natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Ved hjælp af en juridisk organisering, som alle vore stater godkender: magtadskillelse.
But this is not adequate if the citizens renounce their personal share of freedom and hand over more and more of their responsibilities to a welfare state which says : 'Forget all your worries.
Derfor har debatten i dag, selv om det måske ikke er alle, det behager — et ubestrideligt juridisk grundlag.
So today's debate — pace — has an unimpeachable legal basis.
Undervisningsfrihed er en grundlæggende frihedsrettighed; Fællesskabets stater må respektere den og blive ved at respektere den.
Freedom of education is a fundamental freedom and the States of the Community must respect and continue to respect it.
Jamen, vil man så spørge, hvorfor så denne debat, når alt allerede er sagt?
So, people will say, what is the point of this debate as everything has been said.
Fordi en frihedsrettighed, selv om den er højtideligt proklameret, ikke er andet end blændværk, et blindt vindue, der kun skal tjene ordenes symmetri, hvis der ikke er materielle midler til at udøve den.
Because freedom, even solemnly proclaimed, is only a fake, something added for the sake of appearances, if the material means of exercising it are missing.
For hvis en frihedsrettighed, uanset hvilken vi taler om, er forbeholdt dem, der kan betale for den, er den ikke længere et grundlæggende fælles gode, men bliver til en vare, der sælges til den højest bydende, og det er aldeles uacceptabelt, for den virke lige frihed er lige så uhåndgribelig som vand: man opfatter den kun, man nyder den kun, hvis der er noget at have den i, altså hvis den er defineret.
Because if freedom in any field is only reserved for those who can obtain it, then it stops being a common, fundamental thing and becomes something that is sold to the highest bidder and that is totally unacceptable, because de facto freedom is like water — it can only be seen and enjoyed if it is contained and, therefore, defined.
Uanset den politiske farve, som regeringerne i vore lande har, er situationen den samme og forholdsvis ny.
Whatever the political colour of the governments of our countries, the situation is identical and relatively new.
Selv om visse lande indtager en modvillig hold ning, underskriver vi alle lidt efter lidt en række aftaler, som jeg ville kalde for små Miinchen-aftaler, hvor vi i vid udstrækning giver afkald på vore individuelle rettigheder.
Faced with the States' covert desire to annex powers in this way, we are gradually signing a series of what I would call little Munich agreements — which represent large losses in terms of individual rights.
Sådan mister staten sin natur, hvis hovedmål er at være garant for frihed, sikkerhed og uafhængighed; den er os, den tænker for os, den handler for os, den erstatter os. Når jeg har villet denne debat, er det, fordi den tjener som eksempel.
In this way the State loses its nature, which is to be a fundamental guarantor of freedom, security and independence. It is us, it thinks for us, it acts for us and it replaces us.
Ja, staten er den struktur, som skal sørge for, at vi nyder den fulde frihed til at tro, til at uddanne os, til at igangsætte, til at søge oplysninger, til at leve, kort sagt denne fulde frihed, som — gentager jeg — kræver en hel række konkrete materielle midler.
Yes, the State is the structure we rely on to ensure we have complete freedom of belief, education and enter prise and freedom to be informed and to live. In a word, total freedom, with, I repeat, a whole series of specific material means.
På grund af det beslutningsforslag, som jeg fremsatte i 1981 på min gruppes vegne, har jeg været med i denne debat lige fra begyndelsen.
In view of the motion for a resolution on this subject that I tabled on my group's behalf in 1981, I am behind this debate today.
Nogle — og det sagde man i formiddags — har fra min side set en slags lumsk bagtanke for at spænde ben for de projekter, som den franske regering havde — og for øvrigt stadig har — på dette område, en slags appel til den europæiske samvittighed for at fordømme Frankrigs vildfarelser.
Some people — as was said this morning — saw this as a little trick on my part to interfere with the plans the French Government had and still has in this field, a sort of appeal to the European conscience to condemn France's wanderings.
Andre, og ofte de samme, mener at have følt den ubehagelige lugt af klerikalisme: denne hyldest til friheden skulle blot være et hyklerisk middel til at lade en religiøs magt generobre de sind, som en konfessionsløs uddannelse med så stort held har befriet. ..
