Proposition 50K1407

Projet de loi relatif au renforcement de la législation contre le racisme.

Summary ¶

(From the official documents)

Ce projet de loi s inscrit dans le cadre de la note relative à la lutte contre les discriminations et au Centre pour l’égalité des chances et la lutte contre le racisme adoptée par le gouvernement le 17 mars 2000.

Il fait suite à la décision du Conseil des Ministres du 6 décembre 2000 qui a approuvé ce projet visant essentiellement à modifier la législation contre le racisme afin d’en accroître l’efficacité.

Afin d’indiquer que le concept de race ne correspond à aucune réalité scientifique, il sera adjoint au terme «race» le qualificatif de «prétendue ».

Il sera également permis d’incriminer l’injure raciste simple.

Le motif abject sera érigé en circonstance aggravante lorsque certaines infractions ont été commises si l’un des mobiles est le motif «abject» (coups et blessures, viol, harcèlement, incendie volontaire, etc). Les peines pourront alors être doublées.

L’Inspection du travail se verra octroyer une nouvelle compétence pour constater les infractions à la loi du 30juillet 1981.

Des modifications seront apportées à la loi du 15 février 1993 créant un Centre pour l’égalité des chances et la lutte contre le racisme dont les missions seront précisées et complétées.

Ainsi le Centre se verra attribuer certaines prérogatives en matière de poursuite disciplinaire contre des fonctionnaires à l’égard desquels un soupçon de traitement discriminatoire existe.

Ces prérogatives seront étendues au statut disciplinaire des agents de service de police.

General information ¶

Submitted by

Groen Open Vld Vooruit PS | SP Ecolo MR Verhofstadt Ⅰ

Submission date

Sept. 10, 2001

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

civil servant foreign national police racism criminal law

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

FN VB

Abstained from voting

N-VA

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

July 17, 2002 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, the bill that is submitted to us today is part of the government’s desire to fight more effectively against racism and xenophobia. by

This bill is intended to amend the law of 30 July 1981 to repress certain acts inspired by racism or xenophobia. The law of 30 July 1981, called Moureaux/Erdman, was amended by the law of 12 April 1994 which extends the scope of the law to the field of housing and professional relations. by

The fight against racism and xenophobia translates into a set of legal texts, sometimes of general scope, sometimes of more limited scope. The law of 15 February 1993 on the establishment of the Centre for Equal Opportunities and the Fight against Racism is an example of this. by

In addition to the different specific legislation, reference should be made to the different constitutional prescriptions, as well as to the supranational texts applicable in the field of combating racism and xenophobia. Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment between persons, without distinction of race or ethnic origin. by

This bill is based on the finding that the law of 30 July 1981 is, in fact, too little applied. Indeed, the statistics deriving from the evaluation of the Moureaux/Erdman Act, reveal that very few convictions based on anti-racist legislation have been pronounced since its entry into force, and this in view of the number of complaints filed. by

A number of difficulties led to the difficult implementation of the law of 30 July 1981: problems arising at the level of the registration of complaints and the drafting of minutes, for certain categories of the population, difficulty administering proof of the racist intention behind a number of racist acts and reluctance sometimes within certain prosecutors. by

That is why the bill proposes a number of amendments to the law of 30 July 1981, aimed at suppressing certain acts inspired by racism and xenophobia. First, the bill attached to the term “race” the qualificative of “pretended”. This addition is justified by the fact that the basic concept does not correspond to a scientific reality. by

A new article 5 ter criminalizes simple racist insult by raising the motif "abject" as an aggravating circumstance. The bill also proposes that the aggravating circumstance targeting the abject intention be also applicable to certain crimes or crimes specifically listed.

Article 4 as amended by the bill allows to punish acts of discrimination or segregation at work towards a group and more only towards a person.

A new article 5quater proposes to give the members of the Labour Inspectorate the power to establish the violations of the law of 30 July 1981. Article 8 of the bill proposes to assign the Centre for Equal Opportunities and Combating Racism a triple mission in the field of combating racism and xenophobia: 1. Enable better information on the implementation of immigration policy. 2nd Providing treatment and complaints. 3 of 3. Implement analysis to evaluate migration policies and conduct prospective studies on population movements.

Finally, the bill also provides that authorities concerned with the problem of discrimination likely to be committed by federal officials are obliged to inform the Centre in a circumstantial manner of the analysis made of the alleged discrimination. by

Various speakers took part in the general discussion. One speaker welcomed that the bill should allow to fight acts of racism more effectively. However, he noted that the respective scope of the two draft laws would benefit from being further clarified.

