ÍSLANDS AÐ GÓÐU GETIÐ Í STRASBOURG
Horft til jákvæðrar þróunar á Íslandi
Á síðasta degi þingsins var einnig fjallað um rétt og skyldur feðra til barna sinna þegar foreldrar skilja að skiptum. Í þessu máli var ég framsögumaður vinstri flokkanna á þinginu og er innlegg mitt að finna hér að neðan. Ég tók undir áherslur sem var að finna í skýrslu um efnið og tillögum um að auðvelda bæri feðrum að umgangast börn sín. Eðlilegt væri að foreldrar deildu umráðarétti yfir börnum sínum eftir skilnað, þar væri þróun í þessa átt og væri það ánægjulegt. Í erfiðum skilnaðarmálum væri mikilvægt að til staðar væri faglegt sáttaferli til að stuðla að slíku samkomulagi eins og við höfum stuðlað að hér á landi
Í tíð minni sem innanríkisráðherra lagði ég ríka áherslu á að styrkja slíkt ferli. Í skýrslunni sem var til umræðu var vísað til Íslands og bent á hve fjölgað hefði i hópi fráskilinna sem deildu forræði yfir börnum sínum, frá því að vera 10% árið 1994 upp í 90% árið 2011.
Ég gerði grein fyrir ákveðnum fyrirvörum mínum í þessu máli en gat tekið undir þær grunnáherslur sem einkenndu umræðuna og tillögunar sem lágu fyrir að útgangspunkturinn ætti jafnan að vera velferð barnsins, sbr. innlegg hér að neðan. Sjá skýrslu: http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/X2H-Xref-ViewPDF.asp?FileID=22022&lang=en
Íslenska Barnahúsið fyrirmynd á Kýpur ... og í Litháen!
Áður hafði verið minnst á Ísland þannig að ég heyrði til en það var á fundi Félags- og heilbrigðisnefndar á fimmtudeginum þegar rætt var um aðgerðir gegn barnatælingu á netinu og um kynferðisofbeldi gegn börnum. Í þessum umræðum benti þingkona frá Kýpur á að í vikunni hefði verið ákveðið að setja á fót á Kýpur Barnahús að fyrirmynd Íslendinga. Hefði sérfræðingur frá Íslandi haft afgerandi áhrif á að þessi ákvörðun var tekin. Þar mun hafa verið á ferðinni Bragi Guðbrandsson, sem er formaður svokallaðrar Lanzerote nefndar Evrópuráðsins en hún fjallar sérstaklega um þetta málasvið. Þetta minnir á hve miklu uppbyggilegt samstarf þjóða í millum getur skilað og að Íslendingar geta verið veitendur en ekki aðeins þiggjendur!
Reyndar er það ekki aðeins á Kýpur sem Barnahúsið á Íslandi er fyrirmynd. Víða um lönd hefur slíkt fyrirkomulag verið tekið upp að íslenskri fyrirmynd, og stöðugt berast fréttir af nýjum Barnahúsum, sbr. þessar upplýsingar frá Litháen sem ég sá á vef Barnavernadstofu þegar ég var að grennslast þar fyrir um Barnahúsið á Kýpur: http://www.bvs.is/barnaverndastofa/frettir/nr/796
Breyttar áherslur
Á fimmtudeginum var einnig rætt um eftirlit, svokallað Monitoring, af hálfu þings Evrópuráðsins. Með þessu er vísað til þess að ríki sem ekki þykja uppfylla mannréttindaskyldur sínar sæta eftirliti af hálfu Evrópuráðsins. Hafa þessi ríki yfirleitt brugðist illa við og litið á þetta sem hina mestu hneisu. Nýlega var tekin sú ákvörðun að öll ríki skyldu sæta slíkri skoðun og í ræðu minni þar sem ég talaði fyrir hönd vinstri flokkanna, fagnaði ég þessari breytingu. Ég gagnrýndi jafnframt aðkomu margra þingmanna að starfi Monitoring Committee á þeirri forsendu að þeir drægju taum flokka og ríkja í starfi sínu innan nefndarinnar, í stað þess að sinna því hlutverk einu sem þeim væri ætlað, að standa mannréttindavaktina. Ræðu mína er að finna að neðan.
