Proposition 50K1578

Projet de loi tendant à lutter contre la discrimination et modifiant la loi du 15 février 1993 créant un Centre pour l'égalité des chances et la lutte contre le racisme.

General information ¶

Submitted by

The Senate

Submission date

July 14, 1999

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

EC Directive foreign national equal treatment racism

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

FN VB

Abstained from voting

CD&V

Party dissidents ¶

• Richard Fournaux (MR) abstained from voting.
• André Smets (LE) abstained from voting.

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 ¶

Oct. 16, 2002 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, I had therefore made the first report and the second was drafted by Ms. Karine Lalieux and I agreed to inform you of his report. I do it on behalf of Madame Lalieux.

The bill presented to us today is part of the government’s desire to fight discrimination more effectively. It aims to increase the effectiveness of international and constitutional standards on protection against discrimination and proposes for this purpose a general regulation on the criminal and civil levels with a view to sanctioning all forms of discrimination based on parameters that are more or less beyond the individual’s choice. The text has its origin in a bill by Senator Mahoux, amended and revised by the government. In addition, the present project is based on two European directives: the Council Directive of 29 June 2000 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment between persons without distinction of race or ethnic origin and the Directive of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation.

The proposal aims to re-introduce the concept of discrimination contained in the Directives under the reservation that it has been decided to reintroduce the concept of objective and reasonable justification, which is inevitable given the fact that it is an anti-discrimination law which is not targeted at certain very specific discriminations such as the aforementioned Directives but which has a general scope.

In order to make the fight against discrimination effective, the Centre for Equal Opportunities is entrusted with the task of combating all forms of discrimination based on discrimination that it has identified, with the exception of those based on gender.

Furthermore, during the debates, the committee, aware of the importance of the proposed text, in particular due to its scope, decided to hear Madame Van Gool, Government Commissioner, Deputy Minister of Social Affairs and Pensions, whose summary of the hearing is included in the report as well as the main remarks made by the National Council of Labour.

During the general discussion, the intervention of the various parliamentary groups can be summarized as follows. First, some have specified that the adoption of this project will bring Belgian law in line with the European directives against discrimination. However, they wanted clarification on the link between this project and the provisions in force previously devoted to the same theme. Others, for their part, questioned the effect that this legislation will have on indirect discrimination. Some also issued a mixed opinion stating that the project could be improved on some points. According to them, the approach followed by the authors of the project is essentially repressive. They believe that discrimination is a mentality problem and that preventive and educational aspects have been neglected.

Finally, some have insisted that as the essential step in the fight against discrimination that this project constitutes, the government has, in turn, filed several amendments improving the meaning as well as the scope of some essential concepts as well as its scope.

Many discussions and amendments that I did not address in this report have been developed in committees and for which I refer to the very good report prepared by the services.

In conclusion, the amended draft was adopted by nine votes against two and two abstentions. Here, Mr. Speaker, is the report on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, all democratic parties agree that discrimination must be eliminated legally. Anti-discrimination is the basis, the absolute prerequisite for any form of democracy. Therefore, it is also important that the correctness of the legislation concerning such anti-discrimination be carefully monitored. Much has already been said and written about the present draft.

My group is very pleased that one of our comments in the committee has been met. We had great problems with the uncertainty that prevailed about the definition of people with disabilities. Meanwhile, an appropriate handle was added to this in the committee and a very detailed explanation was added. We are delighted about this. However, there are still many points where this project fails. The design has very wide-ranging consequences that you don’t always keep up with. The draft includes a general section that defines direct and indirect discrimination. Direct discrimination is a difference in treatment that is not objectively and reasonably justified. The question that arises is what exactly the difference in treatment is. What can be considered as an objective and reasonable justification? There is nothing in the draft law on this. The judiciary will still have to fully incorporate this law. The law still needs to be made.

One of our other criticisms about the design is that it is norm-blurring. However, you cannot compare inequal treatment on the basis of capacity with discrimination on the basis of race. Will all banks be prosecuted on the basis of this design because they ask about the assets of their clients when they take out a loan? Will a garage owner be charged for selling a sports car at the same price to a worker and to a wealthy manager? It is clear that it is norm-blinding and that one can ⁇ not equate discrimination on the basis of wealth with discrimination on the basis of race.

There are many other concerns. The scope of this design is too wide. It concerns the entire social order. Furthermore, the grounds on which discrimination may be made are far too unclear. I will give a few examples. It is still unclear to me, neither after the discussion in the Senate nor after this in the Chamber Committee, what the difference is between the concept of "so-called race" and the concept of "ethnic and national descent". Can anyone tell me what is the difference between descent and birth? How can one discriminate based on future health status? These are all very vague concepts that are included in this design. This will, of course, give rise to very different interpretations. We are convinced that this will sometimes lead to absurd, unpredictable situations. We are not alone with these comments. The State Council also raised the alarm bell. In addition, employers are also very afraid of the consequences of this design. Will the wage barrier system be challenged? Is there an objective ground to pay a 50-year-old more than a 30-year-old? If it was about performance, it would still be able to pass the design review. If one pays one more than the other only on the basis of age, we are convinced that the review of the present design will ⁇ not be passed.

We also have major problems with the purely criminal nature of this design. Any criminal punishment is not a good thing.

The combination of a far too wide scope, as I have just explained, along with the fact that there can be a lot of complaints and that everything is punishable by the criminal court, will cause the prosecutors and the courts to become even more overloaded. This will not benefit legal certainty.

The design is much too repressive, while prevention is the first key in the hands of success for the fight against discrimination.

Last but not least, the draft also includes a provision on indirect discrimination. It is a seemingly neutral provision, a criterion or a conduct that has a detrimental effect on certain persons. If there is no objective justice based on it, it will lead to a violation of the future law. De facto, this creates a situation in which an employer who does not employ a statistically average immigrant, a woman, a younger or an older, can be prosecuted on the basis of that legislation. After all, statistics will allow you to prosecute someone in the future. Yes, even the practice test and provokation can bring someone into serious problems in the future. It is then up to the employer to prove that he does not discriminate. So the whole logic of our Judicial Code is actually put on the slope here, because if there is evidence against someone, then he must try to prove that he does not discriminate, but that evidence can be delivered through statistics and ordinary practical tests. I take as an example someone who has a modeling agency and employs only women with perfect sizes and up to the age of 25. Based on this legislation, a complaint can be submitted. The head of that modeling agency will have to prove that he has an objective ground on which he employs only young ladies.

Once, in a distant and glorious past, liberals would have fulminated against such an overwhelming, impractical, and ruling bill. But now, when they are finally in the government, they themselves are at the foundation of this design. Only the already much plagued Marc Verwilghen has not lost the blue in the government washing machine. He is the only prominent liberal who has openly dared to say that this design goes too far for him.

I would like to conclude on this point. In the past, as CD&V, we have always been involved in anti-discrimination initiatives and have often even taken the lead in doing so. We too wanted a kind of guard dog that could guard the foundations of democracy, but ⁇ not a seven-headed dragon that we must now face.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, in the seven years that I am in Parliament, I have experienced a lot, but this bill is the worst. This draft law to combat so-called discrimination is indeed out of category. Hors category, as they say in French, Mrs. the Minister.

This text is the most dangerous, the most shameful, the most disgusting, the most ridiculous, the most foolish text I have ever known to discuss here, because it leads us straight to a totalitarian society. This is not just the Flemish Bloc that it says, because — everyone feels it natural — this law is directed against us. No, the State Council itself and even the Minister of Justice have warned about it. This law violates fundamental human rights so sharply that every right-wing Democrat can only shout out his indignation and his confusion.

This law is, in any case, an absolute arrogance for the lazy who in everything and behind every corner, everywhere around them, see the discriminations lurk: Agalev politicians, for example, or a Laurette Onkelinx, who have been obsessed by the discriminations on the paranoid side and who as fanatical Dolle Mina's today want to take their revenge for all the terrible injustice ever done to them and their tragic fateful companions. The fact that the core of the democracy of the free Western society is almost thrown down here is apparently not of interest to them. The absurdity of the story, however, is that all this cannot be done in the name of political correctness. The media were instructed to silence as loudly as possible. This debate can, of course, still be held here—as far as it is all permitted—but in society, Mr. Speaker, the absolute silence prevails, thanks to the guilty complicity of the mass media, which are completely losing their critical attitude by their slave submission to purple-green.