Others, often the same people, thought it smacked of clericalism and this hymn tó freedom was only a hypocritical way of enabling a religious power to win back the consciences that a lay education had mercifully freed ...
Det ville være en alvorlig misforståelse af denne debats egentlige betydning at gøre den til nok et eksempel på en fuldkommen ufrugtbar og nytteløs modsætning mellem venstre og højre.
It would be seriously diverting this debate from its true meaning to turn it into yet another example of a completely sterile and pointless opposition of black and white.
Men det er at forstå dens rette betydning, hvis man gør den til udgangspunkt for en vækkelse af den personlige bevidsthed over for de farer, der truer os alle: afgivelse af vor personlige suverænitet til en almægtig stat.
But it is fulfilling it to make it an opportunity for a personal awakening to the dangers threat ening us all — the abandonment of our personal sovereignty to an all-powerful State.
Fjernt fra de traditionelle politiske stridigheder, som alt for ofte splitter vore lande, kan og bør denne forsamling være arnestedet for en sådan debat, og den vil have opfyldt sin mission, hvis den hver dag arbejder for i Europa at opbygge et område præget af et frit og ansvarligt liv, uden for hvilket mennesket ville miste selve sin natur.
This House is outside the traditional political differences that all too often divide our States and it can and must be a forum for a debate of this sort. It will fulfil its mission if, day after day, it builds this area of free and responsible life without which man would lose his very nature.
Det er at gøre mig ringe ære, tillad mig at sige det, at tro, at jeg er så dum og så bedragerisk.
If you will allow me to say so, it is doing me little credit to think I am as stupid and as dishonest as that.
Min motivation for at fremsætte dette forslag — og jeg har alle rede haft lejlighed til at sige det her — er som følger:
My reason for tabling this motion — as I have already had the opportunity of saying here — is that the European Community and the countries anxious to join it make up a tiny island of freedom that is lost in the sea of totalitarian systems around it.
Fajardie (S). — (FR) Fru formand, vi er ved kernen af en debat, der både er alvorlig og kompleks. Alvorlig, fordi den måde, vi behandler den på, får betydning for de næste generationer.
(Applause) would no doubt be dangerous to try and standardize, and of the educational structures in each of the nations that make up the European Community and which derive from the movement of ideas that developed there and the institutions to which it has given rise.
Gaietti de Biase (PPE). — (IT) Fru formand, det er en fejl at ville undgå — som det allerede er blevet sagt — på den ene eller anden måde at forbinde denne debat med bestående politiske aftaler eller med begivenheder fra valgkampen.
Mrs Gaiotti De Biase (PPE). — (IT) Madam President, as has already been said, we should avoid falling into the trap of linking this debate too closely, on one side and on the other, to current political agreements or electoral events.
Når et problem tilspidses, bliver det vanskeligere at løse.
When a problem is pushed to extremes, it becomes more difficult to solve it.
Og et problem som dette, som i mere end ét århundrede har været genstand for modstridende ideologiske opfattelser, har ikke brug for at tilspidses.
And a problem such as this, which has over a century of ideological conflict behind it, does not need pushing to extremes.
Det er inden for disse rammer, at spørgsmålet om den frie undervisning i dag er på dagsordenen i Parlamentet.
This is the background against which the problem of independent education has come before Parliament today.
Faktisk er enhver naturligvis fri til at oprette en skole og sende sine børn derhen.
On the question of substance, everyone, naturally, is free to open a school or send his children there.
Der er slet ikke tale om at anfægte undervisningsfriheden.
There is no question of attacking freedom of education.
Men især i en tid, hvor den menneskelige, videnskabelige og teknologiske viden udvikler sig i et særdeles hurtigt tempo, er det bestemt ikke rimeligt at forestille sig, at man i det uendelige kan bevare et undervisningssystem, som ikke udtrykkeligt sigter mod en samordning af lærernes stilling og en samordning af under visningsprogrammerne.
But it is certainly not reasonable, particularly in a period when human, scientific and technological knowledge is developing extremely fast, to imagine that education systems that do not, in particular, involve a search for coherence in the syllabuses and the status of the teachers, can last forever.
Derfor er det egentlige problem forholdet mellem staten og den private undervisning, eller mere konkret: de regler, som anvendelsen af offentlige midler naturligt må medføre.
