Racism and xenophobia [EP debate]
01 January 1991
Racism and xenophobia [EP debate]
artdoc September=1993
Summary of debate in European Parliament on racism and xenophobia
Wednesday, 21 April - With Europe witnessing an upsurge in racism
and xenophobia, Cesare de Piccoli (Italy, Soc) explained that the
purpose of the report before the House was to come up with a
positive response to tackle racism and the resurgence of right-wing
extremism. In this fight he called for EC legislation with the
recognition that any racist act was a crime. He also encouraged
the member states to take action through the education system. Mr
de Piccoli also suggested a number of ways to better integrate the
millions of non-EC citizens legally resident in the EC such as
extending voting rights to all legal immigrants who have lived in
an EC country for more than five years.
Referring to the ongoing slaughter in the name of ethnic cleansing
in Bosnia, Christine Crawley (Birmingham East, Soc) said this was
no time for the EC to lose its nerve in the face of rising
nationalism in Europe. She backed the need for racial equality
legislation across the Community and the proposal to allow ethnic
minorities the right to vote. In conclusion, Mrs Crawley said the
EC could not go on denying immigrants their basic rights and
dignities.
The report was also welcomed by Christopher Beazley (Cornwall and
Plymouth, EPP) who linked racist attacks to attacks on society and
he stressed the need for firm resolve in the face of those who seek
to stir up racial tension. He felt that the hatred of foreigners
was a result of the fears of people in society who were under
pressure due to economic difficulties. The way forward was to
remove these fears, he stressed. He was pleased that the issue of
citizenship for non-EC citizens was to be the subject of a separate
report.
The philosophy of the report was also endorsed by Jean-Thomas
Nordmann (F, LDR), but he thought some of the areas involving
legislation were best left to the member states.
Claudia Roth (G, Greens) warned against the dangers of a shift to
the extreme right in political thinking and the rise of
institutionalised discrimination against immigrants. She called
for clear action by the Council and Commission, something which was
wholeheartedly backed by Niall Andrews (Dublin, EDA), who supported
the introduction of an EC directive.
Dorothee Piermont (G, RBW) regretted the watering down of the
criticism of extreme right extremism, but Jean-Marie le Chevallier
(F, ER) dismissed the whole report, claiming it was based on
inaccuracies. He insisted that institutional parties of the right
had nothing to do with extreme right groups.
For Rene-Emile Piquet (F, LU) the best way of tackling racism was
to nip the economic crisis in the bud, but he also thought there
was a need to strengthen legislation and the protection of non-EC
nationals.
Franz Schonhuber (G, Ind) complained that the report tried to
criminalise the democratic right and he defended the right of
people to defend their own culture and national heritage.
For Lode van Outrive (B, Soc) the recognition of equal rights for
non-EC citizens legally resident was a fundamental precondition for
the integration of minorities, although Georg Jarzembowski (G, EPP)
insisted it was up to the member states to decide who should be a
citizen of their country. Karel de Gucht (B, LDR) thought the
report should steer clear of any involvement in penal law as this
was solely a member state responsibility. He also criticised the
call in the motion for resolution for codes of conduct for the
media `to ensure that freedom of expression and freedom of the
press are complete, but are used responsibly'. He thought this was
an attack on these basic principles.
Karel Dillen (B), from the European Right reaffirmed his steadfast
views that immigrants were only temporary guests with regions like
Flanders having the right to `not be colonised by