Or is it because the law is too complicated that one keeps silent and keeps silent? Is it because the whole contentieux surrounding discrimination is too heavy and too complex, too legal sometimes? Is that why the majority of journalists have to resign? Is it because we can’t do otherwise, because Europe is imposing this anti-discrimination legislation on us, so that any opposition to it is lost in advance and therefore completely meaningless? Is that the reason? If that is the reason for the general silence, the lies have indeed not lost their effect, because Europe does not insist on this shameful legislation at all. The European Directives 2000/43 and 2000/78 of 29 June and 27 September 2000 respectively, however, also result in a huge burden and go too far for the Flemish Bloc. However, they have a much more limited scope, in particular the sphere of employment and vocational education, social benefits and housing, and ⁇ do not go so far as to impose severe penal sanctions, to prohibit all kinds of wrong choices and to prohibit the expression of a wrong opinion or even of intentions. It is inherent to man and to human life that he or she makes constant choices. Dozens of times, often hundreds of times a day, a person makes choices in his private and public life. He usually does so on semi-frational or even non-rational unreasonable grounds. Fortunately, humans are not robots; humans are not beings that are guided by a single ratio; humans are not puppies hanging on the ropes of a large rocker. In their interaction with other people, one hundred and one facets are involved, which affect the choices, the distinction we make between people. This may have to do with arbitrariness. This may have to do with trust. This can be related to intuition or tradition. But it rarely or never has to do exclusively with pure ratio. Again, fortunately, because it is about the core of our human being. Every human being is different and unique, and is therefore different from others in his thinking and acting, in his or her behavior towards other people. That wants to put the purple-green majority in all its foolishness. Almost every human act in the public is now subject to the control of an omnipotent government. This is stated in the law. Any exercise of an economic, social, cultural or political activity, accessible to the public, shall be monitored and evaluated on the commission of so-called discrimination.

So what is discrimination? A difference in treatment that cannot be objectively and reasonably justified or even the neutral act that leads to a different outcome. When this distinction is based on the most diverse human characteristics, such as age, geographical orientation, origin, fortune, health status and even physical characteristics. Almost all possible human behaviors and decisions fall below. Consequently, the consistent application of this law means that almost all human behavior must be rationally accountable from now on. From now on, every human being is constantly accountable for his behavior and can be sanctioned. Their

This no longer holds the germs of a totalitarian measure, this is a totalitarian measure of course. The State Council is right in this regard. A government should be aware of the distinction it makes in its actions. This is quite obvious. With private individuals, however, as the State Council warns, it is set differently. Their behaviors are not necessarily rational, the State Council says, and cannot always be judged by utilitarist criteria. The scope, according to the Council of State, is not limited to a specific domain, such as labour law, but includes the social life in its entirety. A word that happens to seem quite strongly totalitarianism. Well, the legislator should not oblige citizens to embrace in all acts of social life and in expressing their opinions the ideas of the government on combating discrimination, according to the State Council. A warning that can count. Their

With this law you, colleagues, force the people to think as the government thinks. You force people to reason in all their actions as a government should do. This is a dictatorship in its most totalitarian form. For every right-wing Democrat, this glass-clear and steel-hard warning should have been the signal of a house-high ban board. In this street we didn’t go any further, that should have been the reaction. But no, the purple-green parliamentarians persisted in anger. First of all, of course, because they are encouraged and hunted by a Stalinist Laurette Onkelinx who, faithful to the PS tradition, of course, has no problem with this type of legislation. VLD Minister Verwilghen, on the other hand, had obviously trouble. He stood with his criticism on the line of the Council of State. I quote from the report of the Senate Committee on this position. The definition given in Article 2 of the bill is very general and very broad: in particular, any behavior on the social level that makes a distinction based on the listed parameters without legal basis. Furthermore, every citizen who makes such a distinction must respond in two ways: there must be a legitimate goal, as well as a proportionate relationship between means and goal.”

Minister Verwilghen also denies that this type of distinction is criminalized and says: “It is difficult to defend to impose on citizens a principle prohibition of distinction, the concrete content of which is not determined in advance.”

True as a cow, of course. These warnings are also wiped off the table, even without developing a serious counter-argument. It is another illustration of the powerlessness of Marc Verwilghen within this government. Verwilghen had gone to the voter with the announcement that the number of penalties would be reduced, but the opposite happens. Because of the rules of the left, it only gets a bit worse. In order not to over-generalize, Minister Verwilghen said, it is a good starting point to punish only those behaviors that constitute a violation of important social values on which there is consensus. Minister in the Senate in this context. The values protected by this law are therefore apparently not included. But the words of Verwilghen are of no importance because it is not he who determines the agenda of Justice. It is the Socialist Party, it is the Greens who determine the judicial policy. Again and again, this weak, weak, backbone-less VLD minister lays himself down. For those who observe the case from close, it is indeed a disheartening image. The State Council continues its criticism. The Council of State warns that the text threatens to violate the European Convention on Human Rights, something that everyone should be concerned about here in this hemisphere, including on freedom of expression. Here too, the proposed legislation is clear in all its madness because the prohibition of so-called discrimination applies to "distribution, publication or publication of a text, a message, a sign" — yes, even a sign — "or any other medium". Their

by [...]

What do you think, colleague Schoofs? Yes, I can’t even point out because it can be considered a sign. Also this text is clearly totalitarian of attitude, it covers all aspects of speech. This is stated by the State Council — it is a fairly long quote, but it is important to repeat it because it is so essential to our democracy: “According to the European Court of Human Rights, freedom of expression is one of the pillars of a democratic society and one of the most important conditions for the progress and development of all. Freedom of expression applies not only to information or ideas which are welcomed favorably or which are considered innocent and indifferent, but also to those which shock, disturb or hurt the State or any group of the population. Thus, pluralism, tolerance, and the spirit of openness are the things without which a democratic society cannot exist. Exceptions to this freedom may be provided, but such exceptions must be interpreted strictly. It follows that there is no reason to impose restrictions on the right of citizens to express their views, even in the loud and polemical tone, which is often characteristic of the public debate, on, for example, the respective role of man and woman in society," — I still cite the Council of State — "or within the couple, the age of majority, the rights of homosexual couples, the rights of children, the unmarried coexistence, the divorce, the fiscal, social and health policy, the policy towards persons with disabilities and so on, even if those people shock, disturb or hurt the State or another group of the population. Similarly, it would be excessive to punish the making of a sexist joke or the ridicule of the sexual orientation or of the physical character of a known person, insofar as that joke or that ridicule does not become an insult, blasphemy or blasphemy, or an infringement on the privacy sphere.” “Neither the text of the proposal nor the explanation shows, however, that such opinions, jokes or ridicule cannot be regarded as inciting discrimination or publicly revealing the intention to discriminate.”

The same applies to those other important European fundamental rights: freedom of association and freedom of religion. This law indeed makes it very difficult to maintain, for example, service clubs that focus only on men or organizations that focus on the exclusive leisure for ladies. In my municipality there is an exclusive debate club for women called “Actual Thinking” which is led by the wife of the former prime minister, Ms. Celie Dehaene. The activities are often very exciting, so there is a whole waiting list to join. The exhibition hall of the cultural center of Strombeek is, after all, far too small to accommodate all the candidates. Soon the problem of this association becomes vital, for there is no objective reason to reject men and therefore that association sinens itself to a shameful form of discrimination. The same song for the basketball club from my municipality that arranged the evenings with the Canadian version of the Chippendales where only women were invited. This is a ⁇ criminal form of discrimination.