Another speaker regretted that the bill does not take more into account the preventive and educational aspects of the fight against racism. by

Later, one speaker expressed concerns about the bill. According to him, such inappropriate legislation appears to be based on electoral concerns. The interviewer considers that the term “pretended race” used in the bill is inappropriate and deviates from the common sense and terminology of international treaties that Belgium has ratified. by

Then, the speaker was concerned about the new competencies that the bill grants to the Centre for Equal Opportunities and Fight against Racism; the latter considered that the granting of the power to receive complaints and intervene in disciplinary matters at the Centre is worrying. At least, he insisted that the centre be heard about how it intends to fulfill the important tasks assigned to it.

The speaker also questioned the abject reason that the bill incriminates in aggravating circumstances, when committing certain offences. The latter questioned how such a motive should be established and proven before the judge.

Finally, the speaker wondered whether the incrimination of external signs that may incite to racism is covered by the bill. by

In response to the arguments invoked in response to the bill, one speaker stressed that there was no paradox to use the word racism in the title of the bill and at the same time to resort to the term “pretended race” within the provisions of the bill.

Another speaker took the same path. According to the latter, the scientific development of recent years has led to a change in the terminology used in international treaties and to a preferential use of the term "pretended race". The speaker recalled that as regards the new tasks entrusted to the Centre for Equal Opportunities, migration observatories exist in all European countries. by

The bill was adopted in the Justice Committee by 9 votes against one and 2 abstentions. by

This is the report, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Deputy Prime Minister, colleagues, as in the Committee on Justice, I have mixed feelings about the discussion of this bill in the plenary session. On the one hand, I am pleased that I can once again express the position of the Flemish Bloc on what for our party now actually are the concepts of race and raciality and on this issue a number of misunderstandings can be cleared out. On the other hand, I am little excited about the further inculcation of the politically correct thinking constituted by this legislation. Moreover, this is done through anti-discrimination legislation, but I will talk about that later. Their

From a legal and technical point of view, I find that there was no good legislative work. This applies both to the content and the method of coding. For the same subject matter, two different laws were drawn up. Everything that was discussed in the anti-racism law and in the anti-discrimination law could have been safely poured into one text. What have we now done? In the committee we worked overlapping in the general discussion and treated the two together, while in the article-by-article discussion and the vote we treated the two differently. In addition, we work at two speeds: today the draft anti-racism legislation is being discussed in the plenary session and voted on later in the week, while at another time the anti-discrimination legislation will be discussed and approved. Therefore, it appears that the relevant observations of the State Council that it would have been better to put this into a single anti-discrimination legislation have not been taken into account. As a lawyer, one can purely neutrally and objectively, from whatever political direction one is, say that one would have done better so and had followed the advice of the State Council. Per ⁇ there is a political component here: one wants to avoid the abolition of the anti-racism law at all costs. It must continue to exist as a fetish, as a kind of icon, in order to further paint the politically correct thinking about the concepts of race and raciality.

In essence, I would like to briefly summarize again why this bill will contribute little to the harmonious society that is undoubtedly aimed at. I have done this extensively in the Committee. I leave aside that there are also low political motives involving parties, to hide certain free opinions. As I have already said in the committee, I would like to assume that one wishes in good faith to prevent certain things in society and that one wishes to solve the problems with which the multi-racial society struggles. We have different views on this, but I would like to understand the views of the dissenters on this subject. Their

It is wrong to address the problem in this way, with this bill. First of all, we are going to play with terminologies that do not change anything in the field, in society. The wrong starting point according to the Flemish Bloc is the fact that one with a declaration in the law by adding the word "supposedly" to the word "race" thus means supposedly or actually able to counter racism. Again, the Flemish Bloc does not advocate racial theories, the Flemish Bloc does not distinguish between races. For us all Flames are equal, whether they are black or white, red or yellow. The majority is indeed white, but that may change in the course of history, who knows. In any case, one must assume that a race cannot be defined scientifically and that racial distinction cannot be defined scientifically. However, one should not lose sight of the everyday reality. However, one should not argue that there are no external differences between people. However, one can determine that someone with a black skin colour looks different than someone with a white skin colour, precisely because of that skin colour. The concept of race is therefore a functional given that has been in human history for a very long time and that will continue in human history for a very long time, ⁇ forever. I understand that one wishes to counter the scientific content of all kinds of racial theories, but it does not do so by entering into the law a sort of spell word, with which everything would then suddenly be resolved. Their