Réttur lífsskoðunarfélaga
Ég talaði einnig fyrir hönd vinstri flokkanna um trúfrelsi. Tók ég undir margt í skýrslu og tillögum um það málefni en flutti jafnframt inn í umræðuna sjónarhorn lífsskoðunarfélaga, sem réttilega vilja láta sín getið til jafns við trúarhreyfingar sem byggja á guðstrú sbr. ræðu mína að neðan. Sjá skýrslu: http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/X2H-Xref-ViewPDF.asp?FileID=21962&lang=en
Aukin og vaxandi misskipting
Fjölmargt annað kom til umræðu og má þar nefna málefni Evrópudómstólsins og tregðu margra ríkja að fara að tilmælum hans Sjá skýrslu: http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/X2H-Xref-ViewPDF.asp?FileID=22005&lang=en og skýrslu um viðbrögð við heilsufarskrísum svo sem Ebólu. Þá þótti mér sérstaklega merkileg skýrsla sem unnin var af hálfu Tuur Enzinga, vinstri sósíalista, í nánu samstarfi við OECD um þróun í tekjudreifingu. Angel Guerra, framkvæmdastjóri OECD flutti erindi á þinginu af þessu tilefni.
Í skýrslu Enzinga kom fram að tekjudreifing innan OECD ríkja væri mjög i átt til misskiptingar og var staðhæft að tekjulægri hluti samfélagsins (næstum helmingur, 40%) hefði ekki notið góðs af hagvaxtarskeiðum undangenginna áratuga, þvert á móti hefðu kjörin farið niður á við. SJÁ SLÓÐ Á SKÝRLSU http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/X2H-Xref-ViewPDF.asp?FileID=22012&lang=en
Á þinginu var rætt um mannréttindamál frá ýmsum hliðum og má þar nefna þann ljóta sið ofbeldisfullra stjórnvalda að halda andófsfólki í fangelsi ,jafnvel árum saman án dóms og laga. Þetta kalla menn á ensku pre-trial detention. Sjá skýrslu: http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/X2H-Xref-ViewPDF.asp?FileID=21992&lang=en
Odessa ódæðið
Langar mig að nefna eitt sláandi tilfelli sem þýskur þingmaður, Andrei Hunko, vakti athygli mína á.
2. maí í fyrra var framið hryllilegt ódæðisverk í hafnarborginni Odessu í Úkraínu, þegar sveitir hliðhollar núverandi stjórnvöldum réðust á fund andófsfólks sem síðan leitaði skjóls í húsakynnum verkalýðssamtaka. Borinn var eldur að húsinu og brunnu 42 til bana. Enginn hefur verið látinn svara til saka en tugir andófsmanna sem teknir voru höndum i tengslum við þessa atburði hefur verið haldið fangelsuðum í meira en ár - án dóms. Sumir voru notaðir sem skiptimynt í Minsk samningum Rússa og Úkraínumanna fyrir fanga sem Úkraínustjórn vildi fá látna lausa á austurvígstöðvunum
Að standa vaktina
Ekki má gleyma afhendingu mannréttindaviðurkenningar Evrópuráðsins sem kennd er við Vaclav Havel. Verðlaunin að þessu sinni hlaut öldruð andófskona frá Sovéttímanum, Ludmilla Alexeeva. Flutti hún áhrifaríka ræðu af þessu tilefni um mikilvægi þess að standa mannréttindavaktina við erfiðar aðstæður.
Að mínu mati er gott að hafa stofnun á borð við Evrópuráðið sem á að hafa það markmið eitt að standa þessa vakt og halda mannréttindakyndlum logandi.
Framangreind innlegg mín í umræðuna á þinginu:
The progress of the Assembly´s monitoring procedure
This is an important debate on an important report, namely the report of the Monitoring Committee to the Assembly on the general progress of monitoring procedures.
Why is monitoring important? It is an attempt - a resolute attempt, concerted attempt - to make the words put on paper in our resolutions, respected in practice. And when practice is contrary to our fundamental principles, we speak out through the Monitoring Committee. This is why this committee is of utmost importance and its procedures to be taken very seriously.
Changes that have already taken place and are in the process of taking place in the working procedures of the Monitoring Committee are to the effect of moving away from the practice where only a number of states are subjected to monitoring into making this a general procedure for all member states.
This does not mean that the situation in all member states is comparable from the stand-point of human rights. Far from it.
But no society is perfect and by extending monitoring to all, we avoid stigmatization and accusations of double standards and in fact we are saying by this practice that it should not be seen as shameful to go through a monitoring process.
After all, monitoring is first and foremost bringing out facts for clarification in order to enable us at a later stage to formulate informed recommendations where that is appropriate. Monitoring is thus not judging, but a tool we make use of to pave the way for progress in the field of human rights.
And judging from this report this indeed is clearly the case in many countries that have been through monitoring - there is evident progress. And that of course is a sign of success.
Monitoring is thus to be seen as a constructive tool for change and at the same time we see the benefits from good examples.
I have sometimes found this Assembly drifting away from its main goal of furthering human rights by becoming too much involved in internal politics of states and sometimes power politics.
If we want the monitoring process to work, we as politicians must cease to be party-political or defenders of state interests, when we step into the Monitoring Committee. There we are the defenders of human rights regardless of state interests and regardless of power politics. Our only task is to see if states are living up to the standards set by this Assembly. All too often the debate has not been to this effect.
