(Lab):...The plenary sessions are
less useful sometimes, as they tend to get into traditional areas
of dispute. Whatever the theoretical topic, of either the full
plenary or the human rights committee, which is also large, they
tend to get into traditional arguments about Cyprus, Armenia,
Ukraine and so on. Whatever the topic, parliamentarians tend to
have a go at each other, which is a pity because it does not add
much value to the plenary. Within that structure, there is also
an opportunity to raise issues of concern. I have been involved
in debates on human rights, detention in Guantanamo, freedom of
the press and anti-semitism.
Sometimes there are what we in political parties call fringe
meetings as an addition to the plenary which take place in the
same venue in the gaps between plenary sessions. An American
senator initiated a very useful discussion on anti-semitism
and hate speech generally. We have also had discussions on
the Magnitsky sanctions and Bill Browder spoke. In fact, one of
the first times I heard of him was when he came to the OSCE
Parliamentary Assembly and we had a plenary. Within it, we had a
fringe discussion about what had happened to Bill Browder, the
terrible stories of what happened to his friend and his argument
that there should be Magnitsky sanctions. These arguments have
now been much more widely adopted as a way of punishing countries
that are in great breach of human rights...
To read the complete debate, CLICK HERE
