Proposition 51K1275

Projet de loi portant création d'une Commission chargée du renouvellement des organes du culte musulman.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Tony Van Parys
MR Daniel Bacquelaine
Open Vld Hendrik Daems
PS | SP Thierry Giet
Vooruit Dirk Van der Maelen

Submission date

July 8, 2004

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

religion Islam election

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

Ecolo FN VB

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 15, 2004 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

There are two reports. First, there is the written report on the committee meeting of 13 July 2004. In this regard, I refer to the written report, which you all have read and know. In view of the decision of the Conference of Presidents, we have held a second committee meeting this afternoon dedicated to the bill. I will briefly and concisely report on this.

On the one hand, Mr Annemans spoke, who criticized the procedure followed in the Committee on Justice of 13 July 2004.

Later, Mr. Laeremans spoke about the cracking of freedom of expression in Muslim countries. He also asked questions about documents relating to the mediation of Meryem Kaçar and Philippe Moureaux. Furthermore, colleague Laeremans repeated his questions, which can be found in the written report, and had doubts about the confidence given in the bill to the minister regarding the composition of the committee to organise the elections.

Mr. Van den Eynde made a principled presentation. He spoke about the segregation in the kieshok, about the moderate Egypt and about the fact that the religious struggle is at his heart, as well as about the separation of church and state.

Ms. Govaerts, finally, started with some personal impressions. She talked about her personal preferred voices and about the proverb “Who laughs last, laughs best”.

The report can be concluded with the explanation of Minister Onkelinx, who referred to the important consensus report of 1998. She repeated the conditions set in it to the interested parties to meet as a potential candidate for the election in the Muslim Executive. She referred to the answers to the oral and written questions already asked on the subject in Parliament.

Dear colleagues, finally there was another replica from Mr. Laeremans, who spoke in favour of the position of the Flemish Muslims in the Muslim Executive. He also called for a postponement to September 2004.

Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen, I would like to conclude my oral report.

There are two reports. First, there is the written report on the committee meeting of 13 July 2004. In this regard, I refer to the written report, which you all have read and know. In view of the decision of the Conference of Presidents, we have held a second committee meeting this afternoon dedicated to the bill. I will briefly and concisely report on this.

On the one hand, Mr Annemans spoke, who criticized the procedure followed in the Committee on Justice of 13 July 2004.

Later, Mr. Laeremans spoke about the cracking of freedom of expression in Muslim countries. He also asked questions about documents relating to the mediation of Meryem Kaçar and Philippe Moureaux. Furthermore, colleague Laeremans repeated his questions, which can be found in the written report, and had doubts about the confidence given in the bill to the minister regarding the composition of the committee to organise the elections.

Mr. Van den Eynde made a principled presentation. He spoke about the segregation in the kieshok, about the moderate Egypt and about the fact that the religious struggle is at his heart, as well as about the separation of church and state.

Ms. Govaerts, finally, started with some personal impressions. She talked about her personal preferred voices and about the proverb “Who laughs last, laughs best”.

The report can be concluded with the explanation of Minister Onkelinx, who referred to the important consensus report of 1998. She repeated the conditions set in it to the interested parties to meet as a potential candidate for the election in the Muslim Executive. She referred to the answers to the oral and written questions already asked on the subject in Parliament.

Dear colleagues, finally there was another replica from Mr. Laeremans, who spoke in favour of the position of the Flemish Muslims in the Muslim Executive. He also called for a postponement to September 2004.

Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen, I would like to conclude my oral report.

Can I ask you to stay on the speech seat? There was a question from Mrs. Govaerts. I asked you to conclude your report.

I must also make the Chamber aware of a very new, technological, rational use of an instrument that was unknown to me.

Can I ask you to stay on the speech seat? There was a question from Mrs. Govaerts. I asked you to conclude your report.

I must also make the Chamber aware of a very new, technological, rational use of an instrument that was unknown to me.

Mr. President, I would only like to point out to Mr. Muls that my presentation was clearly about his preferred votes.

Mr. President, I would only like to point out to Mr. Muls that my presentation was clearly about his preferred votes.

The [...]

The [...]

A pack more! Ask your colleagues from Limburg.

A pack more! Ask your colleagues from Limburg.

There are already enough colleagues from your group registered for the general discussion to do your word.

Registered so far — I am still trying to arrange them — Mr. Van Parys, M. Go to M. Wathelet, Mrs. Genot, the gentlemen Annemans, Laeremans, De Man, Schoofs, Goyvaerts, Mortelmans and Van den Eynde. I will panache. I will have to have a series of colleagues from the Flemish Bloc group speak one after another, because otherwise I would not get out of it.

Mr Van Parys is the first to speak, then M. Give and M. and Annemans. Then I will look at it further. Probably then comes Mr. Wathelet, Mrs. Genot, etc. Pussy to continue.

Mr Van Parys, you have the word in the general discussion.

There are already enough colleagues from your group registered for the general discussion to do your word.

Registered so far — I am still trying to arrange them — Mr. Van Parys, M. Go to M. Wathelet, Mrs. Genot, the gentlemen Annemans, Laeremans, De Man, Schoofs, Goyvaerts, Mortelmans and Van den Eynde. I will panache. I will have to have a series of colleagues from the Flemish Bloc group speak one after another, because otherwise I would not get out of it.

Mr Van Parys is the first to speak, then M. Give and M. and Annemans. Then I will look at it further. Probably then comes Mr. Wathelet, Mrs. Genot, etc. Pussy to continue.

Mr Van Parys, you have the word in the general discussion.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, I would like to talk about some elements that are important for the CD&V group in this debate.

There are two important principles in the present bill. The first premise is that the bill is based on the assumption that the new general assembly that should represent the Muslim community will be elected in its entirety. That is an important evolution in the file because the exiting Executive has always assumed that only one-third of the general assembly would be elected. In various presentations and interpellations developed over the past months, we have insisted that the elections to be held after the expiry of the mandate should be integral elections. In the bill, this is the starting point from which the Minister of Justice is based.

A second important premise is that it is not the executive executive who will prepare these elections. I have repeatedly pointed out to the Minister in questions and interpellations in the Justice Committee that the outgoing Executive did not have the representative capacity to organize and prepare these elections. It is not representative due to the fact that in the previous legislature due to the designation of the new Executive apparently has not been carefully dealt with the conditions that one must meet to be part of the Executive, but especially also because the Executive currently is no longer representative in relation to the Dutch-speaking Muslim community, in particular due to the dismissal of four of its members.

It is of utmost importance that the conditions are created to organize these elections in decent conditions. This was not possible by the outgoing executive. It is important that a supervisory committee is commissioned to do this. Their

It is in this sense and from these double principles, the general election of the general assembly and the designation of an accompanying committee, and not of the executive executive, that we have endorsed the present bill. I believe that these principles are an important evolution in the dossier.

The composition of this committee will be of the utmost importance. We therefore very explicitly ask you in the choice that will be made to take into account the very important representativity of this committee in the face of both the French-speaking and the Dutch-speaking Muslim community. We therefore expressly ask you to take the necessary precautions with regard to representativity. One of the elements of the proposal is that you will appoint two members of this committee as Minister of Justice, one who represents the Dutch-speaking Muslim community and one who represents the French-speaking Muslim community. We ask you to do this carefully and we will, by the way, monitor this very carefully. I would also like to tell you that Article 3 — fortunately — has been amended, but still leaves room for an important contribution with regard to the outgoing Executive. I believe that you have a very important responsibility in this.

On the basis of the procedure to be followed — this is obviously not the subject of the bill as it is presently proposed — we believe, within the framework of the absolute necessity of representativity, that in the future structure of the representative body of the Muslims of Belgium we should seek a model such as, for example, the High Council of Justice. In the Hoge Raad there are two divisions, one Netherlands-speaking and one French-speaking, which represent the interests of the Netherlands-speaking and the French-speaking Community, respectively.

I would like to invite you to discuss this track in the consultation that will undoubtedly have to follow in the coming weeks and months. I believe that to the extent that the interests of the Dutch-speaking Muslim community could be represented under the dome of the Executive by a Dutch-speaking department, respectively a French-speaking department, we could take a significant obstacle to reach a truly representative body. This is actually the main consideration, colleagues, given that we in this country need a serious dialogue with the Muslim community. We need it for various reasons. The first reason is undoubtedly the understanding that we must be able to acquire from each other. I think that this insight in itself can only be enriching when it is carried out by a positive attitude. Second, the fact that this dialogue with the Muslim community is important. This is an important starting point for our group because we are absolutely convinced that a commitment within a life-view can and has an important added social value. I think this is a ⁇ important starting point, which is why our group is positive about this bill to the extent, Mrs. Vice-Prime Minister, in which a number of conditions have been met. In the context of dialogue with the Muslim community, we need a representative body in the Muslim community to ensure the organization of the cult. Their

That representative body assumes that we make certain demands in a democratic environment. This has nothing to do with interference, it has only to do with fundamental democratic considerations. The conditions that we must be able to set — I believe this is the answer to the concerns of the State Council — are first and foremost considerations of transparency. I believe that in any advisory body, in any interlocutor in this country — and thus also when we speak of the relationship between state and life-view — the transparency of the body representing the life-view is an elementary given, in which, by the way, the representative body itself has all importance.

Another element — which I will not have to emphasize in this context and in this assembly — is the fact that one must assume respect for the democratic institutions. Whoever is the interlocutor of the government must, of course, engage in respecting the democratic institutions. When this requirement is made, colleagues, I do not think that one can say that one interferes in the affairs of a life-view or of any worship. These are basic conditions. These are basic conditions that must be met.

We therefore request that in the procedure that will be followed following this bill, it will be verified whether these conditions have been met. Mrs. Deputy Prime Minister, it has been my experience in the past, when the first Executive was appointed in 1998, that a significant part of the Muslim community could perfectly fit into these fundamental conditions. In fact, they were entirely agreed. With intense consultation and with a lot of effort, they were willing to engage effectively. In my opinion, this condition does not pose any problem in relation to the positive elements within this Muslim community, but we must therefore dare to set very explicit limits. If some abuse the Muslim community by not adhering to our democratic institutions and being guided by fundamentalist considerations that are detrimental to the convergence of life views and to the collaboration of people within our democratic institutions, they cannot be accepted. Then they have to get out. This is the grave mistake that was made during the previous legislature by the then government.

We stand with an open mind towards dialogue with the Muslim community. We stand with an open mind towards this bill, the committee and the profile of this committee, but we ask you very explicitly to ensure compliance with these fundamental conditions that must be met. Our group will monitor this very closely.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, I would like to talk about some elements that are important for the CD&V group in this debate.

There are two important principles in the present bill. The first premise is that the bill is based on the assumption that the new general assembly that should represent the Muslim community will be elected in its entirety. That is an important evolution in the file because the exiting Executive has always assumed that only one-third of the general assembly would be elected. In various presentations and interpellations developed over the past months, we have insisted that the elections to be held after the expiry of the mandate should be integral elections. In the bill, this is the starting point from which the Minister of Justice is based.

A second important premise is that it is not the executive executive who will prepare these elections. I have repeatedly pointed out to the Minister in questions and interpellations in the Justice Committee that the outgoing Executive did not have the representative capacity to organize and prepare these elections. It is not representative due to the fact that in the previous legislature due to the designation of the new Executive apparently has not been carefully dealt with the conditions that one must meet to be part of the Executive, but especially also because the Executive currently is no longer representative in relation to the Dutch-speaking Muslim community, in particular due to the dismissal of four of its members.

It is of utmost importance that the conditions are created to organize these elections in decent conditions. This was not possible by the outgoing executive. It is important that a supervisory committee is commissioned to do this. Their

It is in this sense and from these double principles, the general election of the general assembly and the designation of an accompanying committee, and not of the executive executive, that we have endorsed the present bill. I believe that these principles are an important evolution in the dossier.

The composition of this committee will be of the utmost importance. We therefore very explicitly ask you in the choice that will be made to take into account the very important representativity of this committee in the face of both the French-speaking and the Dutch-speaking Muslim community. We therefore expressly ask you to take the necessary precautions with regard to representativity. One of the elements of the proposal is that you will appoint two members of this committee as Minister of Justice, one who represents the Dutch-speaking Muslim community and one who represents the French-speaking Muslim community. We ask you to do this carefully and we will, by the way, monitor this very carefully. I would also like to tell you that Article 3 — fortunately — has been amended, but still leaves room for an important contribution with regard to the outgoing Executive. I believe that you have a very important responsibility in this.

On the basis of the procedure to be followed — this is obviously not the subject of the bill as it is presently proposed — we believe, within the framework of the absolute necessity of representativity, that in the future structure of the representative body of the Muslims of Belgium we should seek a model such as, for example, the High Council of Justice. In the Hoge Raad there are two divisions, one Netherlands-speaking and one French-speaking, which represent the interests of the Netherlands-speaking and the French-speaking Community, respectively.

I would like to invite you to discuss this track in the consultation that will undoubtedly have to follow in the coming weeks and months. I believe that to the extent that the interests of the Dutch-speaking Muslim community could be represented under the dome of the Executive by a Dutch-speaking department, respectively a French-speaking department, we could take a significant obstacle to reach a truly representative body. This is actually the main consideration, colleagues, given that we in this country need a serious dialogue with the Muslim community. We need it for various reasons. The first reason is undoubtedly the understanding that we must be able to acquire from each other. I think that this insight in itself can only be enriching when it is carried out by a positive attitude. Second, the fact that this dialogue with the Muslim community is important. This is an important starting point for our group because we are absolutely convinced that a commitment within a life-view can and has an important added social value. I think this is a ⁇ important starting point, which is why our group is positive about this bill to the extent, Mrs. Vice-Prime Minister, in which a number of conditions have been met. In the context of dialogue with the Muslim community, we need a representative body in the Muslim community to ensure the organization of the cult. Their

That representative body assumes that we make certain demands in a democratic environment. This has nothing to do with interference, it has only to do with fundamental democratic considerations. The conditions that we must be able to set — I believe this is the answer to the concerns of the State Council — are first and foremost considerations of transparency. I believe that in any advisory body, in any interlocutor in this country — and thus also when we speak of the relationship between state and life-view — the transparency of the body representing the life-view is an elementary given, in which, by the way, the representative body itself has all importance.

Another element — which I will not have to emphasize in this context and in this assembly — is the fact that one must assume respect for the democratic institutions. Whoever is the interlocutor of the government must, of course, engage in respecting the democratic institutions. When this requirement is made, colleagues, I do not think that one can say that one interferes in the affairs of a life-view or of any worship. These are basic conditions. These are basic conditions that must be met.

We therefore request that in the procedure that will be followed following this bill, it will be verified whether these conditions have been met. Mrs. Deputy Prime Minister, it has been my experience in the past, when the first Executive was appointed in 1998, that a significant part of the Muslim community could perfectly fit into these fundamental conditions. In fact, they were entirely agreed. With intense consultation and with a lot of effort, they were willing to engage effectively. In my opinion, this condition does not pose any problem in relation to the positive elements within this Muslim community, but we must therefore dare to set very explicit limits. If some abuse the Muslim community by not adhering to our democratic institutions and being guided by fundamentalist considerations that are detrimental to the convergence of life views and to the collaboration of people within our democratic institutions, they cannot be accepted. Then they have to get out. This is the grave mistake that was made during the previous legislature by the then government.

