Presidente. − L'ordine del giorno reca la discussione su:
– l'interrogazione orale alla Commissione sulla violazione della libertà di espressione e discriminazioni sulla base dell'orientamento sessuale in Lituania, di Renate Weber, Sophia in 't Veld, Leonidas Donskis, Cecilia Wikström, Alexander Alvaro, Sonia Alfano, Gianni Vattimo, Sarah Ludford, Ramon Tremosa i Balcells, a nome del gruppo ALDE (O-0190/2010 - B7-0669/2010),
– l'interrogazione orale alla Commissione sulla violazione della libertà di espressione e discriminazione fondata sull'orientamento sessuale in Lituania, di Ulrike Lunacek, a nome del gruppo Verts/ALE (O-0204/2010 - B7-0803/2010),
– l'interrogazione orale alla Commissione sulla violazione della libertà di espressione e discriminazioni sulla base dell'orientamento sessuale in Lituania, di Cornelis de Jong, a nome del gruppo GUE/NGL (O-0207/2010 - B7-0804/2010),
– l'interrogazione orale alla Commissione sulla violazione della libertà di espressione e discriminazione sulla base dell'orientamento sessuale in Lituania, di Michael Cashman, Monika Flašíková Beňová, Claude Moraes, a nome del gruppo S&D (O-0216/2010 - B7-0005/2011).
Sophia in 't Veld, author. − Madam President, we are discussing today, and not for the first time, legislation that may be passed by the Lithuanian Parliament with a potentially very negative effect on the position of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people in Lithuania. I think it is unfortunate that we are discussing the subject again, as Parliament has already passed a resolution on it.
I think the resolution we have proposed for vote tomorrow is very clear. We would appeal to our Lithuanian colleagues to reflect further on this matter and to make sure that whatever legislation they pass will not discriminate against LGBT people.
I do not have much to say about the resolution, but I think it is becoming increasingly clear that the European Union needs to equip itself with stronger legal instruments for the enforcement of fundamental rights. We recently debated the controversial media law in Hungary and now we are facing very similar issues.
We have laid down the principles – the shared values of 500 million citizens – in the European treaties but, when it comes to putting them into practice, we run into trouble. Therefore, Commissioner, I would like to hear your views on our proposal for a European road map for LGBT rights. The European Union has done a lot for gender equality in the past and, indeed, we have regular road maps for gender equality. We have all sorts of strategies to combat racism and xenophobia, to combat social exclusion and to strengthen fundamental rights, but not for LGBT people. I think it is very urgent and very necessary that we have such a strategy: a strategy to fight prejudice, ignorance, discrimination and hatred and to strengthen the rights of LGBT people.
There are many examples of the problem. Today we are discussing the amendments which have been put to the Lithuanian Parliament, but that should not distract us from the fact that homophobia exists in all Member States.
I would like to bring another fact to your attention, Commissioner, and to hear your views on it. This concerns the European asylum policy, and the fact is that people seeking asylum because they are prosecuted on grounds of their sexual orientation in a Member State which I will not name have to undergo something known as a phallometric test. This is particularly degrading. It has no place in the European Union and I would like to hear what the Commission intends to do about it.
Ulrike Lunacek, author. − Madam President, my colleague Mrs in 't Veld has already explained what the resolution is about and referred to it and I strongly agree with the question she put to you, Commissioner: what about a road map for LGBT rights in this common European Union?
But I would like to take a different angle to hopefully convince those who in this Parliament have not yet decided on voting in favour of this resolution. You know what? Last summer, four Members of the European Parliament, Mrs in 't Veld, myself, Mr Cashman and Mr Fjellner, representing four groups, the majority of this Parliament, were in Vilnius, in Lithuania, together with the first Baltic Pride to be held in Vilnius, empowering and supporting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in this city and we were there under the European flag telling everybody, ‘this flag protects us, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, and that is true also for Lithuania.’
Now, what would happen to us and to Lithuanians who next year might go marching in favour of our equal rights in Vilnius if this law is adopted in the Seimas? Each one of us could be fined up to EUR 2 900 for publicly promoting sexual orientation – meaning homosexuality in this case, because I guess for heterosexuality that does not apply. Is that really what this Parliament would want? Is that what the Parliament of Lithuania would want, the parliament of a country which 20 years ago struggled for its own freedom, with lesbians and gays among the people struggling for that freedom?
So I am very happy that the President of Lithuania, Mrs Grybauskaitė, former Commissioner, and the Government of Lithuania have already said that this proposed law contravenes Lithuania’s obligations under its own constitution. I hope it will be clear that different forms of sexuality, of sexual orientation, of forms of living, have been part of all cultures and of all societies and are so in Lithuania, as well, and that hiding facts like that from the public, from young people, is simply a basis for inciting hatred, hate speech and hate crimes. That is something that I think nobody in this Parliament or in the Lithuanian parliament would want.
