Datasets:

hcoxec

/

english_100k

like 0

Plenty of theory, plenty of fine words. No one is quicker than us to say these things or to come out with fine words, but practical results are a long time coming.

Why does this worry me?

Because I think there is currently great ambiguity and awkwardness about equal opportunities in Europe.

We want specific actions and we want mainstreaming.

The two things are not easily reconciled and we could lose out on both counts.

For example, at noon we will be voting on two reports on discrimination and equal access to employment which both exclude gender on the grounds that gender is covered by policies other than discrimination policy.

I find that position awkward and ambiguous, and I think that means more thought is required on the drafts you are presenting to us, because there is no certainty that all this will produce practical results.

To take a very simple example, which we were just discussing three days ago in the Committee on Women' s Rights and Equal Opportunities, are we talking about defending flexibility or about fighting poverty?

Both are possible, but they are also contradictory, because we know very well that flexibility creates more poverty, and next week' s World March of Women will make that point.

So there are contradictions in our equal opportunities policy and I think we must be aware of that so that we can organise the future of our project better, or so it seems to me.

Another example, also full of contradiction, is part-time work.

It appears in today' s reports amongst the social rights.

Is access to part-time work a social right?

I have no idea, but I doubt it.

On the other hand, there is also something in the reports which seems to me very important and which Mrs Dybkjær has placed well to the fore, as has Mrs Eriksson: the fact that in future we need to be concerned about so-called 'derived rights' , that is, women' s social rights to autonomy.

What happens to a woman who has spent twenty years with a husband who then leaves her?

What sort of pension will she get?

Good question!

What is her tax position?

There is no equal opportunity, there is no real equality for women without autonomy and freedom as social rights, so that they can have control of their lives throughout their lives.

I would like this subject, so strongly emphasised in our reports, to be one of our priorities from now on.

I now want to talk about enlargement, which is still, perhaps, one of my concerns. We are delighted that the Finnish Presidency has introduced indicators and I know the French Presidency wants to consolidate this indicator policy into an important institution.

I am very pleased about that, I am delighted.

But looking at the problem of enlargement, and here I will conclude, because the issue of enlargement worries me a great deal, yesterday we naturally voted in favour of the report on enlargement to a whole series of countries.

But where, pray, are the conditions for women' s rights and equal opportunities in that enlargement?

I am concerned about that and I urge the French Presidency to be concerned about it.

Mr President, Minister, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, all of us here agree that equal opportunities for men and women must be pursued in all our policies.

But beyond that, the method has to be defined.

We need to be sure that what is decided in Strasbourg is real progress.

In the name of equal opportunities, and thanks to Europe, French women have won the right to work at night.

I am not sure they should thank Europe for that.

The European method, imposing uniformity, is wrong.

First, because while women, like citizens in general, have the same ideas of what is fair and what is unjust, they do not have the same ideas about their role in the various cultures of the European Union.

Nature has determined that woman should carry the future of humanity in her womb.

Now, the primary duty of any society is to promote life and hence do everything possible to enable women to reconcile their legitimate right to personal and professional development with potential motherhood.

In that area, there is no equality.

Only women can have children.

So fairness does not come into the equation when the roles of women and men are as different as that.

Rather than making abortion easier, the French government should be developing a policy aimed at eliminating every material and social reason which might drive a woman to such a negation of life.

Every abortion is a condemnation of our society, but never a condemnation of an individual woman.

Since I became a Member of this Parliament, however, it has been my impression that a part of this House would rather forget this aspect of women' s lives.

More serious still, I also have the feeling that the institutions of the European Union have the greatest difficulty developing a global vision of society in our countries.

As the debates and regulations go by, a compartmentalised vision of our society appears.

Instead of addressing everyone, we compartmentalise: minority after minority, ethnic group after ethnic group.

As a French woman and citizen, this vision of the world is particularly alien to me.

I am a citizen who should enjoy the same rights and the same prospects as any citizen of the other sex, no more and no less.

I do smile sometimes in this House, particularly when I hear that the group most hostile to the single currency are women, especially in Denmark.

When we decide on policies targeting people with disabilities, or blind people, it is perfectly normal to add women.

It is really very annoying that these women, from the depths of their kitchens or household accounts, are rejecting the radiant future of the euro.

They must be re-educated.

The image of the European woman we find in the pages of our reports and directives does not correspond to that of these Danish women, the majority of whom are saying no to the euro.

So, new pages describe her as ill informed, isolated, and out of step with everyone else.

Danish women will appreciate that.

I take this opportunity to salute the Danish women Members of Parliament, especially Ulla Sandbaek and Pia Kjaersgaard. They come from different political backgrounds, but together they embody the courage so many men lack.

It is my conviction that a method is being outlined today through policies geared to sectors, not to say minorities, in this Parliament.

Any kind of national attachment must be destroyed, European societies must be reduced to a collection of isolated individuals in small ethnic, sexual, social or other minorities, all run from a distance by a European State as distant as it is pernickety.