We stand with an open mind towards dialogue with the Muslim community. We stand with an open mind towards this bill, the committee and the profile of this committee, but we ask you very explicitly to ensure compliance with these fundamental conditions that must be met. Our group will monitor this very closely.

Mr. President, I would like to ask a question to Mr. Van Parys in his former capacity as Minister of Justice. Their

Mr. Van Parys, you just said that the majority of the Muslim community stands behind the intentions of the legislature and the government.

So I’m now talking about what happened in 1998, a period you still know pretty well, when there were elections for the National Muslim Council. There has once been a question from Senator Jurgen Ceder who early voted for the 68 elected; there were also co-opers. Let’s keep it with the 68 elected. Mr. Van Parys, 29 of them, that figure you will remember perfectly, or almost half had ties with the fundamentalists. So I don’t know where you get that the majority of the Muslim community in this country subscribes to those formidable intentions that you just brought here. Do you no longer remember that? Is it something too long ago? What is the problem actually?

Mr. President, I would like to ask a question to Mr. Van Parys in his former capacity as Minister of Justice. Their

Mr. Van Parys, you just said that the majority of the Muslim community stands behind the intentions of the legislature and the government.

So I’m now talking about what happened in 1998, a period you still know pretty well, when there were elections for the National Muslim Council. There has once been a question from Senator Jurgen Ceder who early voted for the 68 elected; there were also co-opers. Let’s keep it with the 68 elected. Mr. Van Parys, 29 of them, that figure you will remember perfectly, or almost half had ties with the fundamentalists. So I don’t know where you get that the majority of the Muslim community in this country subscribes to those formidable intentions that you just brought here. Do you no longer remember that? Is it something too long ago? What is the problem actually?

Mr. De Man, I would like to say the following about this. In 1998, a screening was carried out not on the basis of a legal provision, but on the basis of fundamental principles of public order. On the basis of this screening, those whose services then stated that they did not meet the basic requirements of public order and security were banned. In that regard, I would like to refer you, by the way, to the 2002 report of the Standing Committee for the Supervision of Intelligence Services, which analyzed the procedure followed in 1998. You are also a member of the Supervisory Committee of Committee P and Committee I. You have read the annual report. I do not know it out of my mind, but the conclusion of the Standing Committee for the Supervision of the Intelligence Services was that this whole procedure had gone perfectly from a democratic point of view and that the then Minister of Justice, your servant, had rightly at that time and on the basis of objective data refused to appoint those who did not meet the conditions. From this consideration, today, on behalf of the CD&V group, I have once again stated very explicitly that, first, the positive dialogue with the Muslim community must be the starting point. Our view is that this dialogue is possible and that many people, the vast majority of the people of the Muslim community, are willing to come to a positive conversation in the function of a proper organization of both the worship and the relations that must arise between them and us. We assume this positive starting point, but immediately acknowledge that there must be fundamental conditions of public order and security. Their

We have the absolute right to set our terms. This has nothing to do with the interference due to the state or the government in one or another view of life. Therefore, I expressly ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Justice to monitor these conditions in the decisions they will have to make in this regard, for the sake of a good relationship between our community and the Muslim community, which is an absolute condition for integration and for a decent and positive coexistence.

We want to assume that this condition must be created and we want to make a positive contribution to this. We have also proven this in the past. The arbitrator in this was the Permanent Committee of Supervision of the Intelligence Services. I will remind you of the 2002 report of that committee, if you wish.

Mr. De Man, I would like to say the following about this. In 1998, a screening was carried out not on the basis of a legal provision, but on the basis of fundamental principles of public order. On the basis of this screening, those whose services then stated that they did not meet the basic requirements of public order and security were banned. In that regard, I would like to refer you, by the way, to the 2002 report of the Standing Committee for the Supervision of Intelligence Services, which analyzed the procedure followed in 1998. You are also a member of the Supervisory Committee of Committee P and Committee I. You have read the annual report. I do not know it out of my mind, but the conclusion of the Standing Committee for the Supervision of the Intelligence Services was that this whole procedure had gone perfectly from a democratic point of view and that the then Minister of Justice, your servant, had rightly at that time and on the basis of objective data refused to appoint those who did not meet the conditions. From this consideration, today, on behalf of the CD&V group, I have once again stated very explicitly that, first, the positive dialogue with the Muslim community must be the starting point. Our view is that this dialogue is possible and that many people, the vast majority of the people of the Muslim community, are willing to come to a positive conversation in the function of a proper organization of both the worship and the relations that must arise between them and us. We assume this positive starting point, but immediately acknowledge that there must be fundamental conditions of public order and security. Their

We have the absolute right to set our terms. This has nothing to do with the interference due to the state or the government in one or another view of life. Therefore, I expressly ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Justice to monitor these conditions in the decisions they will have to make in this regard, for the sake of a good relationship between our community and the Muslim community, which is an absolute condition for integration and for a decent and positive coexistence.

We want to assume that this condition must be created and we want to make a positive contribution to this. We have also proven this in the past. The arbitrator in this was the Permanent Committee of Supervision of the Intelligence Services. I will remind you of the 2002 report of that committee, if you wish.

If half of the Muslims who participate in the 1998 elections choose fundamentalists, namely 29 out of 68, then there is a lot of loose with the Muslim community in this country. But Mr. Van Parys apparently did not want to see that.

If half of the Muslims who participate in the 1998 elections choose fundamentalists, namely 29 out of 68, then there is a lot of loose with the Muslim community in this country. But Mr. Van Parys apparently did not want to see that.

Mr. De Man, you are registered for the discussion later. Mr. Giet is now on the turn, and after Mr. Giet, Mr. Annemans and Mr. Wathelet. Then I will see where we stand.

Mr. De Man, you are registered for the discussion later. Mr. Giet is now on the turn, and after Mr. Giet, Mr. Annemans and Mr. Wathelet. Then I will see where we stand.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, I would like to go back for a moment on the reasons behind our legislative intervention tonight and allow me, therefore, to make a brief reminder of the events that embellished the genesis of the problem. In fact, history helps to illuminate many well-present situations.

Already during the previous legislature, the executive of Belgian Muslims had been paralyzed as a result of internal disagreements. The President of the Constituent Assembly at the time had sought the help of the government urgently in order to restore the organs of Muslim worship all their legitimacy, given the distrust that the Muslim community witnessed to them. The government then decided to appoint two mediators. Philippe Moureaux and Ms. Kaçar, who were charged with proposing to the government solutions to the existing conflict. In the end, the chosen solution was to appoint a renewed executive for a limited period of time with, as the main objective, the organization of new elections. However, we find today that the mandate of the members of the executive of the Muslims of Belgium came to expire on 31 May 2004. Add to this that the strong internal tensions with respect to the representative organs are not flat. The Minister has clearly explained the different causes of these conflicts and the unsatisfactory responses that would result from a partial renewal of the General Assembly.

We could therefore no longer afford to allow these tensions to intensify and jeopardize the recognition of this cult. More fundamentally, we all know that Muslim worship is one of the six recognised cults to which organized secularism should be added. This recognition implies that this cult has all the prerogatives granted by law.

However, the absence of a legitimate representative body means that the Muslim worship is no longer equal to the other recognised cults.

Therefore, in an effort to ensure this equality but also to guarantee as best as possible the fundamental rights of Muslim men and women, in the absence of any other alternative and democratic solution, it was our duty to intervene.

Of course, this interference should be limited within the limits prescribed by the European Convention on Human Rights and our Constitution.

As the minister stressed in the committee, we believe that this interference responds to an imperative social need and is limited to absolute necessity. In fact, the proposal provides that the commission has not as its sole function to organize the elections, without in any way substituting the representative bodies.

Through this universal suffrage, the legislator therefore intends to favor the expression of all the diversity that characterizes the Muslim cult. And we want, therefore, to express our satisfaction with regard to the diversity of philosophical choices and their equal treatment. I thank you.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, I would like to go back for a moment on the reasons behind our legislative intervention tonight and allow me, therefore, to make a brief reminder of the events that embellished the genesis of the problem. In fact, history helps to illuminate many well-present situations.

Already during the previous legislature, the executive of Belgian Muslims had been paralyzed as a result of internal disagreements. The President of the Constituent Assembly at the time had sought the help of the government urgently in order to restore the organs of Muslim worship all their legitimacy, given the distrust that the Muslim community witnessed to them. The government then decided to appoint two mediators. Philippe Moureaux and Ms. Kaçar, who were charged with proposing to the government solutions to the existing conflict. In the end, the chosen solution was to appoint a renewed executive for a limited period of time with, as the main objective, the organization of new elections. However, we find today that the mandate of the members of the executive of the Muslims of Belgium came to expire on 31 May 2004. Add to this that the strong internal tensions with respect to the representative organs are not flat. The Minister has clearly explained the different causes of these conflicts and the unsatisfactory responses that would result from a partial renewal of the General Assembly.

We could therefore no longer afford to allow these tensions to intensify and jeopardize the recognition of this cult. More fundamentally, we all know that Muslim worship is one of the six recognised cults to which organized secularism should be added. This recognition implies that this cult has all the prerogatives granted by law.

However, the absence of a legitimate representative body means that the Muslim worship is no longer equal to the other recognised cults.

Therefore, in an effort to ensure this equality but also to guarantee as best as possible the fundamental rights of Muslim men and women, in the absence of any other alternative and democratic solution, it was our duty to intervene.

Of course, this interference should be limited within the limits prescribed by the European Convention on Human Rights and our Constitution.

As the minister stressed in the committee, we believe that this interference responds to an imperative social need and is limited to absolute necessity. In fact, the proposal provides that the commission has not as its sole function to organize the elections, without in any way substituting the representative bodies.

Through this universal suffrage, the legislator therefore intends to favor the expression of all the diversity that characterizes the Muslim cult. And we want, therefore, to express our satisfaction with regard to the diversity of philosophical choices and their equal treatment. I thank you.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my group, I will briefly explain why we have opposed a treatment of the proposal as it originally came from the committee to this Chamber. My group in the committee would have liked to explain in detail and explain why we are worried about what is happening. That had to do with the fact that our faction had serious remarks in recognition of Islam and all the consequences that should be given to it in our eyes and were given by the purple government in its first and second form. Our group not only made comments, but also wanted to make serious fundamental comments.

However, it had never happened, and it has never happened in this Chamber that in a committee the discussion was interrupted by abusing articles 44 and 81 of our Rules of Procedure and the President is now cramped looking for precedents to explain that this has already happened in the past. I sincerely hope that Mr. Daems will keep his promise to abolish those articles. It was extremely shocking for our group, and it was felt as extremely unfair that it was precisely a VLD chairman— ⁇ a late vocation but nevertheless a VLD’er—in the person of Borginon, who came to wash that little pig for a while. It was unfair because it was at the same time an attack on the Flemish Bloc in particular, but also on democracy in general.

Let us all agree that we consider the return of the draft to the committee as a declaration of intent of this whole Chamber to not repeat in the future the application of those articles, namely limitation of speech time and limitation of the number of speakers in the committee work when returning to a committee. We hope no longer to have to see that a dark page such as that which Mr. Borginon has raised in this Chamber, in such circumstances would ever be abused.

Why do we regret the whole case and wanted to express it in principle by sending it back to the committee? Because it happened exactly at a moment and on a topic where the nerves are already tense. For the Flemish Bloc, this was our slightest concern — we are drawing our plan as such — but also for the Muslim community it was not a good signal to limit the criticism of the rapid treatment of this subject. This draft was ultimately submitted only so late because the minister meant that it could be arranged through a KB between the folds. The Minister himself is the cause of the delay and he himself stumbled upon a comment from the State Council. Since we found that where the minister himself was responsible for the delay, it was also not a disaster that there would be an orderly discussion on this subject in the Chamber, a discussion where the Flemish bloc would not be inhibited in its number of speakers or in its speech time.

We found it very unfortunate that it was thrown here last week in high urgency. We found it, of course, even more unfortunate that the treatment has to be done as it happened. We emphasize this with all the power that we have within us.

These Muslim elections would normally take place in January. The Minister refuses to prioritize a date. We believe that if those Muslim elections were to take place in February or March, that would be a much and much less serious evil than the evil done by the chairman of Borginon, or all the persons then of Borginon.

I do not want to make the process of Flemish nationalism here. I do not want to talk about his origin. However, I wondered what inspired Borginon to do such a thing. I see there a Flemish nationalist Fronsen. Mr. Vice-President, this is true. Those Borginons have always witnessed a great servility in the history of Flemish nationalism, otherwise his grandfather, or even himself. In this case, it is a servility to Mrs. Onkelinx. That is the only explanation I have for this phenomenon. What else could have motivated him to do such a thing? I ask myself. I looked at it from all sides. I really wondered what inspired him. I think he just promised it to Onkelinx. I don’t think it was naivety. Either it was the neo-fietist chairman who thought he was going to apply Article 44 for his pleasure, knowing well or not knowing what that article means, or Article 81, which is much worse.

They knew very well where it came down. However, it has been overlooked that in such a matter as the relationship we must seek and must seek with the Muslims in this country — we of the Flemish Bloc also realize that — the speaking time of the Flemish Bloc in the committee is limited and the number of speakers of the Flemish Bloc in the committee is limited. That’s a capital mistake and that’s what we wanted to make it feel.

For the rest, the substantive and substantial remarks of my colleagues Laeremans, The Man and others will follow. For the rest, I think it was our right, and more than our right, to speak extensively about this.

We did not intend to speak endlessly, but thoroughly. I think that was our right, and it was also our duty. This is a duty that more and more voters transfer to the mandators of the Flemish Bloc.

At the committee meeting I just heard the very brief report from our reporter, who has now left us, Mr. Muls. He has no right to our comments, so I will repeat them here again. By the way, Mr. Muls was more concentrated on the preferred votes of Mrs. Govaerts, which she, by the way, had not spoken about: she was talking about her preferred votes. Mr. Muls will probably never speak about it himself, because he had only 668 votes. Therefore, one can also enter the Chamber with few votes.

Let me repeat my argument.

We come slowly but surely, and ⁇ in a draft on the relationship between our country and the Muslim community, to a point where we must begin to ask questions about our democracy. What kind of democracy is this becoming, as democracy?

Le contrat social that one closes with the citizens means that we do not stand with six million Flammers on the Grand Market of Brussels to call everyone what we would like. This is organized somewhat, as in the Muslim elections. For this, a contract is concluded, an agreement. Every four years the citizen goes to a kieshokie, where he in full freedom and anonymous — without even having to say for whom he chooses — designates his mandatar. 150 people were elected. Within those 150, the power relationships of the political messages are determined. These 150 people are sent to Parliament, where a majority is sought to govern the country on behalf of those citizens. Everybody agreed? Yes, everyone will agree. According to this social contract, we have classified that democracy.