The real question is that of relations between the States and the private schools and, more precisely, of the rules which are naturally attendant on the use of public monies.
I øvrigt vil den, der har fulgt denne forhandling ud fra en fransk synsvinkel, have bemærket, at situa tionen i Italien er alvorligere på grund af en fortolkning af forfatningen, ihenhold til hvilken finansiel støtte fra staten til private skoler er udelukket, dog med få undtagelser for børnehaver og underskoler.
Moreover, I should like to remind those who have seen this debate entirely from the French standpoint that the present situation in Italy is worse, with an interpretation of the Constitution that excludes the use of public funds to finance private schools, with a few exceptions in the case of nursery and elementary schools.
Og hr. Lusters beslutningsforslag kunne måske vise sig at være mere belejligt for Italien end andetsteds.
And the Luster resolution might perhaps prove providential, more for Italy than elsewhere.
Som italienere misunder vi nogle europæiske lande, som Belgien og Holland, hvor den samfundsmæssige og demokratiske modning har tilladt en skolefred, der er tilfredsstillende for alle.
As Italians we envy those European countries such as Belgium and Holland where civil and democratic maturity have made possible a state of peace in the education world that is satisfactory for everyone.
Socialisterne føler rækkevidden af denne debat og er med åbent sind rede til til enhver tid at deltage i den.
The Socialists are aware of the importance of this debate and are always ready to participate in it in an open-minded manner.
Men en sådan debat indebærer nødvendigvis en vurdering af den meget diskuterede ret, som forældre skal have til på deres børns vegne at afgøre, hvilken undervisning der stemmer overens med deres egen filosofiske og religiøse holdning.
But such a debate necessarily involves an assessment of the oft-discussed right of the family to choose the kind of education that best suits its own philosophical and religious ideas for its children.
I virkeligheden burde spørgsmålet om skolefrihed behandles på et andet niveau end ved en konfrontation mellem katolikker og verdslige, hvilket vi har søgt at gøre forståeligt i udtalelsen fra udvalget om ungdom og kultur med nye ændringsforslag af hr. Marck og mig, som har fået hr. Fajardie til at tage sine forslag tilbage.
In fact, the question of freedom of education ought to be tackled in a different way than by treating it as a clash between Catholics and non-Catholics, as we have tried to make clear in the opinion of the Committee on Youth, Culture, Education, Information and Sport with substitute amendments from Mr Marck and myself, which led to the resignation of Mr Fajardie.
Den rejser også spørgsmålet om individets overbevisning.
It also raises the matter of the freedom of individual conscience.
I vore øjne bør denne trosfrihed respekteres i lige så høj grad hos barnet som hos den voksne.
As far as we are concerned, freedom of conscience must be respected in adults and children alike.
For os at se må man derfor afholde sig fra på undervisningsområdet at opstille for strenge regler, som ikke i tilstrækkelig grad tilgodeser barnets ret til gennem sin opdragelse at få åbnet ånden for de forskellige filosofiske eller religiøse udtryk, uden at nogen af dem bliver det påtvunget allerede i skoletiden.
So we feel that we should avoid fixing over-strict rules in education that do not take account of the child's right to get from his training an open-minded attitude to the different philosophies and religions without any of them being forced upon him at school.
For os er det bedste undervisningssystem det, som samler, og ikke det, som spreder.
As we see it, the best system of education is the one that u lites rather than divides.
Derfor bør det ikke angribe nogen tro, nogen kulturel eller racemæssig identitet, nogen åndelig overbevisning eller holdning.
This means it must not attack any faith, cultural or racial identity, conviction or attitude of mind.
Det bør finde næring i forskellighederne, sætte opdragelse til tolerance lig med opnåelse af frihed.
It must profit from the differences and link the process of learning tolerance to the process of obtaining freedom.
Det er givet, at familiens ret skal respekteres.
Of course, it is true that the rights of the family must be respected.
Det er givet, at undervisningsfriheden skal garanteres under de former, der er foreslået af retsudvalget.
Equally, it is true that the freedom to teach must be guaranteed in the forms proposed by the Legal Affairs Committee.
Vi for kaster den karakteristik, som en eller anden giver af den religiøse undervisning — som hr. Fajardie netop har gentaget — som om børnenes trosfrihed ikke respekteres i konfessionsskolen, som om det i virke ligheden er et system, der adskiller, og ikke et system, der er åbent over for forskningen.