Furthermore, it is not, in my opinion, rejectable to recognize a racial distinction, at least if it does not compromise the human dignity of certain groups of people or individuals. When one accepts the equality of men, there is nothing rejectable to the recognition that one man happens to run harder than the other, while one is accidentally black and the other is white. That is why I think that the draft law is starting from a wrong starting point. Their

In addition, the term "race" goes beyond international human rights treaties, which actually refer to the term "race". It is just so. These international treaties cannot be amended from Belgium, not even in this way. It is a reality and one risks going out of the curve by not aligning this bill with what exists in international law. When one consistently thinks — I will soon take an example from the legal profession — then with the term "so-called race" you may declare your own bill without object, because it is precisely intended to fight racism. When you say that there are no races, that there is no distinction between races, how can one be a racist? In this case, a lawyer must only refer to the law. His client cannot be accused of racism as the law states that there are no races. That is an argument that one can use à décharge, although it will not be the only argument. The judge will assess the circumstances. If one says that there are no races, then one takes all the argument out of the law that should prove that racism exists and that it is a crime that can be committed. Their

The bill is also inconsistent in terms of ethnic origin. There is no mention of “ethnic descent”. Ethnic descent is also for the Flemish Bloc a mere functional data, not something that is scientifically established or can be established, or is scientifically defined or could be defined. Ethnic descent is also a functional criterion that people use to understand each other when referring to their culture or to the geographical location from which they come. Therefore, I hope, Mrs. Minister, that you will answer this question, which you did not answer in the committee, here. Maybe she missed you then. I hope you want to show respect for the people’s elected to explain why you didn’t consistently add the adjective “supposedly” to the term “ethnic descent”? After all, the latter concept is of exactly the same order as the term "race". This bill is full of inconsistencies. Their

One last inconsistency on the so-called race is the wrong premise that so many politically correct thinkers and so many multicultural prophets use, namely the arguments used to wave praise to the multi-racial, multicultural and multi-ethnic society. Remove from your dictionary the terms "multi-racial", "multi-ethnic" and ⁇ soon even the term "multicultural". I only observe that these terms are used inappropriately and inappropriately to congratulate all kinds of phenomena in our society. Their

Go to the Royal Belgian Football Federation and take the trophy of the Ebbenhouten Shoe, as it is based on a race. Wesley Sonck will never be able to win that trophy, but Moumouni Dagano will. I give Moumouni Dagano that title, but he is based on a race. According to the rules of this bill, this would no longer be possible and this is not politically correct. Their

Speak the curse of so many American comedians, which I can taste very well for their humor and satire. They are mocking the multi-racial society, the racial contradiction and the racial distinction. Mr. Minister, she has much more wealth than you want to ⁇ with this bill. With humor and satire, I see African-American comedians mocking with all sorts of contradictions we see in a multi-racial society. Sometimes it happens in a rather rough way, but it can. It is not politically correct.

I must admit that white artists have more scorn. Of course, they are more afraid to violate the rules of political correctness. The black Americans do not, but with this bill you must ban comedians like Eddy Murphy from the screen, because they sell absolutely politically incorrect talk. I think they do it in a way that prevents certain born and frustrated people from accessing the free minds of many people to spread their racial theories. These comedians use their method to counter the raw racism much more than you intend with this bill.

Until here, my criticism of those terminological "crumblings" that one wants to include in this bill and with which one will ⁇ nothing.

The term "so-called race" is still innocent. Hopefully it can be laughed at, because it does not contribute. The expansion of the competence on the ground of the Centre for Equal Opportunities and Combating Racism is more disturbing. The center is now being transformed into a kind of study center. With a politically incorrect term, I would even call it the big dish antenna. There are many small dishwasher antennas and there are more and more, but this is the big dishwasher antenna that is going to fish out everything about racism. Where racism cannot be seen, this center will want to hear it. Where it cannot be heard, the center will want to smell it. Where it cannot be smelled, one will want to feel it. Where it cannot be established, it may be suspected. I have my concerns, colleagues.

That one gives a study assignment at the center of our new Torquemada, Father-Dominican Leman, then. If, at the same time, one does not take away the power of the center to initiate persecution — to directly prosecute — then I fear that this bill has nevertheless constituted a very supreme instrument once it falls into the hands of the government. Their

We must not forget that the Centre for Equal Opportunities and Fight Against Racism now also gets a finger in the pot in discipline subjects. Slowly, the center is addressing a wide range of social themes related to the problems in the multicultural society. It may also have political outcomes. I can inform you — for those who didn’t know it yet — that on 10 September a new trial of the center will begin to ban our political party by dealing with the backbone of our party — the three VZWs. These are disturbing developments, which are reinforced by this bill. Their

I come to my decision. Despite the further extensive interference in society and the resulting threat to freedom of expression — or ⁇ the threat that is now spreading — what I call “multicultopia” will not become a reality.