According to that contract social, all the flamingos have been prepared for the last two hundred years to let themselves rule. They are still prepared for this, although this is not so obvious. The world is full of countries where this is no longer evidence. Many Muslim countries, ⁇ all Muslim countries, are an example of a way in which no social contract arises about exactly that democratic representation. For that reason, ⁇ the so-called democratic representation of Muslims in our country has also been such a problem in the last decade.

Well, that contract social, that agreement with the Flamings, has been unilaterally wiped off the table for the last ten years. “You can choose whoever you want: for socialists, for Christian Democrats, for liberals, for everything that goes around, by the way, everything that has ever been a minister or has ruled. For one man should not be chosen, namely that man there. So choose for me, for us, but not for him.”

They are asked to accept that the fundamental rule of democracy is wiped off the table by choosing who you want. This is what has been done in the last ten years with the cordon sanitary. It has been said that the Flaming can choose who they want, but not for the Flemish Bloc. If he chooses the Flemish Bloc, this is not taken into account, because one does not want to rule with it. They are not allowed to come on radio and television, they are kept out of the newspapers, and we do not allow interviews of their headlines in newspapers. One gives a list of things that suggest that they, Democrats, are going to put the Flemish Blocker out of play.

Ladies and gentlemen of all other parties, in this way you have made the Flemish Bloc big in the last ten years! From a reflection of democracy, the Flaming has said no to the call not to vote for the Flemish Bloc. The Flaming voted for the Flemish Block. In the place where Mr. Chevalier now sits, I began as a single member of my party. Therefore, there are now 18. In all the parliaments of the country together there are 65 parliamentarians of the Flemish Bloc: one in Flanders fundamentally disagrees with your vision of democracy.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my group, I will briefly explain why we have opposed a treatment of the proposal as it originally came from the committee to this Chamber. My group in the committee would have liked to explain in detail and explain why we are worried about what is happening. That had to do with the fact that our faction had serious remarks in recognition of Islam and all the consequences that should be given to it in our eyes and were given by the purple government in its first and second form. Our group not only made comments, but also wanted to make serious fundamental comments.

However, it had never happened, and it has never happened in this Chamber that in a committee the discussion was interrupted by abusing articles 44 and 81 of our Rules of Procedure and the President is now cramped looking for precedents to explain that this has already happened in the past. I sincerely hope that Mr. Daems will keep his promise to abolish those articles. It was extremely shocking for our group, and it was felt as extremely unfair that it was precisely a VLD chairman— ⁇ a late vocation but nevertheless a VLD’er—in the person of Borginon, who came to wash that little pig for a while. It was unfair because it was at the same time an attack on the Flemish Bloc in particular, but also on democracy in general.

Let us all agree that we consider the return of the draft to the committee as a declaration of intent of this whole Chamber to not repeat in the future the application of those articles, namely limitation of speech time and limitation of the number of speakers in the committee work when returning to a committee. We hope no longer to have to see that a dark page such as that which Mr. Borginon has raised in this Chamber, in such circumstances would ever be abused.

Why do we regret the whole case and wanted to express it in principle by sending it back to the committee? Because it happened exactly at a moment and on a topic where the nerves are already tense. For the Flemish Bloc, this was our slightest concern — we are drawing our plan as such — but also for the Muslim community it was not a good signal to limit the criticism of the rapid treatment of this subject. This draft was ultimately submitted only so late because the minister meant that it could be arranged through a KB between the folds. The Minister himself is the cause of the delay and he himself stumbled upon a comment from the State Council. Since we found that where the minister himself was responsible for the delay, it was also not a disaster that there would be an orderly discussion on this subject in the Chamber, a discussion where the Flemish bloc would not be inhibited in its number of speakers or in its speech time.

We found it very unfortunate that it was thrown here last week in high urgency. We found it, of course, even more unfortunate that the treatment has to be done as it happened. We emphasize this with all the power that we have within us.

These Muslim elections would normally take place in January. The Minister refuses to prioritize a date. We believe that if those Muslim elections were to take place in February or March, that would be a much and much less serious evil than the evil done by the chairman of Borginon, or all the persons then of Borginon.

I do not want to make the process of Flemish nationalism here. I do not want to talk about his origin. However, I wondered what inspired Borginon to do such a thing. I see there a Flemish nationalist Fronsen. Mr. Vice-President, this is true. Those Borginons have always witnessed a great servility in the history of Flemish nationalism, otherwise his grandfather, or even himself. In this case, it is a servility to Mrs. Onkelinx. That is the only explanation I have for this phenomenon. What else could have motivated him to do such a thing? I ask myself. I looked at it from all sides. I really wondered what inspired him. I think he just promised it to Onkelinx. I don’t think it was naivety. Either it was the neo-fietist chairman who thought he was going to apply Article 44 for his pleasure, knowing well or not knowing what that article means, or Article 81, which is much worse.

They knew very well where it came down. However, it has been overlooked that in such a matter as the relationship we must seek and must seek with the Muslims in this country — we of the Flemish Bloc also realize that — the speaking time of the Flemish Bloc in the committee is limited and the number of speakers of the Flemish Bloc in the committee is limited. That’s a capital mistake and that’s what we wanted to make it feel.

For the rest, the substantive and substantial remarks of my colleagues Laeremans, The Man and others will follow. For the rest, I think it was our right, and more than our right, to speak extensively about this.

We did not intend to speak endlessly, but thoroughly. I think that was our right, and it was also our duty. This is a duty that more and more voters transfer to the mandators of the Flemish Bloc.

At the committee meeting I just heard the very brief report from our reporter, who has now left us, Mr. Muls. He has no right to our comments, so I will repeat them here again. By the way, Mr. Muls was more concentrated on the preferred votes of Mrs. Govaerts, which she, by the way, had not spoken about: she was talking about her preferred votes. Mr. Muls will probably never speak about it himself, because he had only 668 votes. Therefore, one can also enter the Chamber with few votes.

Let me repeat my argument.

We come slowly but surely, and ⁇ in a draft on the relationship between our country and the Muslim community, to a point where we must begin to ask questions about our democracy. What kind of democracy is this becoming, as democracy?

Le contrat social that one closes with the citizens means that we do not stand with six million Flammers on the Grand Market of Brussels to call everyone what we would like. This is organized somewhat, as in the Muslim elections. For this, a contract is concluded, an agreement. Every four years the citizen goes to a kieshokie, where he in full freedom and anonymous — without even having to say for whom he chooses — designates his mandatar. 150 people were elected. Within those 150, the power relationships of the political messages are determined. These 150 people are sent to Parliament, where a majority is sought to govern the country on behalf of those citizens. Everybody agreed? Yes, everyone will agree. According to this social contract, we have classified that democracy.

According to that contract social, all the flamingos have been prepared for the last two hundred years to let themselves rule. They are still prepared for this, although this is not so obvious. The world is full of countries where this is no longer evidence. Many Muslim countries, ⁇ all Muslim countries, are an example of a way in which no social contract arises about exactly that democratic representation. For that reason, ⁇ the so-called democratic representation of Muslims in our country has also been such a problem in the last decade.

Well, that contract social, that agreement with the Flamings, has been unilaterally wiped off the table for the last ten years. “You can choose whoever you want: for socialists, for Christian Democrats, for liberals, for everything that goes around, by the way, everything that has ever been a minister or has ruled. For one man should not be chosen, namely that man there. So choose for me, for us, but not for him.”

They are asked to accept that the fundamental rule of democracy is wiped off the table by choosing who you want. This is what has been done in the last ten years with the cordon sanitary. It has been said that the Flaming can choose who they want, but not for the Flemish Bloc. If he chooses the Flemish Bloc, this is not taken into account, because one does not want to rule with it. They are not allowed to come on radio and television, they are kept out of the newspapers, and we do not allow interviews of their headlines in newspapers. One gives a list of things that suggest that they, Democrats, are going to put the Flemish Blocker out of play.

Ladies and gentlemen of all other parties, in this way you have made the Flemish Bloc big in the last ten years! From a reflection of democracy, the Flaming has said no to the call not to vote for the Flemish Bloc. The Flaming voted for the Flemish Block. In the place where Mr. Chevalier now sits, I began as a single member of my party. Therefore, there are now 18. In all the parliaments of the country together there are 65 parliamentarians of the Flemish Bloc: one in Flanders fundamentally disagrees with your vision of democracy.

Mr. Annemans, Mr. Cavdarli wishes to interrupt you.

Mr. Annemans, Mr. Cavdarli wishes to interrupt you.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I had hoped my colleague would communicate something useful about the content of the draft. He and his colleagues are abusing...

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I had hoped my colleague would communicate something useful about the content of the draft. He and his colleagues are abusing...

( ... ...

( ... ...

Let Mr. Cavdarli speak, Mr. Annemans.

Let Mr. Cavdarli speak, Mr. Annemans.

Colleague, I had hoped that you would say something useful about the content. You twist the matter and cut off another topic that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic that we need to focus on today.

I can understand that you and all members of your party fulminate against other colleagues. However, your discourse has nothing to do with the topic that other colleagues have been waiting for for hours.

Colleague, I had hoped that you would say something useful about the content. You twist the matter and cut off another topic that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic that we need to focus on today.

I can understand that you and all members of your party fulminate against other colleagues. However, your discourse has nothing to do with the topic that other colleagues have been waiting for for hours.

At the beginning of my speech, I said this very clearly. I repeat it again. I stand here as the Chairman of the Flemish Bloc group for no other reason than to protest against the course of affairs in the committee. If you interrupt me too long, my party colleagues will have to speak the longer.

After my speech, four to five colleagues will discuss the matter, including our concerns and our problems regarding the recognition of Islam and all the consequences that purple has given it.

I would like to do this with you personally, but that is not my intention. My intention here is only to make it clear that it was a very bad time to limit the number of speakers of the Flemish Bloc and the speaker time of the speakers in the committee for the first time in the history of this Parliament. You may not have enough experience yet to know that, but that is "du jamais vu" in this Room. Therefore, this afternoon I explicitly requested that the whole proposal be returned to the committee. Nor has this ever happened. I do not know how long you have been in this Room, but I have never experienced it before. I requested the return to the committee because it is democratically necessary. If you talk about Muslim recognition, about the election of the Muslim Council, about the designation of the Muslim executive, and about the fact that Ms. Onkelinx requests a power structure to this Chamber in order to be able to make a deal with the committee that is to organize the election, then people in this Chamber who have objections to it — regret those who envy it — should be able to speak in the committee. That is why I stand here. I cannot accept that in the last piece of which we still have rights...

I didn’t tell you about the cordon sanitary to attack you, but to explain that we are excluded and discriminated everywhere in the political landscape. We are treated as pariae everywhere in the political landscape, but we thought there was one place where we had the guarantee that we could speak as long as we wanted, especially in the commissions of this House of Representatives. Now it turned out that you and your colleagues, under the leadership of a liberal committee chairman, had chosen that moment. You have just chosen the time of designation of that committee that must organize the Muslim elections in order to limit the speaking time of the Flemish Bloc. This was a very bad thing for democracy. That is why I, as a group chairman, have come to speak only about this aspect. It is not just about Muslim elections, but also about democracy. We must have our mouths full about the democratic organization. I heard Mr. Van Parys speaking here about the conditions we are going to impose on the Muslims, how they should organize those elections and how in the elections that their people will impose on them they will still have the possibility to expose those they do not like to see. I don’t know how he’s going to get rid of the fundamentalists. Who are – based on what criteria – the good and the bad Muslims? You may be able to tell me how you will be able to select the good and the bad Muslims after the election of the Muslim Council. Verwilghen has bitten his teeth and Van Parys has not finished it. Onkelinx has stronger teeth than anyone else, so if Onkelinx doesn’t get it done, it won’t go at all. That we can still formulate objections here about the fact that Onkelinx can rule here by powers, is something that we had to be able to say. I refer to one thing. We have put the last regional elections for a large part, Mr. Van den Eynde, in the sign of freedom of expression.

After the process in which — we thank the Gentese judges who gave us that gift — judges have decided to have to be able to ban a political party, the Flemish people have expressed themselves further on this. In all those years that we sit here in the House, we have been in connection with the legislative changes concerning party financing, concerning the adaptation of the Constitution to dampen the rights of the Flemish Bloc, concerning the adaptation of the Constitution to tighten the anti-racism law to make it applicable to a political party, concerning the adaptation of the company legislation to make the criminal liability applicable to political parties — Mr. Daems is well placed to know that — in committees often had PS chairs for us. We had Mr Janssens for us. We had Mr. Giet for us. We have always been treated correctly but we have not been treated correctly by the liberal of service, the butcher of service who had submitted to the servility of Mrs. Onkelinx. This has greatly shocked me. This has greatly shocked my group. We believe that it should be possible to protest against this as a group chairman.

At the beginning of my speech, I said this very clearly. I repeat it again. I stand here as the Chairman of the Flemish Bloc group for no other reason than to protest against the course of affairs in the committee. If you interrupt me too long, my party colleagues will have to speak the longer.

After my speech, four to five colleagues will discuss the matter, including our concerns and our problems regarding the recognition of Islam and all the consequences that purple has given it.

I would like to do this with you personally, but that is not my intention. My intention here is only to make it clear that it was a very bad time to limit the number of speakers of the Flemish Bloc and the speaker time of the speakers in the committee for the first time in the history of this Parliament. You may not have enough experience yet to know that, but that is "du jamais vu" in this Room. Therefore, this afternoon I explicitly requested that the whole proposal be returned to the committee. Nor has this ever happened. I do not know how long you have been in this Room, but I have never experienced it before. I requested the return to the committee because it is democratically necessary. If you talk about Muslim recognition, about the election of the Muslim Council, about the designation of the Muslim executive, and about the fact that Ms. Onkelinx requests a power structure to this Chamber in order to be able to make a deal with the committee that is to organize the election, then people in this Chamber who have objections to it — regret those who envy it — should be able to speak in the committee. That is why I stand here. I cannot accept that in the last piece of which we still have rights...

I didn’t tell you about the cordon sanitary to attack you, but to explain that we are excluded and discriminated everywhere in the political landscape. We are treated as pariae everywhere in the political landscape, but we thought there was one place where we had the guarantee that we could speak as long as we wanted, especially in the commissions of this House of Representatives. Now it turned out that you and your colleagues, under the leadership of a liberal committee chairman, had chosen that moment. You have just chosen the time of designation of that committee that must organize the Muslim elections in order to limit the speaking time of the Flemish Bloc. This was a very bad thing for democracy. That is why I, as a group chairman, have come to speak only about this aspect. It is not just about Muslim elections, but also about democracy. We must have our mouths full about the democratic organization. I heard Mr. Van Parys speaking here about the conditions we are going to impose on the Muslims, how they should organize those elections and how in the elections that their people will impose on them they will still have the possibility to expose those they do not like to see. I don’t know how he’s going to get rid of the fundamentalists. Who are – based on what criteria – the good and the bad Muslims? You may be able to tell me how you will be able to select the good and the bad Muslims after the election of the Muslim Council. Verwilghen has bitten his teeth and Van Parys has not finished it. Onkelinx has stronger teeth than anyone else, so if Onkelinx doesn’t get it done, it won’t go at all. That we can still formulate objections here about the fact that Onkelinx can rule here by powers, is something that we had to be able to say. I refer to one thing. We have put the last regional elections for a large part, Mr. Van den Eynde, in the sign of freedom of expression.