When we question the minister about this, then she refuses to answer, then she refuses to acknowledge or counter the ridiculous but at the same time also dramatic consequences of this law. "That will make the judge!" she says, acknowledging that we end up in an era of great legal uncertainty, an era where no longer parliamentarians make laws but the judges, an era where un gouvernement des juges distributes the sheets, Mrs. the minister.

The same danger threatens in connection with the freedom of worship. Here too, the Council of State warns that it is necessary to explicitly provide for a provision that limits the excessive scope of the law. But the minister has no ears to it. “It’s written in the Constitution and that’s enough!” the minister oracles. Even today, even before this shameful law was passed, the evidence has been provided that this is not the case, that this law will be abused to invent new discriminations that will actually put the fundamental rights on the slope.

Take for example the extremist statements of — colleague Talhaoui will know him — Ludo Sannen of the Flemish Parliament, who proclaims that Catholic education should organize Islam lessons. Today, this multicul prophet still has no legal basis to harden this nonsense.

There are schools that do that!

It is possible, but that is not the matter.

That is not taken out of the air!

It is not taken out of the air, there are schools that do it.

There are many schools in Antwerp that are multicultural schools — free education — and where indeed, in addition to morality, in addition to Catholic religion, Islam is also taught. So don’t say he didn’t know where he got it, if practice shows it.

I do not deny that, that is not at all the core of the matter. If some free schools of any column do that, it is their business. But what one wants to do from Agalevhoek is to impose the Catholic schools. This is where they want to go in the long run. That is what we want to warn. Now this can not be legally hardened, but tomorrow on the basis of this law. Because the judge can then decide that a Catholic school may not refuse students on the basis of faith, and can then impose that this school may not refuse to give Islam lessons. Their

Freedom of association, freedom of education, freedom of religion are at stake here. For the CD&V, who yesterday, by the way, rightly resigned against the proposal of Sannen, it should be another signal that this law is ⁇ dangerous and that a fearful abstinence is absolutely inadequate. You know — I would have stood here: ladies and gentlemen of the CD&V, but the interest is so great that I must limit myself to all ladies of the CD&V — whatever the lenses of your opponents are. You know what they plan. You know that they want to break the Catholicism in Flanders and take the Catholic education in view. Stop playing with your feet anymore! Finally stop being good and wanting to be friends with everyone!

This so-called anti-discrimination law is thus totalitarian and is contrary to the international legal order. It also goes against our own legal principles. The reversal of the burden of evidence in statistical determinations, for example. As a result, those against whom nothing can be blamed will be forced to defend from day to day, will be forced to answer because their staff is not entirely in line with the ideal image of the multicultural society. If you want to produce even more acidification in the population — so-called acidification — but above all want to arouse anger, then you must fully implement this kind of injustice, coupled with pseudo-solicitations, Mrs. Minister, false applications, and court guard checks. Their

Another such injustice is the punishment of an intention to discriminate. This is directly contrary to the fundamental principles of our criminal law which requires that a criminal act must also be effectively committed. The most dangerous thing about this design is, in any case, that a penalty provision is introduced, the object of which is currently barely known. Minister Verwilghen also warns of this. Fernand Keuleneer states it in Tertio as follows:

“The legislator creates a crime without the citizen at the moment he makes an act knowing whether he is committing a crime.” Whether this is true or not depends solely on the changing judgment by others. However, the State Council had also expressly warned in this regard. I quote on page 8 of the Opinion to the Senate of the State Council: “Because the proposal contains civil and criminal provisions that would be directly applicable to individuals, the inaccuracy of the proposal cannot be accepted. Citizens should know exactly what behavior they should not show. This is especially true in criminal cases. In accordance with the principle of legality of punishment and punishment, which arises from Article 7 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) and from Articles 12, paragraphs 2 and 14 of the Constitution, the legislative power has the constitutional duty to define, in words sufficiently clear, precise and providing legal certainty, which acts are criminalized so that the judge is not granted an excessive freedom of judgment.

Here manifests the opposite. Minister Onkelinx’s fanaticism has once again prevented this destructive criticism from being taken into account. This is another violation of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.

Colleagues, if there is one thing clear about the arbitration court’s judgments on discrimination, it is that this problem is extremely complex and that not only parliamentarians but also and especially top lawyers have great difficulty in understanding this. How do you get it in your head to impose on every individual citizen that he would have an impeccable, non-discriminatory course of life, which is then again mitigated by severe penal sanctions. What an irresponsible, what a scandalous and shameful anti-parliamentary and incivil behavior! This so-called anti-discrimination law is thus totalitarian, is against the international legal order and against our own legal principles, but is also extremely hypocritical. I give a few examples.

Discrimination on the basis of birth is prohibited, but those same purple-green parties stand in the first row — some in my neighborhood very close to the first row — to submit to the birth of a princess.

If there is one real discrimination today, it is that an unelected family of inhabitants from some German province town has a significant portion of power here forever. What are the consequences of the new law for this, purple-green colleagues?

Coincidence means that a friend of mine in a non-conformist leaflet interviewed Father Leman about this new law and asked him this question. The question was: You will also be able to act against discrimination on the basis of birth, will you also deal with the royal house and the nobility? Father Leman, who fell from the air. The interview was held after it was voted in the Senate and after it was dealt with in the Chamber Committee and appeared this summer in the magazine The Free Exploiter. Father Leman replied, “What! discrimination on the basis of birth. What should I imagine here? Are you sure it’s on that list too?”Pater Leman becomes the great applicant of that law but he can’t believe that discrimination on the basis of birth is also introduced or is rather curbed.

Collega Schauvliege once again asked what discrimination on the basis of birth means. The question was never answered. We have asked lots of questions that have never been answered. Do you know yourself, colleagues of the purple-green majority, what "birth" in this law means to do? Mostly because you are apparently unwilling to apply it yourself against the most flagrant birth discrimination that exists, namely the royal house...

The [...]

In this context.

Please use your microphone.

The [...]

Jamaar, concrete ...

The Court of Justice in Strasbourg has also interpreted these various anti-discrimination grounds. The BUPO has also made several communications on this subject. So where do you actually come up with?

So why not apply it to that family that benefits from it? It is one of the only families in the country that is discriminated on the basis of birth, but then positively discriminated. Why don’t you complain about it? This is a manifest discrimination. That family has the right to continue to rule us and has a great deal of political powers to the eternal day from father to son, from mother to daughter, from father to daughter, and so on. If it needs to be applied concretely then you say nothing, then you are ⁇ hypocritical and I come here to say that too.

A second example. The left side is hopelessly inconsistent. The same parties that advocate for a maximum of alternative punishments for real criminals, for reduction of prison sentences, for as little as possible detention damage and as gentle treatment as possible, in short, people who witness a terrible aversion to the prison sentence, who come into this file, where the opinion of their opponents should be sanctioned, defend a law that bulks of extreme repression.

For the most banal and ridiculous statements, even for jokes, people now risk up to one year in prison, and if it does not, it can go up to two years for those who work for the government. All this is ⁇ inconsistent.

Thirdly, it has now become clear that the government will ⁇ not adhere to the basic principles of this law, but rather want to work on new forms of large-scale positive discrimination, in which foreigners will be imposed on employers through imposed quotas. Discrimination is allowed, if it is directed against its own population. If you want to counter your so feared acidification on the workplace, I wish you a lot of success.

Finally, the most disgusting thing about this so-called anti-discrimination legislation is, of course, that one basis of discrimination falls out of the boat, in particular that of political belief. Of course, this is not a coincidence.

Both in the Senate and in the Chamber, it was stated without blows or blows that this law is intended, among other things, to combat certain political parties and tendencies and that it is precisely for this reason that this basis of discrimination was not included. With this explicit stance, of course, one wants to work to ensure that in the future there will be, and more than ever, discrimination based on political convictions. With this, the left and the extreme left of course want to provide a legitimate basis for all possible, ongoing and future actions against the Flemish Bloc, while the international prohibition of discrimination based on political convictions is precisely a ⁇ precious good that enjoys high protection, Mrs Talhaoui, at the European Court of Human Rights. This is precisely why I am not so scared in this area of the perverse plans that purple-green nurtures with this law.