It is not surprising, therefore, that Mrs Dybkjær' s report refers to the Beijing Platform, which uses women' s rights as a weapon to defend a particular conception of women and their rights, and impose it on the whole world.

The Polish delegation to the New York conference already had occasion to appreciate the arrogance of a part of the European delegation incapable of accepting other positions more measured than its own.

Other Members of this Parliament had to take up the pen to put things right, and Poland thanked them for it.

In spite of these remarks, we shall vote for this report because we are naturally in favour of equal opportunities, but what equal opportunities means most of all is respect for everyone.

Mr President, Mrs Péry, Commissioner, the position of, and relationship between, men and women in society has changed dramatically over the past decades.

The number of dual earner households has grown considerably.

Given this development, we applaud a policy which contributes towards the equivalent development of men and women in line with their talents and interests.

The present report, however, puts forward an exaggerated interpretation of the principle of equality.

The diversity or differences with regard to men and women are still not being given enough consideration.

There is also the freedom of the individual to consider.

As a result, the freedom of choice for women, which they strive for, can very easily fuel frustration and renewed forms of repression.

I therefore find it telling that the report is seeking to establish a numerical balance between men and women across all sectors of society, for example in the labour market.

The choice of training and profession for men and women will depend on their own personalities, talents and interests.

To respect and value these differences shows that we still have our feet firmly on the ground.

The campaigns launched by the Dutch government to encourage girls to select more exact science subjects and so-called male professions, have failed miserably.

A European repeat of these debacles appears completely pointless to me.

I just have to get something off my chest. I find it shocking that the representative of the Council should mention the fact that equality should be enforced, yes enforced, would you believe, in the home.

I do hope that she shares my view that the government has no right to intervene in the private sphere.

In addition, the report undervalues transductive labour.

Bringing up children, especially transferring standards and values, is of vital importance to our society.

Whoever denies mothers the freedom of choice to bring up their own children unpaid, will be presented with the bill later on in the form of youth crime and vandalism.

The idea that women lag behind in paid work compared to men should certainly not be considered as inequality, because it is based on a one-sided, woman-unfriendly vision.

After all, it is the cool, rational, enlightened thinking which advances human beings as independent, autonomous creatures and downgrades women to being the second sex.

When one adopts this thinking as starting point, it is easy to see why one could be in favour of women' s equality.

This choice, however, does not offer any guarantees against evil, suffering or injustice.

At best, it sustains other types of suppression.

Human beings are independent and responsible creatures placed in relation to God, their Creator, on the one hand and their fellow human beings on the other.

This means, among other things, that men and women interrelate and need each other in order to do themselves justice as men and women.

This is exactly why keeping marriage and family completely out of the picture in this report represents a lost opportunity.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it was certainly a sensible initiative on the part of the Committee on Women' s Rights and Equal Opportunities to compile a report on the Commission' s annual reports concerning equal opportunities for men and women in the European Union, covering the period from 1997 to 1999.

These reports have confirmed what we were all already fully aware of. The situation is far from hunky-dory when it comes to equal treatment and equal opportunities for men and women within the EU, despite the fact that the first equal treatment directive concerning equal pay for men and women came into force as long as 25 years ago, and Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome, which came into force in 1957, made provision for the elimination of wage discrimination against women.

That was over 40 years ago.

After all, we are already discussing the Fifth Action Programme on the equal treatment of men and women.

Mrs Dybkjær' s report contains another long list of demands and wishes directed at the Commission, particularly in respect of inquiries, which I do not, however, necessarily consider to be indispensable.

But we all know only too well where the real problems lie, and that the lack of political will - particularly in the Member States - the lack of willingness on the part of the social partners, the hesitancy of the political parties when it comes to involving more women in the decision-making processes, and also -let us be honest about this - the mentality of many men and women, are responsible for this unsatisfactory state of affairs.

Once again, we have been left in no doubt on that score.

What I do not see in this report, Commissioner, are calls for the Commission to at last get round to following up Parliament' s very specific proposals.

We have a far more pressing need for concrete legislative proposals from the Commission, than we do for studies and fine declarations and speeches.

Firstly, improvements are called for in the existing directives, for example those covering equality of opportunity in the sphere of social security, with respect to public and company schemes.

I would remind you, in this connection, of our report on the splitting of pension rights in the event of divorce, as a result of which, payments for surviving relatives and the retirement age are to be included in the 1979 directive.

I would put you in mind of the overdue improvements made to the 'caffeine-free' free directive of 1986 concerning equal rights for self-employed people, including spouses that help out - those millions of invisible workers, most of whom are women - and whom are engaged in small and medium-sized agricultural enterprises without any form of social security.

Five years ago, we unanimously adopted an excellent report on this subject, one of our demands being a framework statute for spouses that help out in the family business.

There were two sessions of round-table talks organised by the Commission, and we have not heard another word since.

That was three years ago.