Therefore I hope that we will have the support of this Parliament and of the Commissioner for the resolution. We do not need your support, but I hope we have it.
Cornelis de Jong, Auteur. − Mevrouw de Voorzitter, ik sluit me graag aan bij wat de vorige sprekers hebben gezegd, maar ik wil ook nog een ander aspect van de problematiek benadrukken: de bepaling van de voorgestelde wetswijziging kan niet alleen zeer ernstige gevolgen hebben voor de LGBT- gemeenschap in Litouwen, maar is wederom een voorbeeld van wetgeving die gebruikt kan worden tegen de erkenning van partnerschappen en huwelijken van paren van gelijk geslacht uit andere lidstaten. In dit huis hebben we daar ook al eerder over gesproken in september vorig jaar, en omdat er toen nog vragen bleven, hebben we samen met andere europarlementariërs een brief gestuurd om verduidelijking. Uw Eurocommissaris heeft een antwoord gestuurd, waarin u onder meer schrijft dat het verblijfsrecht van dergelijke paren door het Europees recht wordt erkend. Mijn vraag aan u is dan ook: Gaat u Litouwen daar nu aan houden, ook als een van de partners niet de nationaliteit heeft van de lidstaten? Graag een heel duidelijk antwoord hierop.
In het werkprogramma van de Commissie lees ik dat de Commissie in 2013 een wetgevingsvoorstel over de wederzijdse erkenning van de effecten van bepaalde akten van de burgerlijke stand gaat opstellen. Mijn vraag is: Is dat nu ook een voorstel voor wederzijdse erkenning van partnerschappen en huwelijken en, als dat zo is, dan ben ik daar op zich blij mee, maar waarom pas in 2013?
De Commissie heeft aangekondigd noodzakelijke actie te ondernemen, als de diensten de Litouwse wetgeving hebben geanalyseerd en mijn vraag is: Is die analyse inmiddels uitgevoerd en hebben de diensten in de analyse ook meegenomen wat de gevolgen zijn voor de erkenning van paren van gelijk geslacht uit andere lidstaten?
Welke stappen gaat de Commissie vervolgens ondernemen tegen Litouwen, maar bijvoorbeeld ook tegen Roemenië dat bij wetgeving erkenning expliciet uitsluit?
Tenslotte, beloofde u, mevrouw de commissaris, tijdens de debatten in september om snel met een reactie te zullen komen op het rapport van het mensenrechtenagentschap over homofobie. In uw brief verwijst u echter simpelweg naar het jaarverslag van de Commissie. Vindt u niet dat, in het licht van de gebeurtenissen in Litouwen, die zaak veel meer aandacht moet krijgen, en kunt u ons toezeggen dat u zo spoedig mogelijk met een apart verslag over homofobie in de Europese Unie zult komen?
Monika Flašíková Beňová, autorka. − Musím úprimne povedať, že nerozumieme tomu, čo sa deje v Litve, alebo možno ešte lepšie, že sme z toho rozčarovaní a rozhorčení.
Keď sa už zdá, že sme v Európskej únii dosiahli pokrok aspoň v tom, že vieme, čo sú to základné ľudské práva, príde z jedného z členských štátov signál, že to vlastne vôbec nie je pravda.
Úvahy o tom, že treba zákonom zakázať napríklad propagáciu iných než heterosexuálnych vzťahov, nám prídu neuveriteľne spiatočnícke a totálne ignorujúce to, čo sme za posledné roky v oblasti ľudských práv tu spoločne v Európskom parlamente aj v spolupráci s vami, s Komisiou, dosiahli.
Ochrana duševného zdravia detí je iba nedôstojnou zámienkou agendy zakomplexovaných politikov. Deti musíme a chceme chrániť. Chceme ich chrániť najmä proti násiliu, proti chudobe, chceme im zabezpečiť podmienky pre vzdelanie, bezpečnosť a osobný rozvoj. Všetci však alebo väčšina z nás z vlastných skúseností vie, že deťom nevadia prejavy náklonnosti a lásky a ani propagácia iných ako heterosexuálnych vzťahov.
Preto som presvedčená, že dnes už nie je namieste, aby sme s podporovateľmi takýchto názorov diskutovali, pani komisárka, a snažili sa im stále niečo vysvetľovať. Snažili sa im vysvetľovať, v čom sú ich postoje žalostne mylné.