The conclusion of this law is, of course, the indication of the big big brother, the all-seeing eye that will have to keep an eye on all human behaviors and that will ensure the strict observance of these totalitarian measures. Who else was better suited here than the dear Father Leman, the so meritorious regime servant Johan the Dominican, the man who, on behalf of the government, managed to bring the damned Flemish Block before the court? The Leman Center is led by cabinet members of all purple-green parties, allowing the application of the law to be continuously directed by purple-green and can be exploited for party policy advantage.

It is indeed intended that the Grand Inquisitor will struggle hard against it. Today, the pater’s budget is 100 million old Belgian francs; next year it will be 175 million. Therefore, it is planned to continue with the rough brush. Thanks to this prince’s sum, it will be possible to intensely, with the enlarged glass, be sprinkled to all the unabandoned who dare to sin and discriminate in their actions and letting. Isn’t it time for the people to learn a lesson?

The fact that the Greens and Socialists support this crazy legislation can still be explained somewhat. Most of them still dream of a strong State, of a feasible society where man is beaten, driven by the government, and in all his freedoms flogged.

The fact that the VLD continues to support this extremist, crazy law, against the advice of its own Minister of Justice, stirs every imagination. It speaks for itself, by the way. They are not present today. Following the president’s obligations, they do not dare to come because they know that it is a very bad law, which fundamentally goes against their own political principles. Tomorrow they will press the green button here. They will not be absent tomorrow. Tomorrow they will be here and they will press the green voting button, as they have been under the Socialist Party’s knot for more than three years.

When this bill left the Senate — it was then a proposal from the Socialist Party — the VLD youth had the courage to warn. I quote: “It is a completely unthinkable bill that possibly contains the most fundamental attack — I hope the president hears it — on the liberal foundations of our society since the German invasion. The law can, in fact, constitute a serious restriction on freedom of expression and, moreover, the danger of excesses and witch hunting is far too great. Jong-VLD requests that the VLD thoroughly study this file, discuss it and treat it appropriately.” Their

Colleagues, this urgent council of the VLD youth was blown in the wind. More clearly than ever, the VLD is simply incapable of stopping Laurette Onkelinx’s most excessive, blindly fanatical drifts. As a faulty breeding dog, this party submits to this criminal law. Your backbone, blue colleagues, had to know what you are spotting here.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, the bill that is presented to us aims to provide our country with a general legislation on equal treatment and combating discrimination. From now on, various forms of discrimination will be considered inadmissible and sanctioned, both civilian and criminal. As such, this bill is part of a transposition of two directives. The first, that of 29 June 2000, aims to implement the principle of equal treatment between persons, without distinction of race or ethnic origin, and aims to ensure protection against such discrimination in various fields. The second Directive prohibits any direct or indirect discrimination based on religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation in the field of employment and employment.

The Humanist Democratic Centre can only enter into such a framework aimed at sanctioning discriminatory acts in order to also prevent their occurrence. While the announced objective and the legal framework of the draft law do not pose any problems, the same is not the case with regard to the difficulties that may arise in its implementation. It must be admitted that the text gained much clarity in the discussions we had in the Justice Committee. However, a number of points in the bill are problematic.

First, we find that the scope of the bill is very broad, especially since the exceptions are not limitedly listed. Therefore, we fear that the abstract and broad nature of the provisions leads to a lack of readability, both for the citizen and for the judge, between what is allowed and what is not. The problem of legibility of criminal provisions is not facilitated by the choice of certain incriminations that may pose certain qualification problems for the judge. I think in particular of the behavior relating to the manifestation of the intention to resort to discrimination. In that regard, it would have been more appropriate to provide, as is the case in the Netherlands or Ireland, for a system of general prohibition accompanied by a list of exceptions restrictively stated in relation to that or that reason. by

The exception based on age-related treatment is an illustrative example. A new amendment will also be submitted in this regard by our group, aiming to better restrict differences in treatment based on age that do not in any way constitute discrimination. We also believe that the cornerstone of the bill lies in the access to information in relation to the various forms of discriminatory acts. It is essential that actors on the ground can be informed and sensitized about practices that could fall within the scope of this law.

Secondly, our group is also concerned, in several titles, with the selection of the procedures that are thus detailed in the bill. We would have preferred that this project would take more into account the preventive dimensions than the problem of discriminatory acts. As such, we had proposed a preliminary mediation procedure, organized under the responsibility of the Centre for Equal Opportunities, before the “intent” of any judicial procedure, as provided in particular by article 13 of the bill.

Furthermore, the procedural guarantees should be respected in this regard. It is important that the defendant can assert his arguments with certainty. Could this be the case when the bill provides for the possible use of the situation test and statistical data as a means of proof, without yet defining and organizing its regime concretely? The principle of legal certainty postulates that strict legal conditions come to frame the use of such techniques at the level of the right of evidence; I mean the use of human presumptions, the proof of the absence of discrimination brought by the defendant, through any means of law. In any case, the judge must be able to have a wide autonomy with regard to the assessment to be granted to the facts revealed by the practice of situation tests and statistical data.

Here, Mr. Speaker, is the position of the CDH Group.

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

More specifically, the objective was, 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 second point concerns the project we are currently dealing with. It comes from the Senate and brings together most of the innovations in terms of combating racism and other forms of discriminatory treatment.

The group of the reformist movement fully supports these goals.

It is not unnecessary in my opinion to recall that the legislator has adopted, for almost 20 years, a series of instruments that suppress racial hatred. Mr. Prime Minister, you have made a fairly informative summary of this in the report of this project.

It should also be noted that international law is growing on this issue, mainly at the European level. Directives are becoming more and more precise on this subject. 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 that we now look at our internal rules. Moreover, it must be agreed that the Moureaux law sinned for lack of effectiveness. The figures provided by the Minister in the Justice Committee are clear: more than 90% of cases handled under this legislation have been classified without succession.

While the number of judicial decisions has increased in recent years, the current terms of the law do not effectively combat the plague of racism. by

I have heard from some that the government initiative was useless because racism had no course in Belgium. We 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. More generally, there is a number of discriminatory situations that are not currently incriminated. They develop mainly within the framework of employment relations, for access to certain activities or certain services. It must be acknowledged that our legal system does not, in a series of cases, provide them with a specific protection. The gender of a person, his current or future state of health, his sexual orientation are all characteristics that generate discrimination to which it is not responded today. Therefore, a general anti-discrimination law was needed. I will look at the main provisions.

The first is the prohibition of discrimination. I would like to point out from the beginning that the definition I have chosen seems to me ⁇ appropriate. There is a distinction between direct and indirect discrimination.

According to the text of the law, there is direct discrimination if a difference in treatment, which lacks objective and reasonable justification, is directly based on gender, an alleged race, color, descent, national or ethnic origin, sexual orientation, civil status, birth, fortune, age, religious and philosophical conviction, current or future health status, disability or a physical characteristic. There is indirect discrimination when a seemingly neutral provision, criterion or practice has a detrimental result for persons to whom one of the reasons I have just listed applies.

Such direct or indirect discrimination will now be prohibited when it relates to the supply or making available to the public of goods or services, when it relates to conditions of access to work, the appointment of an official, the mention in a document or a minutes, the dissemination, publication and public exhibition of a text and, finally, the access, participation and any other exercise of an economic, social, cultural or political activity accessible to the public. In other words, it has been attempted to target all the criteria for discrimination, but also all the sectors of activity as well as all the possible ways of expressing any possible discrimination. by

Incentives to discrimination are also aimed at. It is also specified that clauses of a contract contrary to the new law will be void. It is therefore a general legislation, the only possible way to ⁇ the original objective.

The second measure. In addition to these provisions of civil order, the text highlights a number of novelties on the criminal level. From this point of view, I think we can be satisfied with the firmness optics desired by the project authors. Articles 7 to 14 thus develop for a number of offences — I mean rape, murder, insult — that the penalties can be increased up to double when the motive of the offence is hatred, contempt or hostility towards a person, due to the discriminatory criteria I have already listed.