After the process in which — we thank the Gentese judges who gave us that gift — judges have decided to have to be able to ban a political party, the Flemish people have expressed themselves further on this. In all those years that we sit here in the House, we have been in connection with the legislative changes concerning party financing, concerning the adaptation of the Constitution to dampen the rights of the Flemish Bloc, concerning the adaptation of the Constitution to tighten the anti-racism law to make it applicable to a political party, concerning the adaptation of the company legislation to make the criminal liability applicable to political parties — Mr. Daems is well placed to know that — in committees often had PS chairs for us. We had Mr Janssens for us. We had Mr. Giet for us. We have always been treated correctly but we have not been treated correctly by the liberal of service, the butcher of service who had submitted to the servility of Mrs. Onkelinx. This has greatly shocked me. This has greatly shocked my group. We believe that it should be possible to protest against this as a group chairman.

Mr. Daems wishes to interrupt you. I conclude that you have not been dealing with the subject, but that you have said that others would be dealing with the subject.

Mr. Daems wishes to interrupt you. I conclude that you have not been dealing with the subject, but that you have said that others would be dealing with the subject.

( ... ...

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reply to the words of Mr. Anneman. It is almost astounding how he defends freedom of speech here — for that is a bit of the intention. I would like to outline what this is about. I am talking about the procedure, not the content. I will talk about the content soon.

What are we talking about? Last week — President, I call everyone to witness — we have here unanimously — you must not laugh, Mr. Annemans, you were there...

I have established what I have established and decides what I have decided.

( ... ...

I have established what I have established and decides what I have decided.

I would like to ask when Mr. De Croo did that. I had to look in the report of the plenary session of the House last week to know where that could have been said somewhere. You have to look at how De Croo does that. He can baking cakes in this Room and he can do it very well. But you have to admit, it’s the cakes he baked. The Blok did not agree to the urgent treatment.

This lack of attention is something that affects me.

Mr. Speaker, I can only state that the Flemish Bloc was a huge slump last week because the Flemish Bloc agreed last week. I call on everyone here to be a witness: there was unanimity.

I would like to ask when Mr. De Croo did that. I had to look in the report of the plenary session of the House last week to know where that could have been said somewhere. You have to look at how De Croo does that. He can baking cakes in this Room and he can do it very well. But you have to admit, it’s the cakes he baked. The Blok did not agree to the urgent treatment.

You have appointed them.

Mr. De Man, refrain from fundamentalism in parliamentary sphere. Let Mr. Daems continue his speech. You will have the word later.

This lack of attention is something that affects me.

Mr. Daems, you are not impressing me. I’ve been blaming for twenty years for the bad weather and for everything that’s going wrong in this country. Their

However, you cannot come up with the argument that everything must progress and that I would be the culprit while you yourself have been in power in that case since 1999, while you have submitted the proposal yourself with those who broke the stuff before 1999. You then snatched it for four years, but now I would delay everything because I want to think for two months about what needs to happen here. Their

With a normal parliamentary treatment — which is even independent of the urgency with which we would have agreed or not, quod non — we should not have even held the discussion of yesterday at the Conference of Presidents. Had Borginon not been so stupid to confront and humiliate the Flemish Bloc in the Committee for Justice on a topic that is so sensitive, we would not have experienced that scourge. Their

I have received no lessons about the prudent parliamentary treatment of political groups in this House. In this regard, you should actually look at something in your own group.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to the quite special fact that in this Chamber a group, in this case the Flemish Bloc, does not even have the fair play to admit that they were lazy last week. Mr Annemans, the essence of the story is that this entire Chamber has determined that there are two problems with the Muslim executive. First, in that Executive, which today is not even more regulatory composed, there are effectively a number of people that we can, gently speaking, denominate with the predicat fundamentalist. We agree on this.

This is nonsense and has nothing to do with it.

You have appointed them.

Mr. Speaker, do not apologize to me, but I would like to interrupt Mr. Daems.

Mr Daems, do you now claim that, if the urgency is approved, Articles 44 and 81 are without a doubt applicable?

Mr. De Man, refrain from fundamentalism in parliamentary sphere. Let Mr. Daems continue his speech. You will have the word later.

If that is the case, we will not be here tonight, I can assure you. Then I will cancel all agreements and I say that in all seriousness.

I heard Mr. Giet rightly say that a precedent must not be abolished with a precedent. Well, then I hold my heart. If the PS'er Giet who is also the chairman of the committee and later the chairman of the PS group says "un précédent, c'est un précédent" and we will not eliminate that with another precedent, then I hold my heart. I have no problem with Mr. Giet, however, because he has always been right. However, if you, as the leader of the VLD group, claim that Articles 44 and 81 apply if the urgency has been approved, then it has been done here today. We understand each other.

There are two problems. First, we all agree on this, I assume Flemish Blok inclusive, that in the so-called elected Executive that today can not even be called more regulatory composition because the deadlines have expired, there are a number of people to whom we could connect the predicat fundamentalist, which we do not want.

The second problem is that the Dutch language level is too low. We agree on that. The point is that we unanimously agreed last week that this is a situation that we do not want to let last. You say you no longer agree. You must follow the decisions you have made, whether or not desired.

I will return to yesterday’s Conference of Presidents. Mr Annemans, you proposed yesterday at the Conference of Presidents to move this point to September or October. Members of the Group Presidents are present. You have suggested that a situation that is unacceptable because a number of people who could carry the fundamentalist predicate would still abuse their legitimacy in a certain period and because there is a shortage of Dutch-speaking content, would be allowed to last a few months longer. That is exactly what we would avoid with this bill. That is the reality.

Do you know what reality is?

Mr. Daems, you are not impressing me. I’ve been blaming for twenty years for the bad weather and for everything that’s going wrong in this country. Their

However, you cannot come up with the argument that everything must progress and that I would be the culprit while you yourself have been in power in that case since 1999, while you have submitted the proposal yourself with those who broke the stuff before 1999. You then snatched it for four years, but now I would delay everything because I want to think for two months about what needs to happen here. Their

With a normal parliamentary treatment — which is even independent of the urgency with which we would have agreed or not, quod non — we should not have even held the discussion of yesterday at the Conference of Presidents. Had Borginon not been so stupid to confront and humiliate the Flemish Bloc in the Committee for Justice on a topic that is so sensitive, we would not have experienced that scourge. Their

I have received no lessons about the prudent parliamentary treatment of political groups in this House. In this regard, you should actually look at something in your own group.

Should Article 44 be applied?

Mr. Daems, you were alone, but I am with a whole faction, with eighteen people. That is the difference. You were alone in the VLD. That I would like to remind you again. Mr Van Rompuy is a witness.

Last week there was a unanimous agreement.

That is not true. You can applaud seven more times with the same lie number. It is not because I ask to be able to think about this matter until September, or even just ask to be treated in a committee in a normal way as every opposition member should be treated in a committee, nor because I protest the way Mr. Borginon has humiliated us in the committee, that you can mask that you have not only defiled the question of the Muslim organization in this country, but have defiled it for four years.

This is nonsense and has nothing to do with it.

Then Mr. Borginon went there yesterday in good faith — I have checked it — and on the basis of the unanimity achieved last week in this Chamber, assuming that we all ...

I remind the House of Representatives of the agreement unanimously approved in the Conference of Presidents that we would close the plenary session today. I have asked this three or four times in this plenary session and this has been confirmed every time. It is almost 11.15 hours now. I understand that it could be a little later, but I expect that the agreement that was clearly unanimously taken will be respected. I like to debate, but a word is a word and especially if the decision was unanimously approved by the House.

You did not suspend and let the meeting continue.

Mr. Speaker, do not apologize to me, but I would like to interrupt Mr. Daems.

Mr Daems, do you now claim that, if the urgency is approved, Articles 44 and 81 are without a doubt applicable?

and no.

I have addressed other issues and those have gone forward. Ministers are also present.

Mr. Speaker, I will return to the substance of this case and this bill that was submitted last week and for which the urgency was unanimously voted in this assembly. Indeed, dear parliamentarians – since it is a bill, I suppose that the finding was made by the parliamentarians who deposited it – and Mrs. Minister – I allow myself to associate you with it – you have made a statement regarding the executive of Muslims. You have noticed that this executive lacked legitimacy. In any case, every Muslim currently living in Belgium does not feel represented, does not consider this executive as totally legitimate. Furthermore, we feel differences within this executive of Muslims, we feel some tensions and, besides, they are occasionally made public.

There are therefore two reproaches that are addressed to this executive: the first concerns its legitimacy, the second concerns its consistency. We can easily accept them. For some internal disagreements have been noticed; indeed, it has been noticed that this executive was not always considered legitimate by the Muslims themselves.

So, Mrs. Minister and Ladies and Gentlemen Parliamentarians who have submitted this bill, you have decided to change things. You’ve told yourself that everything wasn’t perfect but that everything wasn’t going too bad either — let’s not dramatize things. This executive could very well continue to work as it is, even if it is not perfect. He also made a proposal to ensure the renewal of the General Assembly. But you chose another alternative. You have chosen to submit a bill and assign a commission to organize the elections. It is necessary to mark the limits of the debate: I remind you therefore that it is a commission responsible for organizing the elections.

Obviously, when you make such a change, the first question to ask yourself is this: will such a change bear fruit? Will the two reproaches addressed to this Muslim executive - not being legitimate and experiencing internal disagreements - be erased by the amendments made, i.e. the creation of this commission?

If that is the case, we will not be here tonight, I can assure you. Then I will cancel all agreements and I say that in all seriousness.

I heard Mr. Giet rightly say that a precedent must not be abolished with a precedent. Well, then I hold my heart. If the PS'er Giet who is also the chairman of the committee and later the chairman of the PS group says "un précédent, c'est un précédent" and we will not eliminate that with another precedent, then I hold my heart. I have no problem with Mr. Giet, however, because he has always been right. However, if you, as the leader of the VLD group, claim that Articles 44 and 81 apply if the urgency has been approved, then it has been done here today. We understand each other.

No, Mr. Annemans, we don’t understand each other completely. Per ⁇ you would like to ask the members of your group to let me speak for a moment, as I have let you do. Their

If, on the basis of the unanimous agreement reached with you in the plenary session the week before, the chairman of the committee wanted to put an end to a situation that no one, including you, although I am not so sure of it, would want to keep going, and decided that the matter should be concluded that day, I repeat, according to the consensus in the plenary session, then there are two possibilities.

As far as I am concerned, I never said that this executive was not legitimate. I said that it was provisional, that its mandate was limited in time and that it ended on 31 May last year.

The term of office ended on May 31, but proposals were made to renew it. It seems to me, however, that, in the course of the discussions in the committee, you said that many Muslims did not identify with this Muslim executive.

Should Article 44 be applied?

to the organs.

There are two possibilities. Or you talk long. This is specific to the opposition. That is no problem. I did it once, much longer than you could ever do. I want to play this match with you.

Mr. Daems, you were alone, but I am with a whole faction, with eighteen people. That is the difference. You were alone in the VLD. That I would like to remind you again. Mr Van Rompuy is a witness.

to the organs. I agree with you: no problem. So, some Muslims do not identify or have difficulty identifying with the organs of the Muslim executive. Will these two major reproaches be modified by the creation of this commission that will be responsible for organizing the elections? This is, in my opinion, the question we should ask ourselves today. In this regard – and we have already told you in the committee – we can raise some doubts.

First, there is the issue of urgency. Indeed, we voted for the urgency for this proposal because we knew there was really a problem. But, from time to time, we should ask ourselves the question of whether it would not be appropriate to wait, to consult, to be sure of what we vote for.

Then comes the question of the people who are supposed to represent the Muslim world, whom you have consulted, like each of us, and who give opinions that are not all convergent. For many, they are divergent. Many are opposed to the constitution and the creation of this commission. In any case, the Muslim world is not unanimous today on the creation of this commission.

Finally, there is that sense of interference, that reluctance that some Muslim people in Belgium experience, which consists in saying: “By creating this commission, you create an interference in the Muslim religion.” It’s like we’re being told that we’ve been trying to work for six years and that the situation is so inextricable that we need to create this commission. Hence this feeling of interference and a kind of confession of failure.

Furthermore, Mrs. Minister – I speak on the legal level and more on the opportunity level – there is this opinion of the Council of State deposited on our banks in commission on Tuesday, and which seems clear to me. This notice indicates that in the event of state interference with religion, this must be done in a proportionate manner. Fortunately, the term “proportionate” is used. Behind this word, one can put many things; one can defend it on one side or the other. Those who submitted the bill will obviously say: “But it is proportionate. Only one committee will be responsible for the election. They are not going to vote. Muslims are free to vote what they want. That is proportional! The goal will be achieved!”

Others will say, “No, the task that is left to this commission is far too wide. Their action must be limited. We need to tell them exactly what they should do. And only there will it be limited because their action has actually been limited.”

But the State Council did not merely say this word "proportional". It has been much clearer since it says, as an example: "It does not correspond to this requirement of proportionality, a formulation that is to take all necessary measures for the organisation of general elections." This phrase is included in the bill.

If we had some doubts about the opportunity, we really think that the current dissatisfaction in some part of the Muslim world will only be intensified by this State Council opinion and by the insertion of this phrase in the bill proposal.

You tend them a pencil so that they consider that there is indeed an interference. If they already had doubts at the base, now they say, “You continue and reinforce our doubts with this State Council opinion.” I repeat, this opinion of the State Council is clear. He repeats word for word a phrase contained in the bill. If the Council of State had wanted to be more clear, it would not have been able! by

You give them a pinch so that some of them – many – do not find themselves in the next executive because the elections that created it will not have been organized according to the mode they had decided themselves but according to a mode that will have been imposed on them.

These are the reasons that will lead us to vote against the bill.

Do you know what the essence is? This has become clear to me in the last few hours. I have always had a mixed feeling about your group. You know I always want to be right, but with your yesterday’s proposal you proved a case. You want to solve the problem that in the Muslim executive rice does not solve. You actually want to spider political ropes out of the fact that there are indeed some possible fundamentalists...(Applause)

Mr Laeremans, you are given the word. The appointment is that you each stick to a speech time of about 10 minutes. I want the agreements of all sides to be respected.

That is not true. You can applaud seven more times with the same lie number. It is not because I ask to be able to think about this matter until September, or even just ask to be treated in a committee in a normal way as every opposition member should be treated in a committee, nor because I protest the way Mr. Borginon has humiliated us in the committee, that you can mask that you have not only defiled the question of the Muslim organization in this country, but have defiled it for four years.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, Mrs. Minister, the unacceptable events of last Tuesday at the committee meeting are also very characteristic of the dossier we are talking about now, which is about Islam in this country, its recognition, its representation, its subsidy and everything related to it. It is and remains taboo to talk about it, to open his mouth on that delicate matter. To break through the threats of Islam to our democratic values, to our democratic rule of law, is not politically correct, is not done. Consequently, a thorough parliamentary debate on this subject can and should be prevented.