Podľa môjho názoru treba razantným spôsobom zakročiť. Treba jednoznačne povedať, že homofóbne legislatívne snahy sú v jednoznačnom rozpore so základnými princípmi Európskej únie, sú úplne jasne v rozpore so zmluvami, s Chartou základných ľudských práv a s Európskym dohovorom o ľudských právach. Nerešpektujú slobodu prejavu a informácií a slobodu zhromažďovania, ako aj zákaz diskriminácie na základe sexuálnej orientácie.
Chcela by som sa tiež opýtať, pani komisárka, či v prípade schválenia takého zákona začne Komisia voči Litve konanie o porušení?
Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the Commission. − Madam President, I would like to start by stressing that the Commission unambiguously rejects homophobia because it is a blatant violation of human dignity.
That is also why, on 22 November 2010, I visited Lithuania and discussed with President Dalia Grybauskaitė and the Minister of Justice the proposal to amend the Administrative Code, which establishes a new offence punishable by a fine for ‘the promotion of homosexual relations or financing of such promotion in public places’, as well as the related proposal to amend the Penal Code.
According to the latest information in my possession, the adoption by the Lithuanian Parliament of this draft amendment to the Administrative Code was postponed and is now expected to take place in spring this year. This means that it is still under discussion.
The Commission is examining the proposals to amend the Lithuanian Administrative and Penal Codes, as well as other Lithuanian legislation, from the perspective of compliance with relevant EU law.
In 2009, the Commission expressed serious concerns to the Lithuanian authorities in relation to the compatibility with Union law and fundamental rights of the Lithuanian Law on the Protection of Minors against the Detrimental Effect of Public Information. Following the Commission’s intervention, this law was amended in December 2009.
The law qualifies as detrimental to minors information that ‘expresses contempt for family values, encourages the concept of entry into a marriage and creation of a family other than stipulated in the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania’. The practical application of this law may raise questions in terms of compliance with the e-Commerce and Audiovisual Media Services Directives and with the principle of non-discrimination. The Commission is continuing to look into this matter.
According to the information in my possession, an amendment to the Law on Provision of Information took effect on 18 October 2010. This amendment prescribes that ‘advertising and audiovisual commercial communication […] must not contain manifestation or promotion of sexual orientation’. If these provisions were to remain in the law, we would see the same problems in terms of compliance with the Audiovisual and Media Services Directive and possible violation of Article 21 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
In May 2010, the Commission wrote to the Lithuanian Government expressing worries about the last-minute suspension of the Baltic Gay Pride event. You will remember this. We recalled in that letter that freedom of peaceful assembly, as provided for in the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 12 of the Charter, is one of the principles on which the Union is founded. On that basis, Baltic Gay Pride was held on 8 May 2010: that was the event to which a previous speaker referred.
As regards the question of a possible European strategy on the fight against homophobia, the Commission’s priority is to ensure that EU legislation complies fully with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, including Article 21 prohibiting discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation. How this is to be achieved was explained very clearly in the Commission’s communication on the strategy for effective implementation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, adopted on 19 October 2010. We will come back to this matter in the annual report on application of the Charter, which also covers progress on the application of Article 21. That will happen in spring of this year.
According to this logic, the phallometric test as a procedure under asylum policy is, of course, subject to EU law and relates directly to Article 21 of the Charter, which prohibits discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. This clearly means that if, in EU law or in its application at national level, there is discrimination, then the Union is empowered to intervene. It is very clear that the Union can intervene here.
To conclude, I would like to reiterate the Commission’s strong commitment to combating homophobia and discrimination based on sexual orientation, to the full extent of the powers conferred by the Treaties.
Regarding the recognition of civil status, we have no intention of proposing any legislation that would interfere with Member States’ substantive family law or modify national definitions of marriage. This is subsidiarity. Our green paper on recognition of civil status is designed for cross-border situations, such as the recognition of birth certificates, and is not concerned with the recognition of same-sex marriage. We must not mix things up. It is for the Member States to define what marriage is. It is for the European Union to permit free movement and non-discrimination. These are two completely different things. Such is the position in European law and that is what we apply in real terms.
Simon Busuttil, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, the EPP is committed to upholding the values and principles upon which the Union is founded, in particular the respect for human rights. Europe should fight against all forms of discrimination and that includes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. At the same time, we have to respect the right of any democracy, as long as it respects human rights and the non-discrimination principle, to discuss, modify and adopt national laws, without interfering in the debates of national parliaments, without infringing the principle of subsidiarity and without acting or condemning a Member State prematurely.