We naturally endorse these provisions even though, in practice, it may sometimes be difficult to establish with certainty the primary motivation of the perpetrator of the facts. by

A few words, to conclude, on the delicate question of the reversal of the burden of proof. We are aware that the mechanism only applies on the civil level and that it is surrounded by a number of guarantees, prior, that frame its application. Nevertheless, this is a real revolution, based on legal principles that are the foundations and guarantees of the proper functioning of our judicial organization. We will therefore ensure that this point of the legislation does not create new malfunctions within companies and administrations. It should not undermine the basic confidence necessary for the proper development of employment relations.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Deputy Prime Minister, Dear colleagues, the Group of the Reform Movement supports the objectives of the project. The fight against racism and all forms of discrimination is also a priority for us. I also highlighted our slight fears regarding the reversal of the burden of evidence. Racism is a plague that must be combated, but there are also fundamental rights and, in particular, respect for privacy that should be preserved with the same vigor as is necessary in the fight against discrimination and racism. We will vote on this text with great conviction. I thank you for your attention.

Mr. Speaker, before I substantially discuss this bill, I will appeal to you, in your capacity as President of this hemisphere. Why Why ? Because during the debates in the committee I was confronted with the manifest reluctance of Mrs. the Minister to answer a number of relevant but, in my opinion, justifiable questions, and that without any motivation or explanation. Nevertheless, I think, Mr. Speaker, that in a democratic rule of law, Parliament is the supreme power and a simple reference to the trias politica is sufficient, I think, to convince you. As members of parliament, we are at least equal to a minister, and I also wish that this is honored. I have one question to ask the Minister today. I will not make it too difficult, but I therefore expressly ask that it be answered, because otherwise I will be missed as a representative of the people, elected in a district with more than 60,000 voters for myself and my party. I thank you in advance for this. You are the primus interpares, President, who can do so, who can give my question an appropriate result, and who can call the Minister to the order if necessary. Their

I will start with my question. Per ⁇ that is the easiest. You will allow me, Mr. Speaker, colleagues, Mrs. Minister, to give an explanatory statement. This draft law is based on the idea that races do not exist and that therefore there is no racial distinction because of the supposed impossibility to give a scientific definition or to make a scientific statement of the fact that races do not exist. I can follow that logic. I can assure myself that one cannot scientifically determine a race, that one cannot scientifically determine a distinction in race. Whoever tries is for the trouble. I will make a small note. Not every legal provision — not even most — is based on scientific data, definitions or findings, fortunately. Therefore, the draft law on this point in any case lacks. I would like to emphasize this in advance. After all, in the minds of the people, of course, the distinction in races was not wiped out by one penny pull, because one often sees a distinction between certain people or population groups. This cannot be wiped out with a single penny. Their

But well, I step into the logic of Mrs. Minister that the term "race" is replaced by "so-called race". In this regard, I would like to ask the Minister a question. By the way, I have already put them several times in the committee and also in the plenary session during the discussion of the bill on the strengthening of anti-racism legislation. Why, then, as regards ethnic origin, the Minister does not also include in the bill that it is a so-called ethnic origin? For an ethnic alignment is, in my opinion, neither as a race scientifically proven, determinable, definable. Let it be said by a nationalist. A race is not scientifically definable, an ethnic descent is not. I wonder, however, why does the Minister want to write the so-called race in the bill and not the so-called ethnic descent. I want an answer, preferably a reasonable answer, preferably one inspired by intellectual honesty. The ratio legis of it is absolutely out of mind. I can identify the many angels and imperfections in this bill, I can also examine the background of them. I do not understand the concrete reasoning of the Minister. She should explain it to me.

Mr. Laeremans has already intervened on many points, so I will not make it too long, Mr. Speaker. Nevertheless, I remain silent about the political conviction that does not constitute a basis for discrimination in this bill.

I want to show how far this goes. It is not just about public life where one can be discriminated on political grounds. Per ⁇ this is also possible — because the draft law does not provide clarity — in the private life of such a person. Suppose I want to marry my life partner. I’m going to see a room tomorrow. The cabinet rejects the room. I have no story against it. He says: “Bert Schoofs, you are a member of the Flemish Bloc, you are a people’s representative of the Flemish Bloc. I reject you this room based on your political beliefs." I think this bill allows that. This is an institutionalised insult, an institutionalised humiliation. If a fortiori as a politician I would ask for a room for a political meeting, one could also refuse it, but apparently also in my private life. There is no clarity about this. Judges have no point of contact to determine what has to do with political and public life and what has to do with private life. It will happen to you. I don’t see Mrs. Talhaoui. Last night we had eye contact. You may know that. She asked if I wanted to speak first and she after me, or vice versa, because she had to leave for a moment. I see it already happening — also an institutionalized insult and humiliation — that one would tell Mrs Talhaoui that one would deny her access to a hospitality case on the basis of her political conviction. I would not say that to a fellow representative. Let that be said. I would not take it if one would do that someone based on his political beliefs. In this, the bill deliberately fails and is premeditated with prejudice to refute a certain political conviction. Believe me, there will also be victims in other political parties. I hope you see the absurdity of this. It’s ridiculous at first glance but it’s actually so grotesque that it’s grotesque.

I therefore rightly and sincerely hope that the judges will take part in my dissenting opinion because I also here in part interpreted the will of the legislator. It may be a dissenting opinion, but one in which we find a basis in the term "view of life" that is inscribed in the draft law to refrain also the political conviction as a criterion for unacceptable discrimination. I really hope that the judges will be so wise to do so. However, I know that I have expressed an opinion that only a minority has behind. There are still international conventions as backbone support. Who knows, any lawyer will not — and I will consider it a victory — have a judge so far as to persuade him to look at those provisions of international treaty law and not at this crack-like law, which has been consciously held crack-like on this point.

I would like to give another example of the curves and the curvature of reasoning in this bill for the purpose of ⁇ ining the political correct thinking, because that is what it serves. That is the fact of the rejectable motive. The fact of the rejectable motive is introduced as an aggravating circumstance in the case of a crime which is or would be committed, in part or entirely, on the basis of discriminatory motives. In this case, the penalty will be doubled. When we look at the explanation of the bill, it is significant how unilaterally one considers the problems. One takes the example of a skinhead who robs and robs an African. I am not saying that this is not happening, Mr. President, Mrs. Minister, colleagues. If it happens, it must be severely punished. The doubling of the penalty would really make me worse to refer to prison that skinhead with which I have no affinity and which acts on discriminatory grounds, because it offends a human person in all its dignity and also has a motive for it. But Mrs. Minister, I would like to point out that every day people are also attacked and robbed by immigrant youth, people of a different skin colour, of another so-called ethnic origin, of another so-called race. They attack people of Flemish and Wallish origin who have a white skin color. In that case, I think that the judges should even consider applying the rejectable grounds.

For very often it is also about young people who may indeed have been set up by some imam or I do not know who, but who will also attack the white cafers, who also commit attacks against people of another race and who would not do so if it were someone of their own so-called race or of their own skin color or of their own ethnic descent. This is what we need to remember, not only with the skinheads, but also with those young immigrants who commit facts.

I complain about unilateralism. The two types of attacks, from people with one skin colour versus another, or from others versus one, are equally bad for me. Let that be said, so that there is no misunderstanding about it. I hope, therefore, with your draft law in hand, if it should be so, that the judges and prosecutors will also follow that, and that they will also take the principle "dura lex sed lex". There may also be a rejection motivation here.

Whatever it may be, this law is indeed intended to keep the official unity thought, that politically correct thinking, and also that multicultural society that could not otherwise be held together, above water. But I tell you one thing: with that law, at the point where it attacks the humor and where someone could be condemned for a joke that something or something falls shy or with someone does not fall in good ground, we are on the wrong path. In Flanders there is a proverb that says: Where there is laughter, there is no war. Well, if you may kill the laughter with that bill on certain points, then we are not on the path we should walk and we are not coming out at the point where we should come out. I foresee, therefore, that when the first convictions fall on the civil ground, because of the draconian reversal of the burden of evidence, then the multicultural dream, I think — excuse me — will fade into a nightmare.