This bill, once it becomes law, will neither abolish the true extreme right mindset — which is a very marginal stretch — nor the so-called extreme right mindset — to use the term ‘so-called’ once in place — nor the real nor the so-called racism. On the other hand, it will increase the democratic deficit and widen the gap between citizens and politics. Their

With this, I ended up definitively. If the elected members of the Flemish Bloc were really as bad guys as we are always represented by certain persons and institutions, we would vote in favour. We would vote in favour because it is in honour and conscience my conviction that this bill will work the acidification more in hand and that it will cause more totalitarian tendencies. In this way, the government will increase its grip on the free thought of the citizens. I say to you in honour and conscience and in full conviction that the Flemish Bloc will vote against this legally wrongdoing.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Vice Prime Minister, dear colleagues, 21 years ago, the Parliament voted the law aimed at suppressing certain acts inspired by racism or xenophobia, called the Moureaux-Erdman law, a progressive and avant-garde law. A series of legal instruments have come to supplement this law. Arens reminded him just recently. Today, we will vote on a draft that further strengthens this legislative arsenal and we will also need to read it in parallel and in addition to the bill that we voted yesterday in the Justice Committee on the fight against all forms of discrimination. Through this present project, the government tends to remedy a series of causes of non-application of the Moureaux Law. While it is true that in recent years, judicial actors have put more goodwill to prosecute this type of offences, the Moureaux law has long been ignored by many police officers, prosecutors or judges. by

Nevertheless, in its 2001 annual report in March 2002, the Centre for Equal Opportunities and Combating Racism indicated that it had opened 1,246 further cases of complaints concerning racial discrimination, more than 150 more than in 2000. Among these complaints, one in five concerns public services, 14% concerns employment issues and in particular employment discrimination, or an increase of 3% in one year, finally 7% of complaints concerns law enforcement services, or 1% more than in 2000. The center concludes that in five years the two main grounds for complaints have not changed. They concern, on the one hand, public services and, on the other hand, employment matters and law enforcement matters. by

From this report, it is clear that the problem is still acute and that it is therefore important to further strengthen the fight against racist behaviors that are quite unacceptable in a society like ours. Criminalizing simple racist injury by raising the abject motif as an aggravating circumstance, punishing discrimination at work against a group and not just a person, and empowering the Labour Inspectorate to establish violations of the Moureaux-Erdman Act are considerable and valuable advances. by

Indeed, discrimination in employment, for example, is a common and too little combated phenomenon which, however, leads, on the one hand, to a feeling of rejection and well-legitimate rebellion on the part of those who are victims of it and, on the other hand, to a perception of poor integration or unwillingness on the part of society. Therefore, it is important to do everything possible to combat this type of unacceptable behavior of employers. In the same order of ideas, the fact that tomorrow the disciplinary authorities will be obliged to inform the center in a circumstantial manner will allow it to carry out a better analysis of the phenomenon that happens in the public services and ⁇ to combat this same phenomenon. Furthermore, expanding the mission of the Centre for Equal Opportunities in the field of immigration policy, the analysis of migration flows, the prospective studies, the analysis of the legislation on foreigners, seems now indispensable in the light of the debates that develop throughout Europe.

Finally, I will conclude with this, the addition of the qualificative ‘pretense’ before the term ‘race’, even if it seems anodin, is for me a significant advance, both from a scientific and symbolic and psychological point of view. Indeed, we must all say out loud that race does not correspond to any scientific reality and I hope that this term will one day disappear from our dictionaries and will soon become unknown in the mouth of our children. This project is an additional stone in building a society that is more just, equal and respectful of everyone in their differences. We will vote for it with great conviction.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Deputy Prime Minister, colleagues, I hold this statement also on behalf of Mrs. Dardenne as she has been apologized. Their

Colleagues, the 1999 government agreement stipulates that the government considers the fight against racism and xenophobia as one of its priorities. In addition to a thorough review of the current anti-racism legislation and the ban on negationism, it proposed to establish a general anti-discrimination legislation, a bill we approved yesterday in the Committee on Justice, in accordance with the supranational obligations, which we as a Member State of the European Union must fulfill. Their

This draft law to strengthen the anti-racism legislation had to come into being because the current legislation, from the Murreaux Act and the amendments of, among other things, the Chairman of the Justice Committee to the most recent amendments thereon, has not led to an efficient application in practice.