We reject the picture that some people paint of education in denominational schools — as Mr Fajardie said again just now — almost as if, in denominational schools, the child's freedom of conscience were not respected ; almost as if it really were a system that divides, and not one open to research.
Den religiøse undervisning — som nævnt i udtalelsen fra udvalget om ungdom og kultur — udvikler som enhver anden skole den kritiske sans, evnen til forskning, kundskaberne og evnen til at føre en dialog med andre kulturer samt respekten for den enkeltes overbevisning.
Education in denominational schools — as we said in the opinion delivered by the Committee on Youth and Culture — like any other system, develops a critical approach, trains young people for research, enhances awareness, encourages a dialogue with other cultures and instils respect for the different choices made by individuals.
Dette sikrer mod faren for en skole, som kun er udtryk for kommunikation og information om teknik.
It is a safeguard against education that is limited to the spread of information and technical knowledge.
Det er en debat, der bør føres med generøsitet og varsomhed og med det hovedformål at give barnet og det voksne menneske den bedst mulige uddannelse.
It is a debate that must be run with generosity and circumspection, having, first, a desire to give the best possible training to the child or the adolescent.
Og hr. Lustersbetænkning er udtryk for noget, der langt overskrider det mådehold, forsamlingen her efter min mening i betragtning af landenes forskellige situation, burde udvise.
And Mr Luster's report reflects a choice which goes far beyond the bounds within which this House should keep, I believe, on such a subject, bearing in mind the diversity of situations.
Derfor forkaster vi den i vished om, at en dybtgående debat vil åbnes i den europæiske bevidsthed, og idet
In the past, Europe has had two main models : the Latin centralist tradition, and the more flexible, decentralized tradition of the Anglo-Saxon model. The
Men ud over det retlige spørgsmål eller måske via det retlige spørgsmål, som danner et hele, drejer det sig om et problem, som vedrører udviklingen af skolesystemerne og en tilnærmelse mellem de filosofiske retninger, som har inspireret de forskellige europæiske skolestrukturer.
This is why we shall reject it, being convinced that a major debate of substance is now being thrown open to the European conscience and stating that we are ready to dialogue with you, on the one condition that no religion, philosophy or politics should come into the teaching of any school whatsoever to restrict the unchallengeable right of the men and women of tomorrow to freedom of choice and thought.
Jeg er personligt overbevist om, at en restriktiv fortolkning af traktaterne inden for undervisning er forkert og skadelig for udviklingen af Fællesskabet, og jeg befrygter, at forelæggelsen af et så prekært og omstridt emne — også selv om det er begrundet i grundlæggende menneskerettigheder — ender med ikke at fremme, men med at bevirke et tilbageslag for Fællesskabets aktiviteter på kultur- og undervisnings området, hvilket vil forøge modstanden og oppositionen. tionen.
I am personally convinced that a restrictive interpretation of the Treaties where education is concerned is wrong and harmful to the development of the Community, and I am afraid that the introduction of such a delicate, contentious matter — even though it 'is oh the grounds of fundamental human rights — will end up not by helping but by putting back the work of the Community in the educational and cultural field, strengthening resistance and opposition to it.
— og ikke blot til fordel for den katolske skolen, som statistisk set stadig er den vigtigste — for vælger man denne vej, er det ensbetydende med at genoptage diskussionen om strukturen af forvaltningen af de offentlige skoler.
On less debatable questions we have been marking time for years — I have in mind the recognition of diplomas and periods of study, of which we spoke this morning ; equality of access to education, the teaching of the Community languages, the application of the directive on migrants' children, and the problem — which can no longer be shelved in view of the introduction of new technology — of coordination between school education and vocational training.
De fremførte argumenter kan man så meget mindre have en mening om, som der er gået mange år — jeg tænker på anerkendelse af eksamensbeviser, som blev omtalt i formiddags, på lige muligheder for adgang til skoleundervisning, på undervisning i Fællesskabets sprog, på anvendelsen af direktiverne på af vandrende arbejdstagre, på problemet — som nu ikke kan udsættes, navnlig på grund af indførelsen af nye teknologier — med koordinering af skole- og erhvervsuddannelse.