That was all I had to say about it. I look forward to your answer to my question, which I have asked many times. Thank you, but still sincere.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Deputy Prime Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen,

According to the French Academy...

Mrs Talhaoui, when I was here in the beginning, it was about the distinction between the female designations of a number of functions. I asked a question in a French assembly, the French Senate. There was a distinction between “Madame la rapporteuse”, “Madame la rapporteure” and “Madame la rapporteur”. Per ⁇ I am of the old French-language stamp, but I have held to the view that equality is great when I say "Madame le président, madame le ministre", and that I thus pay more tribute to equality than the others. The difference is so great that l’Académie française n’est pas d’accord avec les mots employés par l’Assemblée nationale française. But you can’t allow me to say: “Madame la pompière” to someone who exercises within this distinguished corps.

Mr. Speaker, the French National Assembly is ⁇ , like the French Academy, two centuries behind.

And we are in advance. And I must clarify that I insist that we put in the reports "Madame the Rapporteur".

However, the French Community has adopted a decree aimed at feminizing office names.

But we are not subject to the decrees of the French Community.

not at all. We are here subject to the use of languages...

( ... ...

For me, it is a valuation to say "Madame the President". This is of course a personal opinion.

We must be able to act on language to change realities.

However, I must also tell you that as long as I am in the place I occupy, I am protected by parliamentary immunity.

When you say, “The president is on maternity leave,” there is something ridiculous in the formulation.

Mrs Talhaoui, this was a small excursion that had nothing to do with discrimination. You have the word.

However, gender is also a basis for discrimination in this preliminary draft.

Mrs. Deputy Prime Minister — which is clearer —, dear colleagues, the Agalev-Ecolo group is pleased that the bill we are discussing now will soon become law. In the government agreement of 1999, it was already announced that the government would work on a strengthened anti-racism legislation, which has since become a law, and on a general anti-discrimination provision in our law.

In fact, today’s actuality teaches us that many groups in our society – often the socially weaker ones – are confronted daily with discrimination in education, on the labour market, in search of a home and in various other sectors of society. They are discriminated against because of their skin color, origin, sexual orientation, gender, age, and I will name just a few.

It is positive to this draft that the application of this law does not only refer to the two European directives of 2000. This is about European directives relating to ethnic origin and in the context of employment relations. At the same time, other international legal provisions that prohibit discrimination were examined, such as the Convention on Racial Discrimination, the Civil Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights, the Amsterdam Convention and even the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Their

In this way, we as Belgium introduce a general anti-discrimination or equality provision in our law. In several paragraphs of this draft, certain acts are included as discrimination. This ranges from the supply of goods and services to any other normal performance of an economic, social, cultural or political activity. However, this concretization does not prejudice the wider protection that our Constitution or other international provisions offer us when it comes to denouncing and sanctioning certain discriminations. Also important is the parallel that can be drawn with anti-racism legislation, since racism is always a form of discrimination. I would like to highlight some of the provisions of the draft. These are provisions which, in my opinion, stand out because of the meaning given to them in this draft or simply because they create a new dynamic. The inclusion of direct discrimination, but also indirect discrimination, in this draft, for example, and the consequences associated with it, implies that a phenomenon that so far appeared to be difficult to prove, namely indirect discrimination, will be recognized as such from now on, despite its sometimes subtle character. This notion of indirect discrimination will have to gain even more content in the case-law in our national legal order, where the Court of Justice in Strasbourg and Luxembourg have already developed an interesting case-law on this subject. This hidden form of discrimination, which causes so much suffering to so many people and which will finally be able to emerge through practical tests, is an important tool to counter exclusion in our society. Per ⁇ then the discotheque exhibitor who refuses an immigrant to access his tent because of the fact that he is allegedly not a member can finally be held accountable under this law.

My second point: this draft extends on the discrimination that exists in the labour market. Where the heart is full, the mouth runs over. Is it true, Mr. Minister of Labour and Employment? But more than that, with this theme, we are pressed with our nose on the reality, namely on the immigration and integration debate that is currently underway in the Flemish Parliament and the urgent requests from all immigrant communities and from the mouth of certain politicians to finally do something about the overrepresentation of some population groups in the unemployment statistics. Their

This is also a field where one is dealing with an inequality of weapons, namely a strong employer and an impotent worker or jobseeker. It is therefore no more than fair that the government supports the weakest party in strengthening its position. Striking and important enough is that the legislator wanted to counter discrimination, both in the public sector and in private companies. In private enterprises, it is still more difficult to regulate recruitment and further professional careers. The private sector has a social responsibility, but the government must also get rid of good practices.

Third is the harassment. In this draft, harassment is considered to be a form of discrimination if it is based on a basis of discrimination or if it is behaviors based on certain grounds in this draft and which result in a violation of the dignity of the human person accompanied by intimidation, insults, humiliation or other hostility. The taboo of harassment at work has finally been broken. People now dare to talk about it openly and the public opinion now knows that this behavior can destroy human lives. It has been your merit, Mrs. Minister, together with the Senate, to combat these behaviors or acts in the Law on Harassment. Its inclusion in this draft as a form of discrimination reinforces the signal that it is unacceptable in a modern and respect-based society that such behaviors are present.

Fourth, the reversal of the burden of proof and the practice test established by a judge and supported by statistical data. The Council Directive of 2000 proposes to incorporate the distribution of the burden of proof in this bill. In this context, the legislature once again addresses the weak position in which victims are in order to appeal against discrimination that is being inflicted against them. Today, the burden of evidence on some victims continues to discriminate against certain groups in our society in education and in the labour market. A shared burden of evidence, supported by practical or situation tests demonstrating that certain groups are discriminated proportionally more than the rest of society because of certain external characteristics or because of their sexual orientation or other grounds of discrimination, should not only encourage reflection, but also encourage strong condemnation and elimination of such laundering. Some tensions in society could thus be reduced to a minimum and enable living together in a multicultural society. The criticism I have heard on the practice tests is, in my opinion, unfair and even premature. These tests are successfully used abroad — I think of the Netherlands, I think of Canada — and are a useful and useful tool to detect and counter discrimination.

Finally this. With this draft, the legislator intended to send an important signal to society and to all those who take responsibility for it. Discrimination is an unlawful act in which no one should sin. Practice will teach us the effectiveness of this legislation. All legislation, including this, must comply with the principles of proportionality and reasonability. Our judges have a great responsibility.

Chairman, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, if we lived in paradise then this legislation did not need, but because we are just human beings, we sometimes need corrections. Agalev-Ecolo will with all conviction support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, I will not extend long on this subject since my colleague, Mrs. Talhaoui, has circumstantiatedly presented the opinion of the Ecolo-Agalev group. I will continue to make one or the other comment.

My group is obviously satisfied with this type of legislation that reinforces a series of measures to advance in tolerance and peace as we are increasingly facing a multicultural society. I believe that free movement does not only apply to goods, but also to human beings.

We can therefore be very satisfied, especially since an amendment allowed to take into account in the law an additional discrimination, namely that which is made to disabled persons. I am very pleased that this point has been added, which we find very important. by

As it has been said, our society is not racist but, as I also pointed out, ordinary racism and sexism exist. This results in discrimination in areas as important as access to work. by

It is always the weakest groups that are targeted. This project is part of a set of measures, including the one we talked about this morning, aimed at achieving equality for all groups in society, including the so-called weak groups. I am completely satisfied with this project. Differences in treatment are classified for all those who would have concerns due to differences in treatment based on discrimination and lack of objective and reasonable justification. The text that is proposed to us is ⁇ reasonable and tolerant, in the image of the objectives it wants to promote.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Deputy Prime Minister – this to avoid having to speak in the “le” or the “la” form – all the madness on a stick, I think that today, whatever some think of it, we put a very important law on the roof. But, and this may be mine because of utopia or dream, ⁇ maybe an ideal society that would not need that kind of legislation. If some have just intervened here and have more than ever pointed out that contrary to what is intended here by those who support this draft, namely that all people are equal, they, on the contrary, point out that inequality must be elevated to ideology.