Police services do not respond adequately to complaints from citizens who are discriminated against because of their skin color or origin. The powerlessness of those same citizens who have faced an impossible burden of proof thus refuses to complete a proceedings that have been initiated.

Finally, there are the prosecutors who, due to lack of staff or due to insufficient awareness of the seriousness of the racist or xenophobic behavior or due to insufficient training in anti-racism legislation, do not respond to the complaints that reach them.

Statistics show that since the Murreaux Act, too many complaints have been filed and even fewer have a legal ruling as a result, although in recent years there has been a noticeable improvement, not least thanks to the establishment of a Centre for Equality of Opportunities and for Combating Racism, which supports victims of racism or xenophobia in the formulation of the complaint and the procedure before the court. But, it can be better. After all, discrimination in education, in the labour market, in the housing market, in the leisure market — I think of discos, sports clubs and the freedom of movement in public spaces — continues. A society in which different populations want to live side by side and between each other cannot tolerate such behavior. Excluding groups because of their appearance or origin leads to tensions that can rise high and that a society can miss like chest pain.

Regarding the improvements in this draft law of the law of 1981, I will briefly point out a few points.

First, the objectification of the word "race". I will not repeat it here again, but would like to point out briefly that the international treaties and our anti-racism legislation, which came into being at a certain moment, did not have the scientific insights to get rid of the word "race" — there are no different types of human races, there is only one human race. I myself am not 100% happy with the improvement; I had chosen that the word "race" would have disappeared entirely, but this improvement can just go through.

Second, the extension of the penalties to individuals who are guilty of discrimination against a group, a community or its members on the basis of so-called race, skin color, origin, ethnicity and the like. In my opinion, there is also an improvement in this area, because in the past this only applied to individuals, by the fact that one can also discriminate against a group an sich and can also be punished for it, also means an improvement in this design.

Third, the Labour Inspectorate will be empowered to keep an eye on acts of xenophobia or racism and must ensure that they do not occur on the workplace.

I would like to deepen the expansion of the competence of the Centre for Equal Opportunities and for Combating Racism. That is an improvement. In addition to the competence to combat and analyze human trafficking, the centre is finally given the task of guarding the fundamental rights of foreigners. Even more interesting, in my opinion, is the task of an observatory that gets the center on migration flows. Given the migration flows of recent years to the European continent and Belgium in particular, this competence is not insignificant. A good understanding and analysis of asylum and migration flows, also in other European countries, helps the government to anticipate certain phenomena in order to thus formulate a better policy instead of taking improvised measures that show limitations and inconvenience. Given the experience and expertise that the Centre has gained over the years in terms of integration and migration policies, it is, in my opinion, the evidence itself that the Centre receives this competence. It is also necessary that the Centre be given the task of go between public actors and the private actors involved in the reception and integration policies of migrants. This promotes the cooperation and efficiency of the action of the various actors. There are too many initiatives at the moment. They must be coordinated and coordinated. Many actors in the field do meritorious work but are not aware of Mecca’s initiatives so that the results are not clearly visible or neglected. Bringing together and developing the dialogue between the actors is indispensable. As regards the follow-up of facts, complaints and convictions regarding acts motivated by racism and xenophobia, statistical data retention is crucial for policy to be able to respond alertly to such offensive and unwanted behavior in society. Their

The fact that the centre of all the relevant authorities such as the Department of Justice, the control services and the police should receive the information necessary to carry out its task is also an important part of this draft.

With this draft, the struggle is not yet over. We must also work to combat racism and racist pamphlets on the Internet. Usually, foreign providers are used to do this so that we cannot get the people behind them to catch up and punish them. Their

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, racism is an intolerable thing, ⁇ in the intercultural society we have become. Agalev-Ecolo will approve this design with full conviction.

The Government Agreement of July 1999 clearly stipulates that the rainbow majority intends to make the fight against racism and more generally against any form of discrimination a priority of its action.

More specifically, the government has set itself as its goal, on the one hand, to evaluate current legislation against racism and negationism and, on the other hand, to develop the fight against all forms of discrimination through the adoption of a general law.

The first point concerns the project we are currently dealing with. An analysis of the Moureaux law has been made. The disadvantages that have emerged from it find a palliative in the new text. The second point, on the other hand, will be served by the draft from the Senate, already voted in committee in the House and which will arrive in plenary at the parliamentary entrance. This latter text brings together most of the innovations in terms of combating racism and other forms of discriminatory treatment. The project discussed today presents a reform in two points: the modernization of the Moureaux Act and the extension of the prerogatives of the Centre for Equal Opportunities.

