
lack of access to prevention and health care services and inadequate treatment are frequently a consequence of stigma and discrimination and often result in health inequalities for lgbt people.
the commission has been providing financial assistance publications and peer learning.
would you want them to be afraid to tell their colleagues at the office on a monday morning who they went to the movies with on sunday night?
i guess not.
it might be a coincidence or it might not be a coincidence. such resistance to a report that basically talks about the right of people to love and to live their lives without fear is something i did not expect and that is why i would like to start my explanation and presentation of this report by addressing especially those of you here in the chamber who have this resistance against this report.
the right to go to school without being bullied?
cited in this report that would give a privilege to lgbt people.
my report says that we must act on this.
the commission has not done so yet.
the right not to be fired from a job because of who you share your life with? the european union has strategies to combat discrimination against roma people discrimination against people with disabilities.
that. this report tells the commission this commission and the next and it tells us in this year's election campaign that we have to work on fighting fear on making sure that people who are harassed or attacked because they are lesbian or gay will go to the police that they will have police officers there who understand what the problem is and that they are not harassed again.
to make sure that lesbians and gays bisexual and transgender people in this european union can live their lives free from fear and discrimination accepted and respected in their private and public lives as citizens of this our common european union. this is not about special rights which some are claiming in these e mails i and many of you have been getting. no colleagues it is not about special rights it is not about privileges no way!
the right not to be considered mentally ill?
' you know that is what this report is about.
this report does not call for special rights and i would like to challenge anyone in this chamber to mention just one right just one!
i would like to ask you would you want your daughter or your son your brother or your sister to be afraid to walk hand in hand with their loved ones in the street?
i guess you would tell those friends well please speak to me why are you afraid?
or would you want any friend of yours to be afraid to tell you that he has fallen in love with a man or that she has fallen in love with a woman?
when the iona institute campaigns against gay marriage because it is gay' marriage that is homophobia.
when john waters says that gay marriage is a kind of satire that is homophobia.
madam president like the other meps i have been inundated with e mails claiming that this report represents an attack on the freedom of speech because it condemns homophobia.
it is an attack by the right wing conservative forces in ireland acceded to by rte and designed to censor debate in advance of a likely referendum on marriage equality.
when breda o'brien says that equality must take second place to the common good that is homophobia.
this is deeply ironic because in ireland at the moment you have a real attack on the freedom of speech.
the opposition to this report is proof that we need to take action to combat hatred and discrimination. the intolerance shown is terrifying in this the twenty first century.
i urge the house not to throw away what generations have fought for and continue to fight for.
let me finish simply on this.
why should not lgbti people be afforded equal rights not preferential rights but equal rights?
my voters expect me to be principled and courageous and to do the right thing and i will vote in favour of the lunacek report because either we are as a society equal and civilised or we are not.
but a civilised society is judged by how it treats its minorities and in this respect twenty eight countries of the eu are severely lacking.
mr president it could be said that human trafficking is the modern example despicable as it is of man's inhumanity to man or perhaps man's inhumanity to woman and child because it is nearly always women and children who are