Well, colleagues, you will not stop us from opening our mouth on this. It is our right and duty to express our opinion.

Indeed, we have questions about the recognition of a religion that does not respect the separation from church and state. Indeed, we have concerns and mistrust about a religion that encourages death sentences for all those who abstain from it.

The Essence emphasizes that, in full accordance with Human Rights, we are and remain absolute advocates of the right to free religious experience. We do not want anyone to put a strobe in the way of their religious beliefs. Let that be clear. However, that does not mean that we should subsidize Islam and put it on a foothold. We therefore continue to have problems with the official recognition of Islam in this country and with its equalization with the Christian and Jewish religions. But well, we stand with that position alone and we realize, of course, that we may not be able to stop a renewal of the Muslim executive. We can only express our opinion about it, as long as it is at least permissible.

Having said this, it remains incomprehensible to us why a law with which one wants to prepare the elections of the Muslim Executive, absolutely now, in a hurry and without a thorough debate, Mr. Daems. Because that is what it is about. The misery of this executive has been going on for more than five years now. A few more months will not make a difference. In addition, there is still no fixed date on which these elections should take place. It could also be in January 2005, or March or April 2005. Therefore, there is no argument why this case could not be played out or discussed in September.

The Minister, today, when I insisted on this, could only say that it was more than time, because the preparations for such elections take three months.

That may be right, but then you plan the election date just three months after the commission has been installed and so you wait with that installation until a thorough parliamentary debate has been conducted. However, this was not allowed. A thorough, parliamentary debate could, for example, be about how the Muslim Executive is composed and functions, and especially about who can all join the Muslim Executive. After all, the problem was not only the great disagreement and paralysis within the Muslim executive itself, but above all the great impact of the Islamic fundamentalists on its functioning.

This is not just the Flemish Bloc. This was also stated by the State Security — the figures were subsequently given by Mr. Filip De Man. This has also been explained by our intimate enemy, Father Leman, without circumstances and repeatedly. However, this should not be debated. However, the minister says that the screening will be regulated by law and that a draft is being prepared. However, there is no proof of this. We have not received a preliminary design, despite our explicit request. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that there will be a further screening of fundamentalism in the future, let alone that it will be done by the State Security, or that that service will still be involved.

Let one thing be clear. We have no confidence in the Socialist Party, and ⁇ not in Justice Minister Laurette Onkelinx. After all, if there is one person who has exercised pressure in recent years to increase the influence of Islamic fundamentalism, to appoint eight fundamentalists into an Executive with in practice sixteen members, and consequently to give a blocking power to the fundamentalists, then that was exactly the same Laurette Onkelinx.

Mr. Daems, you blame the delay in the shoes of the Flemish Bloc or you want to seal us those intentions. But who is to blame? I see you laughing and screaming behind your phone, but I would still like to address you for a moment, if I can, and would like to ask you to leave your important interlocutor for a moment. Yes, it is about you. Mr. Daems, would you like to listen? Who is responsible for the fiasco, the Islamic Fundamentalists within the Muslim Executive? Who did that, Mr. Daems? That was not Ms. Onkelinx, because she was not yet Minister of Justice at the time. She has insisted on it for three years and stood up with your VLD Minister, Marc Verwilghen. It was Mr. Verwilghen who appointed the Muslim Fundamentalists. You now accuse us that we delay the removal of the debris for a while to make clear how we will prevent that in the future, because we have no clarity about it and because Ms. Onkelinx does not want to give clarity about it. That is the problem. You want to avoid being thoroughly curled, so that we do not face the same problems in the future, and any debate about it is made impossible.

I quote, by the way, Father Leman on the issue in the Gazet of Antwerp of December 20, 2003: "It is indeed so that the eight have been appointed by the nuclear cabinet under pressure of politicians such as Onkelinx and the liberal minister Michel. That’s not a healthy evolution,” says Father Leman, who is not our friend, “because these eight threw some moderate Muslims out. Those who want integration must negotiate precisely with the moderate.”

“In French-speaking Belgium, the spokesmen of Islam took a member card of a political party, especially of the PS, but also of the MR and Ecolo, and in some large mosques it was called to vote for a particular party. I saw people coming out of the mosque with a clear voice advice, just as it happened in the Catholic churches in the 1950s. The file of the Muslim Executive, the executive body of Islam, has been played by the French speakers really party politics,” said Father Leman. “Laurette Onkelinx and Louis Michel are directly involved in this, and it will have received thousands of votes. On the Flemish side, it was not party politics: both the Flemish Muslims and the Flemish politicians have let themselves put in the file of the Executive." When a father declares that someone is putting himself for a fuck, then it must be very bad, colleagues.

I would like to quote someone else, even if not a Flemish Blokker, but a former Minister of Justice, our all colleague Tony Van Parys, in Gazet van Antwerpen of November 15, 2003. Van Parys says: “Onkelinx’s husband, the Brussels lawyer Marc Uyttendaele, was after all the adviser of the fundamentalists in several disputes against the moderates within the General Muslim Council and the Muslim Executive. She defends here the interests of her husband and of the PS, who has discovered a new electorate in Brussels.”

Unkelinx has so far made no attempt, not in the committee, not here, to counter those allegations. It is so powerful in the Socialist Party that the accusations of confusion of interests do not even deny it. The connection of the PS with certain currents within Islam is therefore obvious. This creates our great fear. What Father Leman warns of, in particular the electoral consequences of that interconnection, are in the meantime undeniable. "Les musulmans ont largement voté PS", as we read in Le Soir of 2 July 2004 based on a study by the ULB.

Approximately 30% of the electorate of the PS in the Brussels Region consists of Muslims. This is much more than the other parties. However, it is much worse. Those 30% have apparently so much influence on the list formation and weigh so heavily on the election outcome that more than half of the PS-elected in Brussels are Islamists.14 out of 26 elected! For those who have trouble believing this, I would like to read the names. I wish these people nothing to devote and wish them all success in their new career as a politician. I would like to mention their names to let you realize how great that influence is.

These include Sfia Bouarfa, Mohamed Daïf, Mahfoudh Romdhani, Mohamed Azzouzi, Amina Derbaki Sbaï, Emir Kir, Rachid Madrane, Ahmed El Ktibi, Emin Ozkara, Mohamed Lahlali, Nadia El Yousfi, Fatiha Saïdi, Fadila Laanan, Mohammadi Chahid.

The Socialist Party in Brussels is renamed PSI, Parti Socialiste Islamique. The largest majority party in Brussels is dominated by the Islamic community. An undeniable fact! A fact that is impossible to look beyond. The furious attempts of Onkelinx to come in favor and favour of the Muslim community have proven their yield and yielded their fruits.

In Brussels, you should not vote for the Muslim party PEM. The representative of that party, the man with the red beard, is still present. The Muslims have simply taken over the wheel of the largest majority party in Brussels.

How can we, in such an important file as that of the Muslim Executive, give confidence to someone like Laurette Onkelinx who is Brussels’ image of the Socialist Party?! How independent can and will this minister still judge after all its drive in favor of eight fundamentalists?!

However, this bill shows a blind confidence in the Minister of Justice. After all, we have, in the first place, no vision of how the screening of candidates will take place — if it already takes place. The Minister again refused to clarify this issue. Second, by means of this bill, the same Minister Onkelinx is given all powers to designate, at his own discretion, the four persons who have a decisive vote in the preparatory committee. Those people are therefore not designated by various ministers or through a KB consulted in the Council of Ministers, but exclusively by PS-pasionaria Onkelinx. He has a lot to say about the upcoming elections. Through this route, she can put the whole course of the elections on her own.

Honestly, I do not understand the attitude of the MR in this file, Mr. Bacquelaine. I do not understand the attitude of the VLD in this file, Mr. Daems, and I do not understand much less the attitude of CD&V, who has signed this bill with him and gives carte blanche to Onkelinx, the Minister of Justice. I have no explanation for that attitude. I am still surprised today.

Colleagues, the Flemish Bloc has requested hearings in the committee because it is important that Parliament be much better informed about doing and leaving this Muslim executive and about everything that has gone wrong in the last six years. We did not want to invite Flemish Blocker, Mr. Daems, but people who are privileged witnesses. Meryem Kaçar, for example, former Agalev senator, who was a mediator in unleashing tensions. Philippe Moureaux of the PS, for example, the mayor of Molenbeek and the founder of the racism law. He was also a mediator, and he was not allowed to come. And finally, Father Leman, the man who tried to liquidate us with his center. None of these three can be suspected of ties with the Flemish Bloc, but they could have told what went so wrong with the Executive, what led to the fiasco we have seen and what therefore needed to change. But it was not possible, it was impossible. Kaçar, for example, could have witnessed that the Dutch-speaking Muslims in this Executive are in a minority situation and are dominated by the French-speaking. You just said it and you have a point there, Mr. Daems. She has concrete ideas about this and we could have questioned her about it, but nothing is initiated with it. It is the Muslim Council itself, which is predominantly French-speaking, that will determine how it should go on. In this text, which is adopted today, there is nothing about it, there is nothing in it to change that situation, Mr. Daems. So you are wrong when you say that we are complicating the situation in the long run, because the legislation that is adopted today does not provide any guarantee.

Why did they not want hearings with, for example, Meryem Kaçar? I would like to quote what she said on March 25 of this year: “This new election will be a measure for nothing. There is a need for transparency in the functioning of the executive. It is now damaged by political interference.” That is what Meryem Kaçar says. Therefore, for example, a hearing could have been useful. However, they were not allowed to come because Her Majesty Laurette Onkelinx has no time, but especially because there are too many things within this Muslim executive that should not see the daylight. That is why everything with clothes slides should remain wrapped. Much is hidden from Parliament. There is too much that we should not know, Mr. Daems. There are too many things that are already too explosive. Unfortunately, the media today is also not interested, but there will come a day when the malversations will come to the surface. There will come a day when we will be able to bring this story to the people out of the clothes.

That day and the months thereafter you should not be surprised by the outrageous reactions, Mr. Daems, to the man in the street. In particular, you should not be surprised that the Flammers will wonder more and more loudly why in 2003 they sent so many submissive Daems caliber slippers to this Parliament.

I remind the House of Representatives of the agreement unanimously approved in the Conference of Presidents that we would close the plenary session today. I have asked this three or four times in this plenary session and this has been confirmed every time. It is almost 11.15 hours now. I understand that it could be a little later, but I expect that the agreement that was clearly unanimously taken will be respected. I like to debate, but a word is a word and especially if the decision was unanimously approved by the House.

I have some more information that the Room may not disappoint. There are three other speakers registered in this debate: M. Courtois, Mr. De Man et Mme Genot.

The other speakers withdrew their request for intervention.

You did not suspend and let the meeting continue.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, we will return to the substance of this bill that is presented to us urgently since, it must be reminded, the period of validity of the royal decree recognizing the members of the Muslim executive of Belgium expired on 31 May 2004. In the absence of consensus on the renewal of this executive, it was normal and logical to make a proposal to fill this void, not only legal but also in the facts. I would also like to remind that the aim pursued is strictly limited to the establishment of a commission for the organisation of the elections. The “ratio legis” goal is to restore legitimacy to the executive of Belgian Muslims and to ensure a better representation there, in particular between French and Dutch speakers, and according to ethnic origins.

A legitimate interlocutor is therefore indispensable, both for the Belgian State and for the Muslim community as a whole, so that it is represented by a supported interlocutor. The intervention of the legislator is therefore made indispensable by the very fact of the lack of agreement and consensus. This is the essence of this proposal, that is why we are here tonight to vote on this bill.

I recall once again that the commission responsible for the renewal of the organs of Muslim worship will simply have a mission to ensure support for the organization of these elections, within the framework of the protocol submitted to the government in 1998, as the Minister in commission recalled. This is the answer to the objection of the State Council, which insisted that the commission's tasks should be limited, considering that it was vague to allow it "to take all necessary measures for the organization of the general elections."

The accuracy was made by the minister in committee: she indicated that the tasks conferred on the committee should be assessed in the light of the 1998 Protocol. We insist that this mention should be included in the report. The Minister added that the State Council objection had been met since the commission’s mission falls within the 1998 protocol. by

We therefore believe that this executive must enjoy an undeniable legitimacy and must finally restore dialogue with the whole of Belgian Muslims.

Given the necessity and urgency of having all the elections as soon as possible to reconstruct the Muslim executive in Belgium, the MR group will support this proposal.

I have addressed other issues and those have gone forward. Ministers are also present.

Mr. Speaker, I will return to the substance of this case and this bill that was submitted last week and for which the urgency was unanimously voted in this assembly. Indeed, dear parliamentarians – since it is a bill, I suppose that the finding was made by the parliamentarians who deposited it – and Mrs. Minister – I allow myself to associate you with it – you have made a statement regarding the executive of Muslims. You have noticed that this executive lacked legitimacy. In any case, every Muslim currently living in Belgium does not feel represented, does not consider this executive as totally legitimate. Furthermore, we feel differences within this executive of Muslims, we feel some tensions and, besides, they are occasionally made public.

There are therefore two reproaches that are addressed to this executive: the first concerns its legitimacy, the second concerns its consistency. We can easily accept them. For some internal disagreements have been noticed; indeed, it has been noticed that this executive was not always considered legitimate by the Muslims themselves.

So, Mrs. Minister and Ladies and Gentlemen Parliamentarians who have submitted this bill, you have decided to change things. You’ve told yourself that everything wasn’t perfect but that everything wasn’t going too bad either — let’s not dramatize things. This executive could very well continue to work as it is, even if it is not perfect. He also made a proposal to ensure the renewal of the General Assembly. But you chose another alternative. You have chosen to submit a bill and assign a commission to organize the elections. It is necessary to mark the limits of the debate: I remind you therefore that it is a commission responsible for organizing the elections.

Obviously, when you make such a change, the first question to ask yourself is this: will such a change bear fruit? Will the two reproaches addressed to this Muslim executive - not being legitimate and experiencing internal disagreements - be erased by the amendments made, i.e. the creation of this commission?

Chairman, colleagues, I am really touched by the attitude of the MR, as well as by that of the VLD that provide an extreme force effort and support the urgent treatment of a bill, bill draft that can be at the service of the electorate of the two socialist parties. This is very strange, Mr. Lano. What you are now doing is primarily helping the PS in Brussels and partly sp.a. in Flanders. That goes above my mouth, but okay, it’s your problem. Colleagues of the VLD, you will, of course, be accounted for in the next election, just like you exactly a month ago, Mr. Tommelein, was hard accounted for your links to the extreme-left policy of the past years.

Very briefly, colleagues, I will summarize the reasons why the Flemish Bloc is absolutely opposed not only to subsidies — I address myself specifically to you, Mr. Imam — but also to the recognition of Islam. I want to make it short out of the clothes. There is no need to deal with the principle of freedom of religion and freedom of religious experience, as guaranteed by the Constitution and international treaties. We have no problem with that. But it does not follow from the provisions of Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Constitution that we must recognize and subsidize a religion. This is not stated in the Constitution, nor in international treaties.