Consequently the task of the chairman of the Monitoring Committee is not always easy. I want, on behalf of the United Left Group, to thank the chairman and the rapporteur of this report, Stephan Schennach, for his excellent work which this report bears witness to.
We look forward to working further with him in the future and wish him all the best in a difficult task.
Freedom of religion and living together in a democratic society
I would like to thank the rapporteur for a good and timely report. In short the report, as I understand it, is a call for tolerance and respect for pluralism.
This is needed now more than ever in a world which literally is on the move with hundreds of thousands and millions of people migrating, more often than not, fleeing war and poverty.
It is wonderful to experience how positive the public mood generally is and we have heard stories of people receiving needy people with generosity and a warm heart. It could be argued that the migration flows of late, as terrible the causes often are and the suffering, are at the same time bringing out the best in people in the host countries. And this has been reflected in the debates and resolutions adopted in this Assembly in this session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.
There are exceptions to this and we hear hostile voices in the receiving countries against the newcomers; that they are undermining present - usually Christian - values.
Therfore we need an open minded report like this.
But it could have been more open minded and I would like to refer to comments made by the International Humanist and Ethical Union, which rightly has called attention to the wording in several instances in the report not recognizing the fact that when reference is made to religions, a non-religious philosophical approach to the fundamental questions of life, also constitute a belief which should be set on an equal footing with religious beliefs.
This should also be recognized in the educational system where there should be teaching about religion and beliefs rather than teaching of religion as it is stated in paragraph 13.4 in the draft resolution.
Wording of this kind in the report could be criticized.
I do, however, agree with the International Humanist and Ethical Union when they state that they are strongly in favour of the recommendations in the report to the effect, and I quote, " that the Committee of Ministers "set up a stable an officially recognised platform for dialogue" between the Council and representatives of religious and non-religious organisations. We believe", and I am still quoting a statement from the International Humanist and Ethical Union, " that such a platform would enable constructive encounter between all concerned that would bring out the extent of agreement between us while providing under neutral auspices a venue for seeking agreed answers to problematic questions."
Having made note of these remarks and recommendations by the International Humanist and Ethical Union I do call attention to the wording in the draft recommendation where the following is stated:
"The Assembly further considers that, in this context, the Council of Europe should step up and make more substantial its co-operation with the main religious communities and the main European organisations representing the secular humanist and philosophical world. "
These words I endorse and the spirit of tolerance reflected in the report and its call for a dialogue between religious organizations and other organizations based on religion or belief.
Equality and shared parental responsibility: the role of fathers
I want to begin by thanking the rapporteur for a good and comprehensive report on parental responsibility and the role of fathers in particular.
The rapporteur rightly reminds us that at the centre of such a discussion should always be the well-being of the child and emphasizes in that context the rights of the child to enjoy contact and caring of both parents, father and mother alike.
I very strongly agree with the rapporteur that when disagreement arises between parents, mediation should be ensured. Parent-child separation should only be ordered by a court and only in exceptional circumstances, most notably when there is risk of abuse of some kind. Although we should recognize that parents have rights these are by no means unconditional.
Family mediation when professionally carried out has proved to be beneficial. What is suggested in the draft resolution on this is highly commendable and here I refer to paragraph 5.9. Here an amendment has been tabled which I am not convinced is better than the original text.
Shared residence is encouraged in this report and draft resolutions. This is of course in accordance with the spirit of our time and increasingly this is the practice, that is, when everything is normal and the relationship between parents is on friendly or at least civilized terms. This development is certainly for the good.
But there are exceptions and it is those exceptions that we must always bear in mind when we make changes in the law.
Here I have some reservations - conservative reservations some people might say: But in a world dominated by male power we should be careful not to diminish the rights of the mother which I, and here I am talking from my personal standpoint, has greater rights than the father when it comes to very young children.
Reservations as regards shared residence are indeed made in the report and draft resolutions and here I refer to paragraph 5.5.
As far as the reservations made in this paragraph go, I am in agreement, but when it comes to mandatory shared residence and parental decision-making, difficulties my arise that should be recognized and Stephan Schennach referred to some of these in his intervention on behalf of the Social Committee at the opening of the discussion.
The report does not only talk about rights but also responsibilities and I want to emphasise that when it comes to the rights of the father we should never forget that he also has responsibilities to shoulder. And this is recognized in the report and draft resolution for example in paragraph 5.12 which has to do with rights and responsibilities when it is requested that member States introduce paid parental leave available to fathers, with preference being given to the model of non-transferable periods of leave.
This has been in practice in Iceland for a period with good results.
The best thing about this report which I reiterate my thanks for, is the way in which it strives to put the child and the rights and will of the child at the centre of things. My reservations I already have accounted for.