It is not unnecessary to recall that for almost twenty years the legislator has adopted a series of instruments that suppress racial hatred. Vice Prime Minister Onkelinx made an enlightening summary of this in the report of this project. It should also be noted that international law is extending on this issue and mainly at the European level. Directives are becoming increasingly precise and binding for Member States. Directive 2000/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment between persons without distinction of race or ethnic origin.

These advances justify the fact that we now look at our internal rules. Furthermore, it must be agreed that the Moureaux law sins for lack of effectiveness. The figures put forward by the Minister in commission are clear. More than 90% of cases handled under this legislation have been classified without follow-up. I think Ms. Talhaoui has already mentioned this. While the number of judicial decisions has been increasing in recent years, the current terms of the law do not allow to effectively combat the plague of racism. The problem deserves a solution.

I have heard, a contrario, from those who convey the message of exclusion and rejection of the other until in this assembly that the government initiative was useless because racism had not taken place in Belgium. We really need to agree on the concept. There is, of course, no talk of institutionalized or generalized racism. On the other hand, it must be acknowledged that a certain form of latent xenophobia is always going on. The measures proposed by the government should now allow to consider the Moureaux Act as an effective tool to combat these sublime forms of discrimination.

1 of 1. The addition of the qualificative "pretentu" to the term race. The arrangement is symbolic, but we subscribe to this idea of banishing from our legal order a notion that does not correspond to any scientific reality. This remains in line with the spirit of the aforementioned Directive of 29 June 2000, which provides in its developments that the European Union rejects any theory tending to determine the existence of separate human races.

2 The incrimination of the order to discriminate against those who faithfully observe the prescribed provisions of the Directive. It is obvious that the person who makes himself guilty of such an injunction must be held accountable for his acts in the same manner as if he himself had practiced the discrimination.

3 of 3. The stigmatisation of discrimination at work against a group. The Moureaux Act only addressed discrimination against a person in this case. by

The proposed amendment will better take into account possible misconduct, for example, in terms of dismissal.

Then came the new prerogatives assigned to the Centre for Equal Opportunities. You will allow me to delay more on this point.

Article 8 of the project extends the Centre’s tasks in terms of defining and implementing the immigration policy. The aim is clearly to set up a migration observatory that would centralize all information on this issue. The Centre will now ensure that the fundamental rights of foreigners are respected, inform public authorities about the nature and extent of migration flows and develop consultation and dialogue with all public and private actors involved in immigrant reception and integration policies. The reform group supports these objectives. But we are, on the other hand, more circonspective as to the modalities serving their implementation. I am referring to Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the project. These provisions confer three new prerogatives on the Centre. by

The first is that it will now be able to collect and publish the statistical and jurisprudential data communicated by the Minister of Justice, which are useful for the evaluation of the Moureaux Act and the future law from the Senate of which I spoke recently.

The proposed amendment is reasonable in so far as the parties in the proceedings cannot be identified. by

I am more concerned with the second prerogative. Initially, the text provided that the center could ask the competent administration to inform itself and to keep it informed of the results of the fact analysis which presumes the existence of a discriminatory treatment by an official. In other words, it is to be able to have the necessary information on how the disciplinary authorities concerned address the phenomenon of discrimination and whether they do, with knowledge of the facts, an analysis of the alleged discrimination. To say this, to know it, is to admit that an external authority (the Centre for Equal Opportunities) interferes in disciplinary proceedings.

In the Justice Committee, the article was profoundly amended on the proposal of the government. It is now spoken of authority and not more administration in such a way that it can target institutions such as autonomous public undertakings and it is no longer referred to the concepts of official and disciplinary procedure in order, on the one hand, to ensure the application of the provision in question, not only to employees, but also to any user of public services, and, on the other hand, to ensure that the obligation of information can cover all the measures aimed at remedying the proven discrimination.

We acknowledge not understanding the practical usefulness of these ultimate arrangements. We can take the assumption of public transport. Users are accused of racist behavior. The Centre is informed. Today, like any citizen, he can then file a complaint. Tomorrow, he may, in addition, request the competent authority — the SNCB, the STIB or another — to inform himself, in a reasoned manner, of the follow-up that has been reserved for this case. Is it useful? Should such a task be incumbent on a company such as the SNCB? Are we not at risk of drowning in administrative proceedings and investigations of all kinds? We will need to be careful when the new law comes into effect.