On the face of it I doubt — whatever Mrs Gaiotti may think — whether the Luster resolution is compatible with what is laid down in the Italian Constitution, which recognizes the freedom to teach and to open educational institutions, provided there is no charge on the State. Moreover the Christian Democrats, in the Italian Parliament, tackle the question very differ ently, without financing private schools generally from public funds, as Mr Luster proposes.
De venstreorienterede partier i mit land og i de andre lande vil jeg navnlig gøre opmærksom på et stadig mere brændende spørgsmål.
I would like the parties of the Left in my country and other countries as well to take note of an increasingly burning question.
I den aktuelle økonomiske krise, hvor fristelsen til at beskære de sociale udgifter kunne opstå og måske allerede er opstået i nogle lande, er der en tendens til privatisering til dækning af de fundamentale behov, de privilegeredes flugt, som sigter mod at skabe deres egne og eksklusive skoleinstitutioner, der skal betales for, for at honorere retten til at modtage undervisning.
In the present economic crisis, with the temptation to reduce social expenditure, a trend might develop — and is perhaps already developing, in some countries — towards privatization — a rush by the privileged to set up their own exclusive feepaying schools, to satisfy the right to education.
Hvis de bekendelsesfrie skoler mister økonomisk støtte, risikerer de at blive et sted, hvor der er klasseskel, og et uddannelssested, der tilbydes de privilegerede.
If the present free Catholic-oriented schools are to be left without economic support, there is a danger that they will become just such a place of class division, a facility only for the privileged.
Størstedelen af dem er opstået af en modsatrettet frygt, der er opstået — til dels for flere hundrede år siden
The great majority of them were founded for the very opposite reason — they were founded, some of them, many hundreds of years ago, to offer education to children from the poorer classes.
I øvrigt behandler de kristeligdemokratiske medlemmer af det italienske parlament spørgsmålet på ret forskellig måde, uden generelt at kræve en offentlig finansiering for alle private skoler, således som hr. Luster gør det.
In Italy — where unfortunately, because of the opposition of the parties of the Left and secular Centre, support from public funds is still not guaranteed — many institutions which were once typical of the upper classes have variable fees depending on the parents' income, so as to be able to accept pupils from every environment.
Endvidere tror jeg ikke, at man kan begrænse under visningen til alene at afhænge af familiens valg.
Secondly, I do not think that the question of education can be reduced simply to a matter of family choice.
Denne har givet en vigtig rolle, men undervisningens fundamentale subjekt, den, der virkelig er berettiget til at modtage undervisning, er barnet, og det er ikke forældrenes ejendom.
That certainly has an important part to play, but the person that is fundamentally concerned with education, the real holder of the right to be educated, is the child, who is not the property of the parents.
Vores lands historie lærer os vigtigheden af statens indgriben i betragtning af, at forældrene i mange regioner i vort land efter Italiens forening ville holde børnene i uvidenhed.
The history of our country shows us the importance of State action, in view of the fact that in many regions in our country, after the country was united, it was the parents who wanted to keep their children in a state of ignorance.
— for at tilbyde undervisning til børn af fattige familier.
But these are not the right solutions.
I Italien, hvor den offentlige finansiering endnu ikke er garanteret af oppositionen inden for de venstreorienterede partier eller af det verdslige centrum, har mange institutter, som engang var typiske for overklassen, fastsat forskellige skoleafgifter beregnet efter forældrenes indkomst for at kunne modtage elever fra alle kredse.
New legislation is needed, a new recognition of the individual's rights, which must guarantee the right education for everyone, leaving society free, and leaving it with the power spontaneously to work out the new solutions which the new culture needs.
Men det er uhensigtsmæssige løsninger. Der kræves en ny lovgivning og en ny anerkendelse af rettighederne, som burde sikre alle opfyldelse af betingelserne for undervisning, hvorved staten stilles frit, og hvorved samfundets spontane kræfter skal udvikles frit for at konkretisere de nye tilbud, som den nye kultur har brug for.
Mrs Cinciari Rodano (COM). — (IT) Madam President, in the first place I deplore the way in which this subject has been put on today's agenda, and I think it a pity that such a complex report, which was discussed at very great length in committee and which involves a number of fundamental questions — as some Members have emphasized — should have turned up so unexpectedly.