Mr. Imam, we have no problem with your perception of religion, but again, there are some principles in Islam that are absolutely incompatible with the values we advocate here in the West, in Europe.

So we say no to recognition and subsidy, but yes to control of mosques. I am curious what will be answered to that.

There is hardly any control at the moment. We know from an unmistakable source, the Committee I, that there are fundamentalists active in at least 30 mosques in this country. All this is simply wiped off the table, colleagues, but that means that there is not only preaching against the West, against Europe, against our values – that is just one thing – but also that there are coins and funds being collected for the so-called freedom struggle of the Muslims all over the world, the jihad. I will send you the report if you want. This is so literally stated in the report: there funds are collected for the struggle being fought in Chechnya, in Afghanistan, in the Middle East, and wherever there is war being fought by Muslims. This is stated in the report of an unmistakable source, the Committee I.

It also states that especially young people are recruited to fight ...

As far as I am concerned, I never said that this executive was not legitimate. I said that it was provisional, that its mandate was limited in time and that it ended on 31 May last year.

Mr. De Man, can Mr. Cavdarli interrupt you briefly?

The term of office ended on May 31, but proposals were made to renew it. It seems to me, however, that, in the course of the discussions in the committee, you said that many Muslims did not identify with this Muslim executive.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. De Man is doing a good job, but I really wonder why he did not say this at the committee meeting. There he spent almost hours reading stories from Suske and Wiske. I was a witness to it.

No, I have almost five hours...

to the organs.

You, like your previous group chairman, are now again abusing the opportunity. On the one hand, you are trying to hide behind the mask of democracy, but on the other hand, you are wasting this democracy. Instead of holding a blatant, understandable and democratic plea, you are constantly turning around the pot. You have not said anything about it for hours. Then clearly say that your intention is nothing but filibustering. This proves once again that you know nothing about it and, as always, conduct populist, meaningless and chauvinist politics. I hate that. However, I am prepared to inform you and the entire team of your colleagues about this, starting with a basic knowledge, how Islam is involved.

to the organs. I agree with you: no problem. So, some Muslims do not identify or have difficulty identifying with the organs of the Muslim executive. Will these two major reproaches be modified by the creation of this commission that will be responsible for organizing the elections? This is, in my opinion, the question we should ask ourselves today. In this regard – and we have already told you in the committee – we can raise some doubts.

First, there is the issue of urgency. Indeed, we voted for the urgency for this proposal because we knew there was really a problem. But, from time to time, we should ask ourselves the question of whether it would not be appropriate to wait, to consult, to be sure of what we vote for.

Then comes the question of the people who are supposed to represent the Muslim world, whom you have consulted, like each of us, and who give opinions that are not all convergent. For many, they are divergent. Many are opposed to the constitution and the creation of this commission. In any case, the Muslim world is not unanimous today on the creation of this commission.

Finally, there is that sense of interference, that reluctance that some Muslim people in Belgium experience, which consists in saying: “By creating this commission, you create an interference in the Muslim religion.” It’s like we’re being told that we’ve been trying to work for six years and that the situation is so inextricable that we need to create this commission. Hence this feeling of interference and a kind of confession of failure.

Furthermore, Mrs. Minister – I speak on the legal level and more on the opportunity level – there is this opinion of the Council of State deposited on our banks in commission on Tuesday, and which seems clear to me. This notice indicates that in the event of state interference with religion, this must be done in a proportionate manner. Fortunately, the term “proportionate” is used. Behind this word, one can put many things; one can defend it on one side or the other. Those who submitted the bill will obviously say: “But it is proportionate. Only one committee will be responsible for the election. They are not going to vote. Muslims are free to vote what they want. That is proportional! The goal will be achieved!”

Others will say, “No, the task that is left to this commission is far too wide. Their action must be limited. We need to tell them exactly what they should do. And only there will it be limited because their action has actually been limited.”

But the State Council did not merely say this word "proportional". It has been much clearer since it says, as an example: "It does not correspond to this requirement of proportionality, a formulation that is to take all necessary measures for the organisation of general elections." This phrase is included in the bill.

If we had some doubts about the opportunity, we really think that the current dissatisfaction in some part of the Muslim world will only be intensified by this State Council opinion and by the insertion of this phrase in the bill proposal.

You tend them a pencil so that they consider that there is indeed an interference. If they already had doubts at the base, now they say, “You continue and reinforce our doubts with this State Council opinion.” I repeat, this opinion of the State Council is clear. He repeats word for word a phrase contained in the bill. If the Council of State had wanted to be more clear, it would not have been able! by

You give them a pinch so that some of them – many – do not find themselves in the next executive because the elections that created it will not have been organized according to the mode they had decided themselves but according to a mode that will have been imposed on them.

These are the reasons that will lead us to vote against the bill.

The best way to learn about the mosques in this country, Mr. Imam, is to re-read the report of the Committee I every year. For me, this is the best way to find out what is going on in the mosques in this country. Committee I says there are dozens of mosques where funds are collected and young people are recruited for armed jihad. This is stated in the report every year. It was stated for the first time in the 2001 report that I was lying on my desk and that I can show you. In the mosques even young people are recruited for the armed struggle — until further order — abroad.

You say that we do not know what it is about, but we still have the right to speak if we have read the texts of the Committee I correctly.

Colleagues, again, it’s not about us that people profess a certain faith. There are in this country, I think, a lot of Buddhists; a lot of Sikhs; to give just two examples. Both religions are neither recognized nor subsidized. Or am I mistaken? When you blame us for discrimination, racism, fascism, and so on—these terms fly pretty smoothly through the air—you must first and foremost look at what the government is doing. In fact, they also discriminate. Their

Mr. Tommelein, the government you support with your big mouth, for example, does not subsidize the Buddhists. That is discrimination. You should therefore not blame us for preferring to exclude a particular religion because of the values — though, values — which defend its followers and which conflict with our values. The government you support, Mr. Tommelein, is actually doing exactly the same. Their

My good colleague Bart Laeremans explained clearly and thoroughly why the purple government wants to subsidize precisely the Islamic religion. That is because there is the future blasphemy of the Socialist Party and, in part, also of the SPA, which counts on those votes to compensate for the huge loss of the past years to the Flemish Bloc. That is the essence of the matter, Mr. Tommelein.

Mr Laeremans, you are given the word. The appointment is that you each stick to a speech time of about 10 minutes. I want the agreements of all sides to be respected.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, Mrs. Minister, the unacceptable events of last Tuesday at the committee meeting are also very characteristic of the dossier we are talking about now, which is about Islam in this country, its recognition, its representation, its subsidy and everything related to it. It is and remains taboo to talk about it, to open his mouth on that delicate matter. To break through the threats of Islam to our democratic values, to our democratic rule of law, is not politically correct, is not done. Consequently, a thorough parliamentary debate on this subject can and should be prevented.

Well, colleagues, you will not stop us from opening our mouth on this. It is our right and duty to express our opinion.

Indeed, we have questions about the recognition of a religion that does not respect the separation from church and state. Indeed, we have concerns and mistrust about a religion that encourages death sentences for all those who abstain from it.

The Essence emphasizes that, in full accordance with Human Rights, we are and remain absolute advocates of the right to free religious experience. We do not want anyone to put a strobe in the way of their religious beliefs. Let that be clear. However, that does not mean that we should subsidize Islam and put it on a foothold. We therefore continue to have problems with the official recognition of Islam in this country and with its equalization with the Christian and Jewish religions. But well, we stand with that position alone and we realize, of course, that we may not be able to stop a renewal of the Muslim executive. We can only express our opinion about it, as long as it is at least permissible.

Having said this, it remains incomprehensible to us why a law with which one wants to prepare the elections of the Muslim Executive, absolutely now, in a hurry and without a thorough debate, Mr. Daems. Because that is what it is about. The misery of this executive has been going on for more than five years now. A few more months will not make a difference. In addition, there is still no fixed date on which these elections should take place. It could also be in January 2005, or March or April 2005. Therefore, there is no argument why this case could not be played out or discussed in September.

The Minister, today, when I insisted on this, could only say that it was more than time, because the preparations for such elections take three months.

That may be right, but then you plan the election date just three months after the commission has been installed and so you wait with that installation until a thorough parliamentary debate has been conducted. However, this was not allowed. A thorough, parliamentary debate could, for example, be about how the Muslim Executive is composed and functions, and especially about who can all join the Muslim Executive. After all, the problem was not only the great disagreement and paralysis within the Muslim executive itself, but above all the great impact of the Islamic fundamentalists on its functioning.

This is not just the Flemish Bloc. This was also stated by the State Security — the figures were subsequently given by Mr. Filip De Man. This has also been explained by our intimate enemy, Father Leman, without circumstances and repeatedly. However, this should not be debated. However, the minister says that the screening will be regulated by law and that a draft is being prepared. However, there is no proof of this. We have not received a preliminary design, despite our explicit request. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that there will be a further screening of fundamentalism in the future, let alone that it will be done by the State Security, or that that service will still be involved.

Let one thing be clear. We have no confidence in the Socialist Party, and ⁇ not in Justice Minister Laurette Onkelinx. After all, if there is one person who has exercised pressure in recent years to increase the influence of Islamic fundamentalism, to appoint eight fundamentalists into an Executive with in practice sixteen members, and consequently to give a blocking power to the fundamentalists, then that was exactly the same Laurette Onkelinx.

Mr. Daems, you blame the delay in the shoes of the Flemish Bloc or you want to seal us those intentions. But who is to blame? I see you laughing and screaming behind your phone, but I would still like to address you for a moment, if I can, and would like to ask you to leave your important interlocutor for a moment. Yes, it is about you. Mr. Daems, would you like to listen? Who is responsible for the fiasco, the Islamic Fundamentalists within the Muslim Executive? Who did that, Mr. Daems? That was not Ms. Onkelinx, because she was not yet Minister of Justice at the time. She has insisted on it for three years and stood up with your VLD Minister, Marc Verwilghen. It was Mr. Verwilghen who appointed the Muslim Fundamentalists. You now accuse us that we delay the removal of the debris for a while to make clear how we will prevent that in the future, because we have no clarity about it and because Ms. Onkelinx does not want to give clarity about it. That is the problem. You want to avoid being thoroughly curled, so that we do not face the same problems in the future, and any debate about it is made impossible.

I quote, by the way, Father Leman on the issue in the Gazet of Antwerp of December 20, 2003: "It is indeed so that the eight have been appointed by the nuclear cabinet under pressure of politicians such as Onkelinx and the liberal minister Michel. That’s not a healthy evolution,” says Father Leman, who is not our friend, “because these eight threw some moderate Muslims out. Those who want integration must negotiate precisely with the moderate.”

“In French-speaking Belgium, the spokesmen of Islam took a member card of a political party, especially of the PS, but also of the MR and Ecolo, and in some large mosques it was called to vote for a particular party. I saw people coming out of the mosque with a clear voice advice, just as it happened in the Catholic churches in the 1950s. The file of the Muslim Executive, the executive body of Islam, has been played by the French speakers really party politics,” said Father Leman. “Laurette Onkelinx and Louis Michel are directly involved in this, and it will have received thousands of votes. On the Flemish side, it was not party politics: both the Flemish Muslims and the Flemish politicians have let themselves put in the file of the Executive." When a father declares that someone is putting himself for a fuck, then it must be very bad, colleagues.

I would like to quote someone else, even if not a Flemish Blokker, but a former Minister of Justice, our all colleague Tony Van Parys, in Gazet van Antwerpen of November 15, 2003. Van Parys says: “Onkelinx’s husband, the Brussels lawyer Marc Uyttendaele, was after all the adviser of the fundamentalists in several disputes against the moderates within the General Muslim Council and the Muslim Executive. She defends here the interests of her husband and of the PS, who has discovered a new electorate in Brussels.”

Unkelinx has so far made no attempt, not in the committee, not here, to counter those allegations. It is so powerful in the Socialist Party that the accusations of confusion of interests do not even deny it. The connection of the PS with certain currents within Islam is therefore obvious. This creates our great fear. What Father Leman warns of, in particular the electoral consequences of that interconnection, are in the meantime undeniable. "Les musulmans ont largement voté PS", as we read in Le Soir of 2 July 2004 based on a study by the ULB.

Approximately 30% of the electorate of the PS in the Brussels Region consists of Muslims. This is much more than the other parties. However, it is much worse. Those 30% have apparently so much influence on the list formation and weigh so heavily on the election outcome that more than half of the PS-elected in Brussels are Islamists.14 out of 26 elected! For those who have trouble believing this, I would like to read the names. I wish these people nothing to devote and wish them all success in their new career as a politician. I would like to mention their names to let you realize how great that influence is.

These include Sfia Bouarfa, Mohamed Daïf, Mahfoudh Romdhani, Mohamed Azzouzi, Amina Derbaki Sbaï, Emir Kir, Rachid Madrane, Ahmed El Ktibi, Emin Ozkara, Mohamed Lahlali, Nadia El Yousfi, Fatiha Saïdi, Fadila Laanan, Mohammadi Chahid.

The Socialist Party in Brussels is renamed PSI, Parti Socialiste Islamique. The largest majority party in Brussels is dominated by the Islamic community. An undeniable fact! A fact that is impossible to look beyond. The furious attempts of Onkelinx to come in favor and favour of the Muslim community have proven their yield and yielded their fruits.

In Brussels, you should not vote for the Muslim party PEM. The representative of that party, the man with the red beard, is still present. The Muslims have simply taken over the wheel of the largest majority party in Brussels.

How can we, in such an important file as that of the Muslim Executive, give confidence to someone like Laurette Onkelinx who is Brussels’ image of the Socialist Party?! How independent can and will this minister still judge after all its drive in favor of eight fundamentalists?!

However, this bill shows a blind confidence in the Minister of Justice. After all, we have, in the first place, no vision of how the screening of candidates will take place — if it already takes place. The Minister again refused to clarify this issue. Second, by means of this bill, the same Minister Onkelinx is given all powers to designate, at his own discretion, the four persons who have a decisive vote in the preparatory committee. Those people are therefore not designated by various ministers or through a KB consulted in the Council of Ministers, but exclusively by PS-pasionaria Onkelinx. He has a lot to say about the upcoming elections. Through this route, she can put the whole course of the elections on her own.

Honestly, I do not understand the attitude of the MR in this file, Mr. Bacquelaine. I do not understand the attitude of the VLD in this file, Mr. Daems, and I do not understand much less the attitude of CD&V, who has signed this bill with him and gives carte blanche to Onkelinx, the Minister of Justice. I have no explanation for that attitude. I am still surprised today.