More generally, the reform group will be attentive to the Centre’s use of this new competence with the necessary reservations and retention. I am reminded that the State Council speaks of exorbitant powers. I said it. The Centre may, in fact, be informed of the consequences reserved for disciplinary proceedings. If the text no longer mentions it, it is because we wanted to go beyond this initial prerogative. We agree with the Minister that the aim is not to interfere in possible disciplinary proceedings but rather to be fully informed of the actual application of the legislation in force.

Mr. Minister, agree with us that the distinction is tender and remains theoretical. It is important that this aspect of the reform is monitored and evaluated with the utmost rigor; we will ensure this.

The same observation may ⁇ be made against the last prerogative granted to the Centre by the project. Article 11 – also re-written in a committee by an amendment – provides in essence that the Centre for Equal Opportunities may order Committee P or the General Inspection of Police Services to conduct an investigation into facts suggesting discriminatory treatment by a police officer. Here too, the Centre must, in addition, be kept informed of the disciplinary consequences possibly reserved for these cases. Therefore, the Centre sees, in this matter, its competences aligned with those of the Minister of the Interior or the Minister of Justice or those of authorities such as the Attorney General, the Attorney of the King or the judge of instruction or even the mayor. There is no need for further support to convince that the Centre is, here too, invested in ⁇ important skills. It will therefore be about ensuring that it will make a fair and reasonable use.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Deputy Prime Minister, dear colleagues, I would say that the Reforming Group supports the objectives of the project. The fight against racism and all other forms of discrimination is also a priority for us. I have highlighted, on the other hand, our criticisms, our fears ⁇ that the recommended modalities are disproportionate to these same objectives. We talk about racism, of course, it is a plague, but on the other side of the balance, there are fundamental rights, respect for privacy, for example, which should be preserved with the same vigor as the one that suits the fight against discrimination. by

Usually, when one changes the balance of which I speak, when one intends to make a distortion to one or another of our great freedoms, it is trusted to institutions or authorities whose legitimacy suffers no contest. They have long been included in our legal order and a number of warnings or countermeasures accompany their action. But constantly trusting these same authorities, these safe values, prevents renewal. Today, we want to fight racism in a coordinated, centralized and effective way. An institution out of the traditional administrative and judicial scheme is ⁇ necessary for this purpose. by

The government has chosen the Centre for Equal Opportunities. We support him in this initiative but we will make sure to evaluate, on a daily basis, the relevance of this option.

Mr. Speaker, the Humanist Democratic Center can only be satisfied with the measures proposed by the bill. The fight against racism and xenophobia is a matter of all. Therefore, all legal actors should be vigilant. I think not only of the prosecutor’s office and the seated magistrate, but also of other actors whose role should not be underestimated, as this is often the case with the Centre for Equal Opportunities and the Fight against Racism.

As part of the new competencies granted by the bill, we believe that the work of the center can prove very useful. Expert missions on phenomena such as racism and xenophobia, as well as surveillance on the spread of racist acts, are essential.

A general approach to the migration phenomenon is, in any case, necessary if we want to better understand the problem of racism and xenophobia in our country. by

Furthermore, effective collaboration between the Centre for Equal Opportunities and the authorities affected by discrimination likely to be committed by federal officials is also an initiative that we support. by

For all these reasons, our group will vote in favour of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, I cannot let this debate pass without thanking the rapporteur for the work and in particular congratulating the minister for her initiative. You know that I have a special bond with the law of 1981. At that time, I have already tried to make improvements. It is of course useless to enact legislation that cannot be applied efficiently. Taking into account the experience in the field, the Minister’s effort is aimed at efficient enforcement of the law. That is my first determination.

I make a second determination. It has already been pointed out that the functioning and know-how of the Centre must be expanded. I find that those who are somehow confronted with its functioning are apparently not so enthusiastic and repeatedly accuse the Centre, while precisely certain matters are exposed by the actions of the Centre, also on the political level.

I have a third question addressed to the Minister. Of course, one should not get stuck with the patterns of discrimination and racism as we know them. Unfortunately, this is evolving very quickly, causing the slightest foreign conflict, which in any way has links to the community in which we live, other, new and reviving forms of racism that may potentially cause a new conflict or require a new approach. Everyone will understand that I am speaking specifically about the conflict in the Middle East, which apparently is beginning to have effects today. Certain communities that could live peacefully side by side and make decisions in accordance with each other are now confronted by foreign conflicts. As a result, new forms of semitism, anti-Semitism and the violent acts associated with them arise.