We do not like the idea of condemning a Member State, especially since in this particular case the proposed modifications have not even been voted on by the plenary of the Lithuanian Parliament and are still under review by the Lithuanian authorities. Not only that, but the proposed modifications have already been deemed to be in conflict with European law by the Lithuanian authorities themselves, who have declared that they will be taking action to remedy the situation and to respect the principle of non-discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. So this proposed legislation will probably not even make it onto the statute book of Lithuania and therefore there is no need to condemn this Member State.
To conclude, I do hope nonetheless that tomorrow the EPP will be able to support the joint resolution as long as it does not condemn any individual Member State and as long as it is modified to make it more balanced.
Sarah Ludford, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, I hope very much that Lithuania will learn from the experience in the UK, which went through its own agonies of having a law which banned the promotion of homosexuality in schools. David Cameron, then Conservative leader and now Prime Minister, said 18 months ago that his party was wrong in its support for that 1988 law, which was subsequently repealed. Indeed David Cameron predicted that the first openly gay Prime Minister in the UK would be a Tory. We will see, but that is what he predicted.
So you could see a huge change in attitudes in the space of two decades. This development in attitudes, which my colleague Charles Tannock knows a lot more about, and this move by the centre right are reflected in a quite modest and moderate EPP resolution and indeed in Simon Busuttil’s opening remarks. I am hopeful that the EPP might be able to rally to the main resolution if most of their amendments are accepted in the vote tomorrow.
The situation in the UK has been transformed to the extent that the proprietors of a small guest house were today forced to pay compensation to a gay couple whom they refused to allow to stay, in breach of the law. As the judge remarked, these proprietors were perfectly at liberty to hold or discuss their personal views on homosexuality, but what they could not do was discriminate on the basis of those views. It is talk, discussion, debate, right of assembly that would be affected by the proposed Lithuanian laws.
Banning the promotion or propagation of homosexuality is likely to have a chilling effect on free speech and discussions, as the Fundamental Rights Agency has pointed out. I join Sophie in ’t Veld in calling for an EU road map to combat homophobia and discrimination and I call on everyone across the political spectrum in this House to unite in support of the whole range of human rights.
Marije Cornelissen, namens de Verts/ALE-Fractie. – Voorzitter, dit is niet de eerste keer dat Litouwen de basiswaarden en het Verdrag van de EU schendt. Het Parlement daar lijkt steeds schaamtelozer te worden in het inperken van de rechten van homo's.
We moeten daar actie tegen ondernemen. De waarden en wetten van de EU zijn niet à la carte – deze wel, en deze liever niet. Wie EU-lid wil worden en wil zijn, moet zich aan alles houden. Dat geldt voor Litouwen, maar net zo goed voor Frankrijk en ook voor Nederland. Stel dat Nederland bijvoorbeeld in de toekomst zou willen gaan morrelen aan de rechten van migranten. We moeten actie ondernemen, want als dit zomaar kan, dan betekent dat dat eigenlijk niemand zich echt goed beschermd mag voelen in de Unie.
Ik ben blij dat de commissaris meteen is gestart met een juridische analyse en ik hoop op heel snelle vervolgstappen. Want het kan toch niet zo zijn dat mensen eerst slachtoffer moeten worden van deze wetten en dan bij de buren hun rechten als EU-burgers moeten gaan opeisen bij het Mensenrechtenhof.
Charles Tannock, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, the EU is founded on the principle that all its citizens enjoy equal rights and freedoms. Every country that wants to become a Member State of the EU must commit to that principle and be signatory to the ECHR, not least with regard to sexual orientation.
When Lithuania joined the EU seven years ago, it pledged to uphold our common values of tolerance and equality. Since then, the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights – and I believe its Articles 12 and 21 – have come into force, further guaranteeing in law citizens’ freedom from discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation at EU institutional level.
As a spokesman for my party and group on human rights issues outside the Union, I can say categorically that the ECR upholds and endorses principles of equality, tolerance and diversity everywhere.
However, many Europeans do hold traditional views with regard to homosexuality, often based on religious conviction. Just as we seek to uphold the law to protect LGBT rights, so too should we seek to ensure that those who wish to express contrary, non-inflammatory, views within the bounds of the law regarding free speech should be free to do so as well.
Undoubtedly, Lithuanian society remains by and large conservative and we should understand that. People are entitled to their own private views, but at an institutional and legal level, we cannot compromise on the principle that we are all equal. Equality is a hallmark of our progressive society in Europe, and I believe in fact that the legal safeguards and individual rights guaranteed by the EU acted as a kind of magnet to countries such as Lithuania as they emerged from communist totalitarian domination.