Colleagues, the Flemish Bloc has requested hearings in the committee because it is important that Parliament be much better informed about doing and leaving this Muslim executive and about everything that has gone wrong in the last six years. We did not want to invite Flemish Blocker, Mr. Daems, but people who are privileged witnesses. Meryem Kaçar, for example, former Agalev senator, who was a mediator in unleashing tensions. Philippe Moureaux of the PS, for example, the mayor of Molenbeek and the founder of the racism law. He was also a mediator, and he was not allowed to come. And finally, Father Leman, the man who tried to liquidate us with his center. None of these three can be suspected of ties with the Flemish Bloc, but they could have told what went so wrong with the Executive, what led to the fiasco we have seen and what therefore needed to change. But it was not possible, it was impossible. Kaçar, for example, could have witnessed that the Dutch-speaking Muslims in this Executive are in a minority situation and are dominated by the French-speaking. You just said it and you have a point there, Mr. Daems. She has concrete ideas about this and we could have questioned her about it, but nothing is initiated with it. It is the Muslim Council itself, which is predominantly French-speaking, that will determine how it should go on. In this text, which is adopted today, there is nothing about it, there is nothing in it to change that situation, Mr. Daems. So you are wrong when you say that we are complicating the situation in the long run, because the legislation that is adopted today does not provide any guarantee.

Why did they not want hearings with, for example, Meryem Kaçar? I would like to quote what she said on March 25 of this year: “This new election will be a measure for nothing. There is a need for transparency in the functioning of the executive. It is now damaged by political interference.” That is what Meryem Kaçar says. Therefore, for example, a hearing could have been useful. However, they were not allowed to come because Her Majesty Laurette Onkelinx has no time, but especially because there are too many things within this Muslim executive that should not see the daylight. That is why everything with clothes slides should remain wrapped. Much is hidden from Parliament. There is too much that we should not know, Mr. Daems. There are too many things that are already too explosive. Unfortunately, the media today is also not interested, but there will come a day when the malversations will come to the surface. There will come a day when we will be able to bring this story to the people out of the clothes.

That day and the months thereafter you should not be surprised by the outrageous reactions, Mr. Daems, to the man in the street. In particular, you should not be surprised that the Flammers will wonder more and more loudly why in 2003 they sent so many submissive Daems caliber slippers to this Parliament.

The [...]

I have some more information that the Room may not disappoint. There are three other speakers registered in this debate: M. Courtois, Mr. De Man et Mme Genot.

( ... ...

The other speakers withdrew their request for intervention.

Mr Van den Eynde, your group member, Mr De Man, has the word. Mr Laeremans, Mr The Man speaks.

I would like to conclude with a historical note. Their

The Islamic religion was recognized in 1974. And why has it been done? That is why we no longer want to have a conscience. Pure from fear of a repeat of the boycott that hit the Netherlands in 1973, and under pressure from the Court, the Islamic religion has been recognized. Under pressure from the court. By the way, Mr. Van der Maelen — you who are so wise, because faction leader of sp.a — you should know that it was precisely the King, then King Boudewijn, who donated the great mosque to the Saudis who still speak anti-Western and anti-European, which was once again confirmed by Committee I. But you don’t want to hear that, that’s not a problem for all of you. They are your new voters. I wish you a lot of success!

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, we will return to the substance of this bill that is presented to us urgently since, it must be reminded, the period of validity of the royal decree recognizing the members of the Muslim executive of Belgium expired on 31 May 2004. In the absence of consensus on the renewal of this executive, it was normal and logical to make a proposal to fill this void, not only legal but also in the facts. I would also like to remind that the aim pursued is strictly limited to the establishment of a commission for the organisation of the elections. The “ratio legis” goal is to restore legitimacy to the executive of Belgian Muslims and to ensure a better representation there, in particular between French and Dutch speakers, and according to ethnic origins.

A legitimate interlocutor is therefore indispensable, both for the Belgian State and for the Muslim community as a whole, so that it is represented by a supported interlocutor. The intervention of the legislator is therefore made indispensable by the very fact of the lack of agreement and consensus. This is the essence of this proposal, that is why we are here tonight to vote on this bill.

I recall once again that the commission responsible for the renewal of the organs of Muslim worship will simply have a mission to ensure support for the organization of these elections, within the framework of the protocol submitted to the government in 1998, as the Minister in commission recalled. This is the answer to the objection of the State Council, which insisted that the commission's tasks should be limited, considering that it was vague to allow it "to take all necessary measures for the organization of the general elections."

The accuracy was made by the minister in committee: she indicated that the tasks conferred on the committee should be assessed in the light of the 1998 Protocol. We insist that this mention should be included in the report. The Minister added that the State Council objection had been met since the commission’s mission falls within the 1998 protocol. by

We therefore believe that this executive must enjoy an undeniable legitimacy and must finally restore dialogue with the whole of Belgian Muslims.

Given the necessity and urgency of having all the elections as soon as possible to reconstruct the Muslim executive in Belgium, the MR group will support this proposal.

Chairman, colleagues, I am really touched by the attitude of the MR, as well as by that of the VLD that provide an extreme force effort and support the urgent treatment of a bill, bill draft that can be at the service of the electorate of the two socialist parties. This is very strange, Mr. Lano. What you are now doing is primarily helping the PS in Brussels and partly sp.a. in Flanders. That goes above my mouth, but okay, it’s your problem. Colleagues of the VLD, you will, of course, be accounted for in the next election, just like you exactly a month ago, Mr. Tommelein, was hard accounted for your links to the extreme-left policy of the past years.

Very briefly, colleagues, I will summarize the reasons why the Flemish Bloc is absolutely opposed not only to subsidies — I address myself specifically to you, Mr. Imam — but also to the recognition of Islam. I want to make it short out of the clothes. There is no need to deal with the principle of freedom of religion and freedom of religious experience, as guaranteed by the Constitution and international treaties. We have no problem with that. But it does not follow from the provisions of Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Constitution that we must recognize and subsidize a religion. This is not stated in the Constitution, nor in international treaties.

Mr. Imam, we have no problem with your perception of religion, but again, there are some principles in Islam that are absolutely incompatible with the values we advocate here in the West, in Europe.

So we say no to recognition and subsidy, but yes to control of mosques. I am curious what will be answered to that.

There is hardly any control at the moment. We know from an unmistakable source, the Committee I, that there are fundamentalists active in at least 30 mosques in this country. All this is simply wiped off the table, colleagues, but that means that there is not only preaching against the West, against Europe, against our values – that is just one thing – but also that there are coins and funds being collected for the so-called freedom struggle of the Muslims all over the world, the jihad. I will send you the report if you want. This is so literally stated in the report: there funds are collected for the struggle being fought in Chechnya, in Afghanistan, in the Middle East, and wherever there is war being fought by Muslims. This is stated in the report of an unmistakable source, the Committee I.

It also states that especially young people are recruited to fight ...

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, today we will have heard a lot about democracy, respect, dialogue, equality, respect for institutions in this house that should be the one of all citizens. Unfortunately, this is not the case since we are here in the house of "almost" all citizens. In fact, a citizen wanted to attend the plenary session this afternoon, and it was refused. Nevertheless, we have already seen, on the tribune, people wearing the hood or kippa. But tonight, while discussing a primary project for the Muslim community, a citizen is forced to watch television at the reception of this parliament in order to attend the debate. I find this situation regrettable and unacceptable. I therefore hope that this House will quickly remedy this situation and ensure that this does not happen again.

This is unimaginable! Someone was denied access to the public tribune because she was wearing a head cover, while the Rules were simply applied. Head coverings are not allowed here. Their

Furthermore, it is astonishing and disturbing to see how a green policy, which normally stands for feminism, for the support and emancipation of women, promotes and supports the covered women here. It surprises me. I am surprised that you are the one who dares to say such a thing, Mrs. Genot.

Mr. De Man, can Mr. Cavdarli interrupt you briefly?

First of all, I do not argue with fascists. Then it is damaging that in this hall, precisely, a woman who wanted to participate in the civil life of that country could not do so because she wore a hood. We are talking about the Rules, but we have seen in parliament people wearing the hood or kippa. It is therefore that it was not considered that wearing the hood or kippa, it meant being covered. I regret today that for such an important debate, she cannot be among us. This is extremely damaging. Obviously, the Regulation is not used in the same way depending on the times.

This debate, if it ends badly, has also started badly. In fact, in the middle of the summer, we see coming, last Thursday, in catimini - as it is bizarre, just after the elections - a text that was published on the website only Monday, discussed in committee in the Chamber on Tuesday at the break, discussed in committee in the Senate on Wednesday and voted today in the plenary session without being normally announced on the agenda, to allow everyone to know that it was today that we were going to discuss this text. These conditions are not appropriate to conduct a genuine democratic debate on such a fundamental issue, on a question of democracy, organization, freedom of religion, freedom of expression and freedom of association.

The second note, and of size, touches an eminently sensitive matter: the separation of cults and the state. In such matters, I think it is necessary to surround ourselves with all legal guarantees. As a committee, I requested that the bill be returned to the State Council to ensure that there were no problems. This was refused. Dialogue and respect are other words that we have heard a lot today. I have heard many accusations, especially in the mouth of Mr. Van Parys, against the former executive, but there was no dialogue! Auditions in committees were requested, so that this dialogue could take place, whether with the executive or other representatives mentioned by the authors of the bill. These hearings were also rejected. I don’t think these are the right conditions to prepare for this debate.

Beyond these formal conditions, which clearly leave something to be desired, let us return to the case. I was quite pleased to see that the reasons that seemed fundamental to the filing of this bill, for example the legal reasons, have no longer been mentioned by anyone today. Obviously, it was understood that the legal reasons mentioned in the bill, such as "partial renewal criteria" or "difficulty in organizing cooptation" were not valid answers. Indeed, if one wanted to work within the framework of 1998, it was possible to proceed with a partial renewal of a third on the basis of cooptation. Apparently, this is not the choice that was made. It must be assumed. I was pleased to see that people were no longer playing to pretend that this was one of the reasons for this proposal.

Another reason mentioned to justify this proposal is the lack of consensus. Indeed, it is true, in the Muslim community as in many communities, we argue, we argue, we disagree and we find that it is better like this or like this, that one would do it better than another. Yes, it is normal. That’s why there were elections in 1998 and that’s why new elections will be held. Normally, it was to renew a third of the executive; you chose to renew the entire executive.

Let’s be clear: we said we had to do it quickly. by Mr. Courtois said there was no consensus in the assembly, in the organs. This is not at all what I have heard about: I have received the letter from an assembly that voted for a procedure, an assembly that has delivered a majority and that proposes us a way to work. And no, this assembly elected by 45,000 Muslims, we did not want to listen to it. We know better than them what is good for them. This is also not an excessively constructive way of working.

As you know, consensus is a reason to provoke general elections. But not for everyone. I was told that this is a big problem, that one cannot advance in the Muslim religion, that not everyone is funded. It is not the only religion. I have done some research and for Protestant worship, for example, we can see that more than half of Belgian Protestants are members of a community that is not funded because they do not identify in the organ that is currently recognized. It’s weird, but I haven’t heard anyone proposing quick elections for the Protestant cult. According to the data in my possession, for the Anglican cult, it is the same thing. Nine Anglican communities are recognized, five communities are not and do not receive public funding, while they represent a significant proportion of people who practice the Anglican religion. This is strange, nor does anyone propose to quickly set up a commission with persons designated by the Minister of Justice! Per ⁇ that is the equality between the cults!

Mr. Speaker, Mr. De Man is doing a good job, but I really wonder why he did not say this at the committee meeting. There he spent almost hours reading stories from Suske and Wiske. I was a witness to it.

Remember that, in the 1998 consensus, it was the Muslim community itself that justified its specificity to demand elections within the Muslim community.

No, I have almost five hours...

Why do we no longer listen to this Muslim community today? In 1998, we listened to it, and today we no longer do it!

You, like your previous group chairman, are now again abusing the opportunity. On the one hand, you are trying to hide behind the mask of democracy, but on the other hand, you are wasting this democracy. Instead of holding a blatant, understandable and democratic plea, you are constantly turning around the pot. You have not said anything about it for hours. Then clearly say that your intention is nothing but filibustering. This proves once again that you know nothing about it and, as always, conduct populist, meaningless and chauvinist politics. I hate that. However, I am prepared to inform you and the entire team of your colleagues about this, starting with a basic knowledge, how Islam is involved.

I just explained to you my first response by stating that it was a request from the Muslim community itself. by

My second answer is that there were actually elections in 1998 and the will, at the time, to hold the coup for 10 years. Don’t forget what I said in the committee. Two years ago, I think, the president of the general assembly called the government for help, so there were problems within the representative bodies. We spoke at the request of the General Assembly. It was from that moment that we asked mediators to intervene, that we appointed for a year a provisional executive with the will, for the subsequent, to come to general elections for the full renewal, unless there is a way to find a consensus around the principles of 1998. This consensus has not been found. Therefore, we must now proceed to a complete renewal so that, by the democratic vote – I do not understand why we are afraid of it – all Muslims in Belgium, men and women, decide their future, the way they manage their cult.

The best way to learn about the mosques in this country, Mr. Imam, is to re-read the report of the Committee I every year. For me, this is the best way to find out what is going on in the mosques in this country. Committee I says there are dozens of mosques where funds are collected and young people are recruited for armed jihad. This is stated in the report every year. It was stated for the first time in the 2001 report that I was lying on my desk and that I can show you. In the mosques even young people are recruited for the armed struggle — until further order — abroad.

You say that we do not know what it is about, but we still have the right to speak if we have read the texts of the Committee I correctly.

Colleagues, again, it’s not about us that people profess a certain faith. There are in this country, I think, a lot of Buddhists; a lot of Sikhs; to give just two examples. Both religions are neither recognized nor subsidized. Or am I mistaken? When you blame us for discrimination, racism, fascism, and so on—these terms fly pretty smoothly through the air—you must first and foremost look at what the government is doing. In fact, they also discriminate. Their

Mr. Tommelein, the government you support with your big mouth, for example, does not subsidize the Buddhists. That is discrimination. You should therefore not blame us for preferring to exclude a particular religion because of the values — though, values — which defend its followers and which conflict with our values. The government you support, Mr. Tommelein, is actually doing exactly the same. Their

My good colleague Bart Laeremans explained clearly and thoroughly why the purple government wants to subsidize precisely the Islamic religion. That is because there is the future blasphemy of the Socialist Party and, in part, also of the SPA, which counts on those votes to compensate for the huge loss of the past years to the Flemish Bloc. That is the essence of the matter, Mr. Tommelein.

The [...]

Let us be clear! In 1998, it was decided to proceed with a partial renewal. An agreement was reached. It was the Muslims who chose the current assembly. The latter issued a consensus to demand a partial renewal by the polls. You do not respect the will expressed by the Muslims in 1998! At the time, Muslims chose people who were there for the so-called 5 years according to the agreement. You do not respect it!

( ... ...

You have several arguments and I will give you another one.

You are talking about the 1998 issue. No to No! The 1998 assembly consisted of 68 members with 17 coopted members. Currently, there are 25 copies. The executive from the general assembly, normally, should be an executive able to manage the temporal without problems in cults, especially since he has been elected for a year.

But the two vice-presidents resigned from their duties and two other members of the executive even resigned from their membership duties. Do you think there is discomfort, yes or no?