Yes, Mr. Laeremans, you have explicitly said here that there is no equality, that there is indeed a distinction between people, that there is indeed a distinction that you even — but you did not dare to say that! - would rise to an ideology where, as in the classical world, the strong should oppress the weaker, or where those who are at the right end would eliminate those they want to oppress in this way. You have not gone so far.

Yes Yes Yes. One of the two. And Mr Schoofs? and OK.

I would like to point out to colleague Erdman that we are indeed convinced that not everyone is equal, but fortunately: we do not do equalization. For us, everyone is equal. But I do not think that the law as it is now proposing will provide more equality. I think, to be honest, not.

I must tell you that the interpretation that colleague Laeremans and you give to this law is not mine. I have, by the way, had to find that on — the word is ⁇ somewhat punishable — genuinely interpretations are inserted. I thought it was you, Mr. Schoofs, who said at one point: "I will put this here, however, in the hope that later a judge may take this interpretation to his own, because it is then part of the previous works in Parliament." Well, I personally think that I have more confidence in the judges than you, and that they can distinguish between a correct analysis and a stunned analysis.

Colleague Erdman, can I interrupt you? Preparatory works may only serve, where appropriate, when they provide responsibility for either the withdrawal of an amendment or the justification of a vote. They must therefore be founded. It is not because one explains something in a debate that this is part of the useful preparatory work at a court. The classic case is that the minister says: "I ask you not to submit your amendment, because I make a statement that may possibly serve to a certain highlight of the given purpose or part of a bill." But a simple statement from someone who says, “I explain this or that,” in my eyes, is not part of what is called in the classical jurisprudential terms the preparatory works of a bill or a bill.

I would like to thank you for this statement. Then I am indeed for the trouble and I have no problem with admitting that. I also made it clear — I have been intellectually honest — that it was a dissenting opinion and it ⁇ was not the will of the majority. I have also made it clear in connection with the fact that here one simply does not want to accept political conviction as an unlawful ground for discrimination, contrary to many provisions of treaty law and you yourself also know why you do so.

I thank Chairman Professor De Croo for his explanation on the scope of parliamentary work, and I am pleased to note that Mr Schoofs now realizes that his attempt was completely useless. Now, however, let us come to the essence.

I have said later that a society would be much better served if by the awareness of the fundamental values of society, everyone would not need this law, at least not as a stick behind the door, which this law in fact is. This is the ultimum remedy. It is not a law that will in itself invent new forms of social life, it is the people themselves who make up this society. Despite the regret and jealousy of those who are opposed to this law, they represent in this society, fortunately but still a minority, whatever they may think of. If they would like to lure other people through an approach to this problem, then I say that they are in this failure.

Regarding the general approach, I have noticed, Mr. Speaker, that again — and this is a parliamentary technique — texts are used without taking into account the evolution of parliamentary work. I had to conclude in the committee that, in the first place, those who are now so fundamental — I would almost have to correct myself that I have not acted — have submitted amendments to the ridiculous extent that were not admissible even on the basis of the Rules of Procedure. If, for the sake of history, the amendments 89 to 93 are examined later, and it is known who submitted them, then you will have failed even in your principled attitude, because you have tried in ridiculous ways to push your own ideas forward in them.

This is a total misconception of things, because the matters that we cast in amendments were indeed not our ideas. You know this very well, Mr. Speaker. We wanted to ridicule the law, we wanted to ridicule the arbitrariness now embedded in the grounds of discrimination by adding all sorts of other grounds of discrimination. We wanted to make it clear to you how arbitrary, how absurd some grounds of discrimination are if one knows what kinds of sanctions, what kinds of criminal sanctions are applied to them. Of course, this was a ridicule of the law and we know, of course, that it was a ridiculous situation. But it was to accuse your ridiculous law that we submitted it. You are apparently so acidic, so serious, and have so little sense of humor that you have not even grasped it.

I must say that I have recovered this form of humor once in history and will be interpreted to a certain extent not as ridiculising the previous text, but, on the contrary, as exaggerating your own ideas in a ridiculously low non-parliamentary manner, Mr. Laeremans. Do not go around there. I don’t even want to do the analysis. I pointed out to you in the committee that I would have had the right to declare those amendments unacceptable. I didn’t want to do that exactly to show history how you approach the fundamental values of society.

Mr. Schoofs, you have just asked the question in a way that may have happened doctorally and honestly, especially what we actually mean by "so-called race," and if there is scientifically no race, which we then talk about as a kind of discrimination element. You know as well as I do that there is a difference between ethnic groups and races and that approaches, if they are based on the ethnic characteristics of certain people, are punishable and all international treaties today are interpreted in that sense.

I come to a third point where you fail and approach the problem in a parliamentary unfair way. I have taken the effort, Mr. Laeremans and Mr. Schoofs, to examine your amendments for a moment while you always hide behind the opinion of the State Council. You know as well as I do, at least you know it, but you don’t want to say that the evolution of this text has been very special. At some point, a particular proposal was formulated. The Council of State has been consulted on this text. The State Council has indeed criticized certain points of the present text. A very long discussion in the Senate then led to a second text. By submitting this text to the Chamber, I myself, as the chairman of the committee, took the initiative to request a new opinion from the Council of State on the text voted in the Senate, which in genendele retains the various allegations that you now so gladly cite, but, on the contrary, almost gives a fingerprint for further corrections of the present texts. We have done that too. Without playing one chamber against the other in any way, I only hope that the Senate, after the Chamber phase and after the new opinions of the State Council and the adjustment to it, I hope that the Senate will follow us in this and in those circumstances will approve the text. Why do you think I asked myself to send the text back to the committee, if it was a detail point? Exactly because every detail here has its importance.

Mr. Speaker, again I note that the facts here are presented very differently than they are. Everyone knows that the State Council does not repeat itself. I only have to quote the second advice on page three. The State Council states: “When the Legislation Department has given advice, it has, according to its established jurisprudence, exhausted its powers. It is therefore no longer its right to reiterate the provisions already examined.” The essence of what I quoted later, that was the criticism that a punishment must be predictable and clear. Nothing has changed in that. There are still very vague criminal provisions in which the judges can do everything. So they can arbitrarily condemn people for all possible human behaviors. This criticism persists even after the texts have been approved by the Council of State. It was the criticism of Fernand Keuleneer. This was, by the way, also the criticism of the Minister of Justice who continues to cut wood. The text has not changed, Mr. Speaker.

You suddenly become very nervous. First, I have great respect for Co-Frater Keuleneer — and you know that — but as far as I know he is not a member of the State Council.

Second, if the Council of State concludes by stating that it has given advice on certain aspects of this text, it is indeed within its own competence. The text was fundamentally amended in the Senate. When we received the text, a new advice was requested. Of course, at that time the State Council did not reintroduce those arguments that had been raised in advance, as they were corrected. Under those circumstances, any further criticism was excluded.

I come to my decision. I think that a significant step is being taken on this issue today that hopefully – and I think that – will not give rise to many procedural or judicial procedures. That is not the intention. The purpose is to give a fingerprint to a society that seeks itself, to a rapidly evolving society as we know it today. Together, but from different angles, people are building up this new society, and in order to do so in harmony, without being disturbed by outraging language, indeed, in this law, following so many international treaties and obligations that we have incorporated, was pointed out how the future should be. In case of failure to adhere to this framework, one can always resort to the ultimum remedy; the punishment measure will then have to be a fingerprint more.

With conviction, our group will approve the present text.

Mr. Speaker, if I please. So far, I have quoted a very detailed, a whole paragraph long, from a State Council opinion on freedom of expression.

In the second opinion of the State Council — issued after the text of the Senate — I read: “Paragraph 3, 5° shows similarities with the text originally submitted to the State Council for advice and is subject to the same criticism as regards the freedom of expression”.

You know that, Mr. Erdman.