I would like to ask the Minister to take this into account within the framework of this government’s global policy, also within the framework of foreign policy and the approximation of the communities here. This is in line with the objectives of the 1981 Act.

I agree with the satisfaction shown by almost all who have expressed themselves so far. I congratulate the government on this initiative. by

Nevertheless, I wanted to draw your attention to a point which — I will specify it from the outset — is not at all unacceptable in my view, but which will still pose a problem in the long run. This is the point that, in the assignment of new powers to the Centre for Equal Opportunities, relates to the examination of complaints submitted by citizens. Given the current trend that promotes mediation as a non-judicial way of resolving conflicts, it is of course useful to promote, for issues as important as racism, opportunities for mediation or complaint. But for me, the question that arises in this matter relates to the body that will be responsible for examining these complaints. by

As much as I do not find problematic that in the case, for example, of a baker who would demonstrate racism towards a client, whether the executive power or an instance that depends directly on it, which is responsible for examining this complaint, so I am perplexed about the context mentioned by Mrs Lalieux.

For example, 20 percent of complaints relate to detectable behavior among public service officials, while 3 percent would relate to law enforcement officials.

I wonder — it is not at all a question of the Centre for Equal Opportunities or even less of the government or the minister who promotes the project — whether the executive, through this center, remains quite fully authorized to handle these complaints, not only with independence but also with all the appearance of independence. It seems to me problematic to see, alongside each ministerial department, particular actions inherent in various departments germinate and flourish. I think the Department of Health is busy looking at a similar project around the patient’s rights issue. It seems to me problematic to see in the orb of the executive, mediation instances that are supposed to give opinions in relation to complaints that sometimes concern agents of these administrations themselves.

It would be more interesting that an institution, which is a collateral organ of the House and which I think enjoys a seeming independence and a more secure actual independence, be charged with all these complaints rather than participating, probably without us realizing it, in a kind of systematic saucissonage that concentrates within each department or in an area too close to it the examination of complaints which, in my opinion, should be examined by more independent bodies. by

This is a general consideration which, in my opinion, does not question the substance of the objectives of the project, ⁇ not, but it seems to me to have to be highlighted, especially since it is a structural matter and has implications not only in the department for which Ms. Onkelinx is responsible but in several other departments and this, for several months.

I would like to thank Mr. President. The rapporteur . The House is well aware of my determination and enthusiasm in the fight against racism and, in general, the fight against all forms of discrimination. by

In this context, the project is not only important, as Mr. Erdman, who was a co-signator of the Moureaux Act that just celebrated its 20th anniversary, to make it more operational, more efficient, but also because this project is a clear message from the government, claiming for all citizens whatever they are the right to respect and fulfillment, a clear message that makes equal opportunities the very heart of its democratic project.

by Mr. Erdman referred to the resurgences of racism that can be seen in particular on the occasion of conflicts outside our country. He referred directly to the events in the Middle East.

In this context, a project such as the one submitted to your approval is not enough. A much broader approach is needed. That is why I launched the initiative with all the ministers responsible for equal opportunities in the regions and communities to provide a much broader response in terms of teaching, training, dialogue, the work of the most diverse associations and institutions.

I think that there, indeed, the mobilization must be much wider, much more plural, much more multiple. I also take advantage of this project to commend the work done by the Centre for Equal Opportunities and the Fight against Racism. In fact, the powers that are given to him by the laws, he has already incorporated them de facto. I mean to mr. Decroly that the Centre is not a mandatory place of passage but it is for now, as part of the fight against racism, the reference body that victims know well. For all these years, he has been able to develop a policy that has really allowed our country to be a leader in this area. I see this in all international debates, the role of the Centre, the policy of the Centre are highlighted.

For a center like this, which serves as a reference, I think it was useful to give it this mission of helping victims by handling complaints alongside them and that it could also, when it concerns public authorities, also be a reference there so that the authorities concerned by a complaint do not remain arms crossed, and that there is a real follow-up. Too often, for example, in law enforcement agencies or in certain administrations, when there is a complaint concerning a civil servant, the complaint is made and then, at all, nothing happens. At least, it is obliged by this law to give information to the Centre, which will be able to visualize whether or not there is a follow-up. by

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude by saying what has been observed by several speakers: this project is a piece of a puzzle. We have cited a whole series of other legislations in force, but there will also be the law against all the discriminations that still cross our society, which, as the chairman of the Justice Committee said, will be voted yesterday in the committee and which will be an opportunity for a broad debate at the parliamentary entry. It will be above all a debate about the values and the profile of the society we want.