I would therefore urge the Lithuanian authorities to reflect on the fact that the EU is committed to preventing the marginalisation, vilification and persecution of minorities that was so commonplace throughout Europe for the first half of the 20th century. The Commission should indeed look at this proposed draft Lithuanian piece of legislation and pronounce whether or not, in its opinion, this piece of legislation is compatible with EU law – although, as Simon Busuttil put it, it is entirely possible that this bill will not become law, as Lithuania is a democracy and is only too well aware of all the issues we are going to raise in this debate tonight.
Joe Higgins, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – Madam President, the proposed law to ban what is called the public promotion of gay relations in Lithuania is another excuse to crush the rights of gay, lesbian, transgender and bisexual people in that state.
How cruelly ironic that a country which threw off the shackles of Stalinist dictatorship only 20 years ago should now revert to aping one of the many crimes of that system: the suppression of the right of people to live freely and in peace according to their own sexual identity.
I salute the courage of the hundreds of gay people and their supporters who braved the hate campaign against them to march in the Baltic Pride parade in Lithuania’s capital Vilnius in May of last year. It is revolting to see right-wing politicians scapegoating gay people in Lithuania. The political establishment in that country has dismally failed its people, particularly the youth. Just as in Ireland, market capitalism and financial speculation have devastated the economies of the Baltic States, including Lithuania where unemployment has rocketed to 18% and youth unemployment to a staggering 35%. In these circumstances, using minorities, including gay people, as scapegoats is a standard, cynical way to divert attention from the failures of the establishment.
Just as in the hate campaign against gays in Uganda, the homophobic campaign in Lithuania tries to insinuate that gay people pose a threat to children, implying sexual abuse of children. This is a poisonous slander, designed to confuse and mislead. It is a slander that would have parents look in the wrong direction to protect their children. Coming from Ireland, I can confirm tragically that threats to children come traditionally from within institutions where they are supposed to be safe, within certain families and within certain areas of the Catholic Church.
It is reprehensible that young people in Lithuania coping with their emerging sexuality – which is a difficult enough time – must now do so in a climate of intolerance and fear. So, we should stand in solidarity with the right of all people in Lithuania, in Russia, throughout the European Union and elsewhere to live in peace and in accordance with their own identities.
Димитър Стоянов (NI). - Първото нещо, което разбрах от изказванията на вносителите е, че те в същност предполагат, че предложените изменения ще дискриминират хомосексуалните. Не са сигурни в това. Те само го предполагат. Затова тази ситуация ми напомня малко на филма „Специален доклад”, в който използвайки ясновидци, местната полиция осъждаше хора преди те още да са извършили дадено престъпление.
В момента Литва се намира точно в тази позиция - да бъде осъдена за нещо, което тя в същност още не е извършила. Тук има и един друг много голям фундаментален проблем, който, колеги, ще ни мъчи много дълги години занапред и това е конфликтът между различните права на различните групи.
Например, вие знаете, че правото на събиране, за което говорим сега в тази зала, не е неограничено и абсолютно. То трябва да е мирно събиране, да бъде проведено при определени обстоятелства, които не нарушават обществения ред.
Това е извън контекста на конкретния случай, но не забравяйте, че занапред тези конфликти на права ще бъдат огромен проблем за Европейския съюз и много често, в един момент даже ще се озовем в ситуация, в която ще трябва да отсъждаме чии права имат предимство пред правата на другите, ако продължаваме така безконтролно да разширяваме полезрението на така наречените граждански права и свободи.
Joanna Katarzyna Skrzydlewska (PPE). - Pani Przewodnicząca! Obecnie na Litwie mamy do czynienia z sytuacją, w której z jednej strony mówimy o prawie każdego demokratycznie wybranego rządu do swobodnego stanowienia prawa w swoim kraju, a z drugiej strony z obowiązkiem przestrzegania praw człowieka chronionych przez prawo unijne i międzynarodowe konwencje. Niewątpliwie rolą Parlamentu Europejskiego jest, między innymi, zwracanie uwagi na wszystkie przypadki, w których może dochodzić do łamania praw człowieka, również ze względu na przynależność do różnych grup społecznych. Parlament wielokrotnie podejmował w tych sprawach rezolucje. Zawsze przeciwstawiał się w nich łamaniu tych praw.
Dzisiejsza debata także jest wynikiem obawy, że projekt zmiany w litewskim prawie może prowadzić do ograniczenia na przykład wolności wypowiedzi na Litwie ze względu na orientację seksualną. Obawa ta uzasadniona jest w tym sensie, że na forum Parlamentu Europejskiego wielokrotnie podnoszono kwestię wybiórczego traktowania praw człowieka na Litwie przez władze tego kraju. Mam tu na myśli przede wszystkim mniejszości narodowe, które nie są niestety jednakowo traktowane przez litewskie prawo w zakresie uprawnień, jakie im przyznano. Dlatego warto podkreślać, że projekty ustawodawstwa krajowego muszą spełniać określone standardy i być zgodne z prawem unijnym, które gwarantuje równe traktowanie zdefiniowanym mniejszościom, również narodowym.
Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D). - Šiandien svarstant šį jautrų klausimą mano šaliai, Lietuvai, pirmiausiai norėčiau pabrėžti, kad Lietuva būdama Europos Sąjungos nare gerbia žmogaus teises ir laisves bei Europos Sąjungos vertybes. Gaila, jog pasitaiko atvejų, kai atskiri Lietuvos parlamento nariai inicijuoja žmogaus teises pažeidžiančius ir piliečius diskriminuojančius įstatymus. Tačiau noriu pranešti, kad Lietuvos vyriausybė praėjusį trečiadienį pateikė neigiamą išvadą dėl parlamente svarstomo pasiūlymo numatyti bausmes už homoseksualių santykių propagavimą, nes jis prieštarauja tiek tarptautiniams, tiek Europos Sąjungos teisės aktams, tiek Lietuvos Respublikos konstitucinėms nuostatoms ir laikytinas diskriminaciniu asmenų seksualinės orientacijos pagrindu. Be to, ratifikavus Lisabonos sutartį Lietuva privalo laikytis Europos Sąjungos pagrindinių teisių chartijos, kuri draudžia bet kokią diskriminaciją, įskaitant ir dėl seksualinės orientacijos. Šį įstatymo projektą pasmerkė Lietuvos Respublikos Prezidentė Dalia Grybauskaitė. Norėčiau pažymėti, kad įstatymo projekte siūlomi pakeitimai dar nėra priimti Lietuvos Respublikos Parlamente. Be to, dar nėra pateikta ir Lietuvos Parlamento žmogaus teisių komiteto išvada dėl šių siūlomų pakeitimų. Tikiuosi, kad Lietuva atsižvelgs į Europos Sąjungos ir tarptautinę kritiką, į neigiamą Lietuvos Respublikos vyriausybės išvadą, į Europos Parlamento rezoliuciją ir Lietuvos Parlamentas turės politinės valios atmesti siūlomą įstatymą, kuris pažeistų žmogaus teises ir laisves, ir kad bus užkirstas kelias bet kokiai diskriminacijai, įskaitant ir dėl seksualinės orientacijos.
Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE). - Madam President, I think it is pretty clear that the message we want to send to the Lithuanian Parliament – and not only to them but also to all those who still presume to debate what are basic facts – is more necessary than ever. I think there are two facts of which we need to remind some colleagues who may have forgotten them. The first is that homosexuality has been declassified as a mental illness; and the second, which is particularly relevant here, is that there is no credible research to show that educating children about homosexuality can affect their sexual orientation.
These are facts, and no legal text or proposed legislation can contradict them. So the message we want to send tomorrow is simply to remind our colleagues that these matters should not be up for discussion. That is why we need to pass this resolution and that is why we also need to support the attempts by the President of Lithuania to stop what is happening. But I insist: the message is directed not only at the Lithuanians but also at all those who still presume, on occasion, to put such matters up for discussion.
Konrad Szymański (ECR). - Pani Przewodnicząca! Wydaje się, że nie ma bardziej przewrażliwionego parlamentu na świecie na tle ochrony praw mniejszości seksualnych niż Parlament Europejski. Litewskie prawo, zresztą źle przetłumaczone w rezolucji, nad którą proponuje się nam głosować, jeszcze nie zostało przyjęte. Parlament Europejski już zabiera się do krytykowania jednego z państw członkowskich. Myślę, że nie powinniśmy ingerować w suwerenny proces legislacyjny, który ma miejsce na Litwie, w suwerennym państwie.
Powinniśmy z całą pewnością wykazywać więcej zaufania do procesu legislacyjnego na Litwie, więcej zrozumienia dla tych posłów na Litwie, którzy akurat zwracają uwagę na to, że w szczególności dzieci i młodzież powinni być często lepiej chronieni przed często agresywnym eksponowaniem treści seksualnych. To jest zupełnie naturalna dyskusja. Wydaje się, że prawa dzieci w tej dyskusji są zupełnie pomijane. W tej rezolucji nie znajdziemy ani tego zaufania, nie znajdziemy poszanowania dla suwerenności, nie znajdziemy umiaru, nie znajdziemy w końcu zastanowienia się nad prawami dzieci. Dlatego nie bardzo możemy poprzeć ten tekst.