The bill that we are discussing is one of the priorities of the government. The prime minister again recalled it in this tribune, just a few days ago.

It is important to me, because it is about strengthening the existing legal framework, in order to better combat the inequalities that still affect a whole series of vulnerable categories of our society. I was told that I was obsessed with this goal. It is true. I am obsessed with equal opportunities. You will agree that it is otherwise more dangerous obsessions!

What is the conclusion at the basis of this project? There are in our society categories of individuals, who are perceived as different because they or their parents come from another country, because they are women and not men, because they are part of the Holebi group (homosexual, lesbian, bisexual) because they are not married, because they are old, because they adhere to other religious or philosophical convictions than those usually or mostly practiced, because they have a disease or disability and I pass. Unfortunately, as we know, these differences are often perceived as problems and the social body is then led to react in an inappropriate way, negatively reserving, in an irrational way, to individuals who present these differences, an unfavorable fate compared to individuals who fit with what could be called the norm.

This is a situation that cannot be tolerated. Treating someone differently, simply because he is different, because he is the other without these different treatments relying on the slightest objective and reasonable justification, this is what is not acceptable and what, very precisely, the bill that is submitted to you, proposes to fight by all legal means admissible. In this sense, it is obviously the opposite of a totalitarian project, to retake the terms deployed on this tribune. On the contrary, it is part of the very essence of a democracy.

Thro ⁇ parliamentary discussions, members have raised concerns — some in good faith, others because they place discrimination at the heart of their political project — about the consequences that this project could have on a range of differences in treatment that are practiced today. Some have asked me about this before. What do they say? I recall their words: "Once the bill has become a law, can we still pre-pension, can we still set an age limit for access to citizenship or school obligation, refuse a bank loan to someone who is insolvent? Will it still be possible to deny access to a paid service to people who refuse to pay the entrance price, etc.? Can one still joke, caricate, express an opinion in relation to a distinctive criterion characterizing a person or a group of people?" I would like to repeat it here. She is resolutely “Yes”.

What is in the collimator of this law, are not the differences of treatment justified, those that, to take the terminology of the law, rely on an objective and reasonable justification. What is in the collimator of the law are unjustified, irrational differences in treatment, deprived of any objective and reasonable justification. On these, consensus reigns to say that we must be able to repress them.

It is these and only those that the present project intends to combat. I will add that, whenever a difference in treatment enters into the exercise of a freedom recognised by directly applicable international conventions or the Constitution, it is presumed "juris and de jure" in accordance with the principles of equality and therefore escapes the sanctions provided by the law that is subject to you. Therefore, a caricature, a thought, a political opinion fall outside the scope of this draft as they fall within the normal exercise of freedom of expression, which must obviously, as at present, be assessed according to the criteria defined by the competent judicial instances: European Court of Human Rights, Court of Arbitration, Court of Cassation, Council of State, etc. I go for everything that falls, for example, since we have already talked about it, of the freedom of worship which must of course be strictly respected. Dear colleagues, there are still a number of other criticisms that have been issued against the project and I would like to make some clarification.

First, in response to a comment from the Legislative Section of the State Council, the draft clearly specifies the respective scope of this draft, of the law of 30 July 1981 to repress certain acts inspired by racism and xenophobia and of the law of 7 May 1999 on equal treatment between men and women.

Schematically, the criminal part of so-called racial discrimination is governed by the Moureaux-Herman Act, the criminal part of other discriminations is governed by this draft. The same applies to the civil part of all discriminations, with the exception, however, of discrimination on the basis of gender in employment, which are governed by the Special Act of 7 May 1999.

With regard to the definition of discrimination and in particular the concept of indirect discrimination, the bill is limited to transposing the European directives in this area while formulating things in a slightly different way due to the fact that the present project contains a criminal aspect and that it is therefore important, as the State Council has noted, to give the definition of incriminations the greatest possible readability for citizens. This is the reason why a slightly different wording, but of exactly the same scope as the European Directives, was chosen.

The areas of discrimination covered by the project are broadly defined, excluding, however, activities not accessible to the public, and understood that any difference in treatment that falls within the normal exercise of privacy or the right of association does not fall within the scope of the law.

The draft law contains a criminal and a civil part. As for the criminal aspect, I would like to clarify once again that it is essentially the incitement to discrimination that is aimed at. It is aimed at both the incitement to direct and indirect discrimination because it is obviously equally unacceptable to incite to discrimination, whether direct or indirect. Discriminatory acts as such are criminally punishable only when they are committed by officials because, for them, the observance of the principle of equality with regard to the users of public services constitutes a fundamental dimension of their work.

I also specify that the Government does not intend, in any way, to derogate from the principle that the offence requires an intentional element, which sets the official who, without knowing it, would have put in place a practice generating, for example, indirect discrimination, free from any criminal sanction. by

The civil aspect of the law is very important. It is about providing victims of discrimination and human rights associations with new, more effective means to ⁇ an end to the discrimination stated. It is in the context of this civil aspect, and only in this context — I insist — that the rule takes place according to which proof of discrimination may be provided by means of statistical data or a situation test, the novelty in relation to what exists today being that in this case, where the judge considers that such data or this test allow to presume the existence of discrimination, the burden of proof of the absence of discrimination lies with the opposing party. The principle of this rule — and I want to insist on this point, in particular in response to what Ms. Barzin mentioned — comes in direct line with European directives, that the project submitted to you is limited, on this point, to transpose.

On the other hand, there are two fundamental elements to not lose sight of and that, objectively, make the system quite acceptable. The reversal of the burden of proof shall occur, on the one hand, only if the judge considers that the facts invoked are sufficiently proving and, on the other hand, only to the civil and in no case to the criminal.

On this basis, I believe that the probationary mechanism provided by the project is reasonable and acceptable.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude by speaking of the missions of the Centre for Equal Opportunities which are extended to the fight against all discrimination covered by the project. I know some people are concerned about this, but on the contrary, the government is pleased with it. Indeed, the very important and very positive action that the Centre has carried out since its creation in 1993 in the field of combating racism and xenophobia obviously pledges in favour of this organization, extremely performing and active. In this regard, I would like to pay tribute to the Centre and all its employees, as well as to all the associations that struggle, with means that are what they are – and which are necessarily limited in view of the needs met – to promote equal access for all to individual, economic, social and cultural rights in our society.

It is this equal access that this project intends to promote and it is, in this sense, that it is absolutely fundamental! If there are problems in Belgium today it is, indeed, because this equal access is not a reality and not – as some may have risked to let it be heard – because certain categories of people would refuse to let themselves dissolve in the cultural values of our country. As Professor Martinello rightly says today in Le Soir, a series of important problems that Belgium is facing today have nothing to do with the integration of such categories of people, presenting such characteristics or such origins but are related to the growing gap between people who are well in the system and those who are outside, with precarious jobs and a painful situation in everyday life. More than ever — he adds — we need strong policies against social, racial or religious discrimination because that, he says, explains why some parts of the population are concentrated in schools, lower-quality housing and are in defiance with the political system.

I fully agree with this analysis. To realize the model, to which the government aspires, of a harmonious society in which everyone lives in good intelligence with others, respecting each one’s differences, it is essential to mobilize the means of each one’s disposal to make this one day a reality. I believe that by voting on the bill that is presented to you, you can boast — we can boast — that you have made a non-negligible step in this direction.

Mr. Speaker, I have not received an answer to my question.

I suspect that your comment is correct.

This is the fourth or fifth time.

The [...]

The microphone was late, Mr. President.

There is nothing deaf except the one who does not listen. This is a free translation of what she said.

This actually applies to her. If it applies to someone, it applies to her.

I have not heard my name named. I have not heard any explicit reference to my question, Mr. Speaker. You can apparently do nothing else about it. I know it.

You can read again what the Minister said.

Mr. Erdman, in addition to my recent statement — and I thank you again for allowing me to interrupt you — what the Minister has said recently, for example, on the interpretation of drawings or other things not covered by this law, can be part of the preparatory work that can be used, for example, by a court.

Imagine that she would not have said that.