Joanna Senyszyn (S&D). - Pani Przewodnicząca! Dla większości mieszkańców Unii wspólne jest przekonanie, że wszyscy ludzie są równi i mają te same prawa. Niestety w niektórych krajach europejskich poziom tolerancji dla mniejszości seksualnych jest wciąż zbyt niski. Zdarzają się przypadki podżegania do nienawiści wobec osób homoseksualnych, zakazywania marszów równości, a nawet prawnych regulacji sprzecznych z prawem unijnym, jak właśnie dyskryminacyjny projekt litewski. Kres takim praktykom może położyć ustalenie jednolitego minimalnego unijnego poziomu ochrony osób dotkniętych dyskryminacją ze względu na wiek, orientację seksualną, niepełnosprawność, wyznanie lub światopogląd. Kiedy to nastąpi? Ważny jest całkowity rozdział kościoła i państwa, gdyż homofobia szerzy się zwłaszcza tam, gdzie zbyt dużą rolę odgrywa religia. Wciąż w 76 krajach świata homoseksualizm jest nielegalny, a w 8 państwach islamskich za stosunki homoseksualne grozi kara śmierci. W Europie pojawiają się najwyżej przepisy lub projekty kompromitujące wolny świat. Dlatego ważna jest nasza rezolucja i unijna dyrektywa antydyskryminacyjna.
Catherine Trautmann (S&D). - Madame la Présidente, Madame la Commissaire, chers collègues, l'amendement actuellement en cours d'examen au Parlement lituanien, et qui rendrait passible d'amendes la promotion publique de l'homosexualité, a été rédigé dans le cadre de la loi de protection des mineurs contre les effets néfastes des informations publiques.
Comment peut-on, à des fins soi-disant de défense des mineurs, porter atteinte à la fois à la liberté d'expression et d'information, et surtout cautionner des discriminations fondées sur l'orientation sexuelle? Nous le savons bien ici, un tel texte entraîne la dissimulation de l'orientation sexuelle, revient sur les droits que nous avons défendus et que ce Parlement a défendus en faveur des LGBT. En outre, alors que nous assistons au même moment à des actions violentes, à des agressions contre des personnes homosexuelles, c'est une incitation à la criminalisation de l'homosexualité ou un appel à la violence. Nous ne pouvons donner cette image de l'Europe à la jeunesse, celle d'une société fermée, intolérante, repliée sur elle-même et qui ne tiendrait pas compte du respect dû à autrui.
Ainsi, cette loi entre, pour nous, en complète contradiction avec les valeurs européennes, notamment véhiculées par la charte des droits fondamentaux de l'Union européenne et la convention européenne de sauvegarde des droits de l'homme et des libertés fondamentales. Elle s'oppose également – cela a été dit – à tout le corpus antidiscriminatoire du droit de l'Union, lequel d'ailleurs a largement contribué à faire évoluer nos législations nationales vers plus d'égalité sur de nombreux aspects de la vie courante, allant de l'emploi à l'information ou à l'éducation.
Je vous remercie, Madame la Commissaire, d'avoir tenu ici des propos très clairs et je voudrais que tous les groupes entendent votre argumentation ainsi que celle de mes collègues. Je voudrais appeler tous les collègues de l'ensemble des groupes à rejoindre les groupes de l'Alliance progressiste des Socialistes et Démocrates, ALDE, Verts et GUE/NGL, qui ont pris l'initiative de rédiger cette résolution.
Anna Záborská (PPE). - Prečo sa tento parlament zaoberá návrhom zákona, ktorý predložil jeden poslanec národného parlamentu? Pýtam sa, kedy sa stalo, že sme začali diktovať zákonodarcom členských štátov, o čom môžu diskutovať a o čom už nie?
Táto debata ani návrhy uznesení, o ktorých budeme hlasovať zajtra, sa netýkajú platnej zákonnej normy. Týkajú sa nezáväzného textu, ktorý je predmetom diskusie v parlamente členského štátu Európskej únie. Zákon, ktorý potenciálne ohrozuje slobodu médií v Maďarsku, je platný zákon.
Väčšina z nás sa však nakoniec priklonila k názoru, že skôr než sa ním budeme zaoberať, je treba dať čas maďarskej vláde, aby mohla, ak to bude potrebné, zákon zmeniť. Keď už nič iné, buďme dôslední.
Vážení kolegovia, počkajme aj s touto rezolúciou aspoň na koniec diskusie v litovskom parlamente.
Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE). - Esu iš Lietuvos ir šiandien svarstoma rezoliucija grįsta viena Administracinių teisių pažeidimų kodekso pataisa. Tai yra, pabrėžiu, nepabaigtas teisėkūrinis procesas nacionaliniame parlamente, į kurį bando įsikišti Europos Parlamentas. Tai yra svarstymo stadija, ne galutinis sprendimas, net komitete nesvarstyta ir diskusijų nebuvo. Teisingumo dėlei turiu pasakyti, kad institucijos, turėjusios įvertinti mūsų aptariamą parlamentarų grupės pataisą pateikė išvadas, kurios projektui nėra palankios, tad šiandien aptariamas projektuojamas rezultatas greičiausiai nebus toks, apie kokį čia yra kalbama. Todėl negaliu palaikyti rezoliucijos, nes tai perteklinė reakcija. Ir dar norėčiau kreiptis į draugą Higgins: nedarykite referencijų į tai, ko neišgyvenote. Palyginimas Sovietų Sąjungos su dabartine Lietuva yra tiesiog nesuvokiamas.
Alexandra Thein (ALDE). - Frau Präsidentin, Frau Kommissarin! Die europäische Menschenrechtskonvention und die europäische Grundrechtecharta verbieten Diskriminierung aufgrund sexueller Ausrichtung. Die Organe der EU und alle Mitgliedstaaten sind gemäß Artikel 6 und 7 des Vertrags über die Europäische Union bzw. Artikel 19 des Vertrags über die Arbeitsweise der EU verpflichtet, Diskriminierung aufgrund der sexuellen Orientierung zu bekämpfen.
Litauen ist ein Mitgliedstaat der EU und hat sich somit verpflichtet, diese gemeinsamen Werte von 500 Millionen Unionsbürgern zu teilen. Ich begrüße zunächst, dass in Litauen nach unserer ersten Entschließung aus dem Jahr 2009 das geplante Gesetz in abgeschwächter Form in Kraft getreten ist und bisher kein einziger Fall der Anwendung dieses Gesetzes bekannt geworden ist bzw. die Anwendung in Bezug auf das Verbot der Christopher Street Day Parade gescheitert ist und diese stattfand. Umso erstaunter bin ich, dass nun neue legislative Maßnahmen anstehen, wonach im Endeffekt das öffentliche Sprechen bzw. die Information über homosexuelle Beziehungen zu Geldstrafen bis zu 2 900 Euro führen kann und es keine Chancengleichheit mehr für Homosexuelle – aber immerhin für Frauen – geben soll.
Ich begrüße daher die Strategie der Kommission gegen Homophobie und möchte der Kommissarin, Frau Reding, ausdrücklich dafür danken, dass sie durch ihre Anwesenheit hier im Plenum kurz vor 24 Uhr die Wichtigkeit dieses Grundrechteschutzes unterstreicht.
Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the Commission. − Madam President, I have noted very broad agreement in this House by all the major political parties on the principle of non-discrimination. I believe that if there were a resolution that really underlined this principle and its application in national law – an obligation that the national states have signed up to vis-à-vis the rules of Europe – then this would be a very important moment.
Those parliamentarians who have clearly stated that we are speaking here about a law which is not a law but a proposal by some parliamentarians are right to highlight this fact, but I would also like to point out that both the President of Lithuania and the Government of Lithuania have spoken out clearly against those proposals made by some parliamentarians.
I hope that a nearly unanimous decision in tomorrow’s vote will underline these principles which have been freely agreed upon by 27 Member States, which are the principles behind our European directives, and which have been reinforced by the Charter of Fundamental Rights. I can only subscribe to the strong position of this Parliament.
Presidente. − Comunico di aver ricevuto due proposte di risoluzione(1) conformemente all'articolo 115, paragrafo 5, del regolamento.
La discussione è chiusa.
La votazione si svolgerà mercoledì 19 gennaio 2011.
Dichiarazioni scritte (articolo 149)
Kristiina Ojuland (ALDE), in writing. – While we are critical of the violations of civil liberties in third countries, we must exercise similar scrutiny in the Member States. It is very disappointing that the Lithuanian Parliament has gone as far as criminalisation of the dissemination of information about sexual orientation on the pretext of protecting minors, religious feelings and political convictions. It is a clear violation of freedom of expression and it cannot be justified even by the will of the majority of the population. Inviolable rights of minorities are always an attribute of democracy, but the Lithuanian Parliament has mistaken populism for democracy. I would like to see the Lithuanian Parliament amending or repealing laws that are in their essence homophobic and in breach of the Lithuanian constitutional law, the European Convention on Human Rights, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. I applaud the courage of the Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaitė in standing up against discrimination in public and hope that others will follow her suit. However, should the Lithuanian Parliament fail to comply with its international obligations, an intervention on behalf of the European Union is needed.