Mr Van den Eynde, your group member, Mr De Man, has the word. Mr Laeremans, Mr The Man speaks.

I admitted that there was discomfort, that there were discussions, disputes, as in all communities, but that is not a reason for us to decide in their place what they have to do.

I would like to decide for all the cults. When I see on paper what’s going on with the Anglicans, I say to myself that it doesn’t seem to work well at home; I would take care of it.

Madame Genot, it is funny, it is beautiful, you can repeat it twenty-five times, but the Anglican cult has never asked, depending on its specificity, that one can help it organize elections; the Muslim cult, yes. Therefore, rely on this element and not on comparisons that are not.

I tell you, and I repeat to you, that there are difficulties within the current bodies of the executive, there is a request from these bodies for a state intervention. For a year, we have been in dialogue with these bodies to try to get a general consensus. Not only do we find difficulties within the organs, but, as I said in the commission, most mosque unions, in particular, and other institutions and individuals, have explained to us their difficulties.

Therefore, Mrs. Genot, instead of choosing, as you do, one camp over another, which I refuse to do at all times, I simply say that it is to the Muslim men and women of Belgium, and to themselves, to choose their organs.

I would like to conclude with a historical note. Their

The Islamic religion was recognized in 1974. And why has it been done? That is why we no longer want to have a conscience. Pure from fear of a repeat of the boycott that hit the Netherlands in 1973, and under pressure from the Court, the Islamic religion has been recognized. Under pressure from the court. By the way, Mr. Van der Maelen — you who are so wise, because faction leader of sp.a — you should know that it was precisely the King, then King Boudewijn, who donated the great mosque to the Saudis who still speak anti-Western and anti-European, which was once again confirmed by Committee I. But you don’t want to hear that, that’s not a problem for all of you. They are your new voters. I wish you a lot of success!

I choose the camp of the law. The law camp is very clear: every cult has the right to choose an organ. It cannot be a commission with four persons appointed by the Minister of Justice to organize elections. This is contrary to the Convention on Human Rights, it is contrary to the Constitution. The State Council itself says it.

The Ministry of the Interior organizes elections on the basis of the rules set by that Parliament. Here, it could have been fully accepted that, as in 1998, a Muslim body organizes elections with an external accompanying commission. This is not what is currently proposed.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, today we will have heard a lot about democracy, respect, dialogue, equality, respect for institutions in this house that should be the one of all citizens. Unfortunately, this is not the case since we are here in the house of "almost" all citizens. In fact, a citizen wanted to attend the plenary session this afternoon, and it was refused. Nevertheless, we have already seen, on the tribune, people wearing the hood or kippa. But tonight, while discussing a primary project for the Muslim community, a citizen is forced to watch television at the reception of this parliament in order to attend the debate. I find this situation regrettable and unacceptable. I therefore hope that this House will quickly remedy this situation and ensure that this does not happen again.

This is unimaginable! Someone was denied access to the public tribune because she was wearing a head cover, while the Rules were simply applied. Head coverings are not allowed here. Their

Furthermore, it is astonishing and disturbing to see how a green policy, which normally stands for feminism, for the support and emancipation of women, promotes and supports the covered women here. It surprises me. I am surprised that you are the one who dares to say such a thing, Mrs. Genot.

Madame Genot, the rules are the reference rules of the 1998 Consensus Report, which was written by representatives of the Muslim community.

In 1998 this was not the case. That year, the provisional executive held elections. A committee was established to support these elections. Here, what we are proposing is a commission to organize the elections. It is completely different.

First of all, I do not argue with fascists. Then it is damaging that in this hall, precisely, a woman who wanted to participate in the civil life of that country could not do so because she wore a hood. We are talking about the Rules, but we have seen in parliament people wearing the hood or kippa. It is therefore that it was not considered that wearing the hood or kippa, it meant being covered. I regret today that for such an important debate, she cannot be among us. This is extremely damaging. Obviously, the Regulation is not used in the same way depending on the times.

This debate, if it ends badly, has also started badly. In fact, in the middle of the summer, we see coming, last Thursday, in catimini - as it is bizarre, just after the elections - a text that was published on the website only Monday, discussed in committee in the Chamber on Tuesday at the break, discussed in committee in the Senate on Wednesday and voted today in the plenary session without being normally announced on the agenda, to allow everyone to know that it was today that we were going to discuss this text. These conditions are not appropriate to conduct a genuine democratic debate on such a fundamental issue, on a question of democracy, organization, freedom of religion, freedom of expression and freedom of association.

The second note, and of size, touches an eminently sensitive matter: the separation of cults and the state. In such matters, I think it is necessary to surround ourselves with all legal guarantees. As a committee, I requested that the bill be returned to the State Council to ensure that there were no problems. This was refused. Dialogue and respect are other words that we have heard a lot today. I have heard many accusations, especially in the mouth of Mr. Van Parys, against the former executive, but there was no dialogue! Auditions in committees were requested, so that this dialogue could take place, whether with the executive or other representatives mentioned by the authors of the bill. These hearings were also rejected. I don’t think these are the right conditions to prepare for this debate.

Beyond these formal conditions, which clearly leave something to be desired, let us return to the case. I was quite pleased to see that the reasons that seemed fundamental to the filing of this bill, for example the legal reasons, have no longer been mentioned by anyone today. Obviously, it was understood that the legal reasons mentioned in the bill, such as "partial renewal criteria" or "difficulty in organizing cooptation" were not valid answers. Indeed, if one wanted to work within the framework of 1998, it was possible to proceed with a partial renewal of a third on the basis of cooptation. Apparently, this is not the choice that was made. It must be assumed. I was pleased to see that people were no longer playing to pretend that this was one of the reasons for this proposal.

Another reason mentioned to justify this proposal is the lack of consensus. Indeed, it is true, in the Muslim community as in many communities, we argue, we argue, we disagree and we find that it is better like this or like this, that one would do it better than another. Yes, it is normal. That’s why there were elections in 1998 and that’s why new elections will be held. Normally, it was to renew a third of the executive; you chose to renew the entire executive.

Let’s be clear: we said we had to do it quickly. by Mr. Courtois said there was no consensus in the assembly, in the organs. This is not at all what I have heard about: I have received the letter from an assembly that voted for a procedure, an assembly that has delivered a majority and that proposes us a way to work. And no, this assembly elected by 45,000 Muslims, we did not want to listen to it. We know better than them what is good for them. This is also not an excessively constructive way of working.

As you know, consensus is a reason to provoke general elections. But not for everyone. I was told that this is a big problem, that one cannot advance in the Muslim religion, that not everyone is funded. It is not the only religion. I have done some research and for Protestant worship, for example, we can see that more than half of Belgian Protestants are members of a community that is not funded because they do not identify in the organ that is currently recognized. It’s weird, but I haven’t heard anyone proposing quick elections for the Protestant cult. According to the data in my possession, for the Anglican cult, it is the same thing. Nine Anglican communities are recognized, five communities are not and do not receive public funding, while they represent a significant proportion of people who practice the Anglican religion. This is strange, nor does anyone propose to quickly set up a commission with persons designated by the Minister of Justice! Per ⁇ that is the equality between the cults!

You become the hard lawyer of a camp. I refuse to choose or interfere. It is up to Muslim women and men in Belgium to choose.

Remember that, in the 1998 consensus, it was the Muslim community itself that justified its specificity to demand elections within the Muslim community.

Well, since you come to the field of interference, I will only read the opinion of the State Council, which may have had to choose a camp. It is ⁇ that. The State Council has chosen one camp: that of law.

“In principle, it is up to the recognised worship to determine which body is competent to intervene as a representative body of worship towards the State, in particular to ensure the implementation of Article 181 § 1 of the Constitution. The establishment of a committee which is as generally responsible for the tasks assigned to it by the author of the project constitutes an interference with the freedoms mentioned above. It must therefore be possible to justify that such interference remains within the limits of the aforementioned articles of the European Convention on Human Rights and of the Constitution. The Islamic cult is a recognised cult. The State, faced with the necessity - while respecting the freedom of worship - to allow the Muslim worship to enjoy the rights conferred by the Constitution to recognised worship, is in the obligation to recognize the organs of the Muslim worship. However, it will be necessary to establish that the projected mechanism is the only one capable of fully achieving the aim pursued, in particular due to the specificities of this cult in terms of its internal organization and the impossibility in which it would find itself to present itself an organ that can be recognized as representative. In any case, such interference must remain as limited as possible and there must be a proportional relationship between the aim pursued and the measures aimed at achieving it.”

And here is, for me, the key phrase of this State Council opinion: "As an example, does not correspond to this requirement" - therefore this requirement of proportionality - "the too broad formulation of the text of article 4 § 1 er of the draft, which provides that the commission is responsible for taking all necessary measures for the organization of the general elections."

I have chosen the law camp. If you agree with the State Council, I do not understand why you refused to refer to this institution. In fact, it could have allowed everyone to feel completely comfortable with this text. However, this is not the case today. In fact, we have the feeling that citizens are viewed differently. Some are treated fairly by law, while others are less.

Furthermore, I am not reassured with the proposal that is made to us of a commission comprising four members: two magistrates and two Muslims, all appointed by the Minister of Justice.

When I ask questions about the criteria that will be used ...

Why do we no longer listen to this Muslim community today? In 1998, we listened to it, and today we no longer do it!

Mr. Daems, you have the right to trust the Minister. I like the rules and the rules. At the moment, however, I do not see on what criteria the four members of this committee will be chosen.

When I ask the question of what criteria will be used to designate the two magistrates who should participate in this commission, you say to me: experience. But what experience is it?

I just explained to you my first response by stating that it was a request from the Muslim community itself. by

My second answer is that there were actually elections in 1998 and the will, at the time, to hold the coup for 10 years. Don’t forget what I said in the committee. Two years ago, I think, the president of the general assembly called the government for help, so there were problems within the representative bodies. We spoke at the request of the General Assembly. It was from that moment that we asked mediators to intervene, that we appointed for a year a provisional executive with the will, for the subsequent, to come to general elections for the full renewal, unless there is a way to find a consensus around the principles of 1998. This consensus has not been found. Therefore, we must now proceed to a complete renewal so that, by the democratic vote – I do not understand why we are afraid of it – all Muslims in Belgium, men and women, decide their future, the way they manage their cult.

This choice will obviously include a portion of subjectivity; every choice always includes a portion of subjectivity. As you know, the committee will be composed of two judges. I think that we cannot question their independence, their deontological concern and respect. If one considers their professional experience, one can think that they are people who are accustomed to work truly respecting the goals we pursue, namely supporting the Muslim community in the electoral process. In addition, the executive of Muslims is invited to propose French- and Dutch-speaking persons who can be part of this commission.

Let us be clear! In 1998, it was decided to proceed with a partial renewal. An agreement was reached. It was the Muslims who chose the current assembly. The latter issued a consensus to demand a partial renewal by the polls. You do not respect the will expressed by the Muslims in 1998! At the time, Muslims chose people who were there for the so-called 5 years according to the agreement. You do not respect it!

You have several arguments and I will give you another one.

You are talking about the 1998 issue. No to No! The 1998 assembly consisted of 68 members with 17 coopted members. Currently, there are 25 copies. The executive from the general assembly, normally, should be an executive able to manage the temporal without problems in cults, especially since he has been elected for a year.

But the two vice-presidents resigned from their duties and two other members of the executive even resigned from their membership duties. Do you think there is discomfort, yes or no?

You say that neither you nor I are capable of making a choice in a perfectly objective way. I agree with you on this point. In fact, the only people who are able to make this choice are those who were elected in 1998. In my opinion, if this solution is not perfect, they are, however, the only ones able to propose an organization of the elections that could be followed by an accompanying commission, as happened in 1998 and as this was welcomed by all observers at the time.

For my part, I am very worried about the outcome of these elections and how the latter will be organized.

by Mr. Courtois said that it would be based on the 1998 protocol to define the organization of elections and the organization of future assemblies. From what I hear, the scope of consideration of this committee is very broad in relation to the duration of the mandate of this future assembly, in relation to the quotas that will constitute it.

Can you give us the elements that allow us to frame the process and show us that this commission does not have a latitude completely disproportionate to the way it is constituted?

I admitted that there was discomfort, that there were discussions, disputes, as in all communities, but that is not a reason for us to decide in their place what they have to do.

I would like to decide for all the cults. When I see on paper what’s going on with the Anglicans, I say to myself that it doesn’t seem to work well at home; I would take care of it.

I have already said this in the committee. I will not spend my time repeating it, at some point, we must try to understand!

The reference framework is the 1998 framework. Compared to 1998, at the level of the Muslim community, including at the level of the present representative bodies of this community, there is a willingness to evolve. For example, general elections were not planned. For example, a cooptation was not planned. Even on these points, there is a willingness to evolve from the current representative bodies and also according to the letters I have received from other institutions of Muslim worship. The reference framework is that of 1998 with the adjustments desired by the evolution of this dossier and which are requested by all the organs of the Muslim cult.

Therefore, I understand that we are not within the framework that Mr. Courtois spoke about it recently. He wanted to note in the report that we are only in the 1998 reference framework. He looked very confident of himself and he found that the field was sufficiently framed only to respond to the remarks of the State Council. I would like to have the insurance he has obtained but, obviously, this is not the case.

Madame Genot, it is funny, it is beautiful, you can repeat it twenty-five times, but the Anglican cult has never asked, depending on its specificity, that one can help it organize elections; the Muslim cult, yes. Therefore, rely on this element and not on comparisons that are not.

I tell you, and I repeat to you, that there are difficulties within the current bodies of the executive, there is a request from these bodies for a state intervention. For a year, we have been in dialogue with these bodies to try to get a general consensus. Not only do we find difficulties within the organs, but, as I said in the commission, most mosque unions, in particular, and other institutions and individuals, have explained to us their difficulties.

Therefore, Mrs. Genot, instead of choosing, as you do, one camp over another, which I refuse to do at all times, I simply say that it is to the Muslim men and women of Belgium, and to themselves, to choose their organs.

I choose the camp of the law. The law camp is very clear: every cult has the right to choose an organ. It cannot be a commission with four persons appointed by the Minister of Justice to organize elections. This is contrary to the Convention on Human Rights, it is contrary to the Constitution. The State Council itself says it.

The Ministry of the Interior organizes elections on the basis of the rules set by that Parliament. Here, it could have been fully accepted that, as in 1998, a Muslim body organizes elections with an external accompanying commission. This is not what is currently proposed.

Not only do you want to not allow Belgian Muslim men and women to renew their organs completely, but you also want to impose cooptation on them. Is this your will?

Madame Genot, the rules are the reference rules of the 1998 Consensus Report, which was written by representatives of the Muslim community.

I do not impose anything at all. I believe that the only representative body currently is the assembly that has been elected. I believe that we must comply with what this Assembly proposes. You may be more representative than the assembly that is elected, but this is not my case.

In 1998 this was not the case. That year, the provisional executive held elections. A committee was established to support these elections. Here, what we are proposing is a commission to organize the elections. It is completely different.

Madame Genot, please conclude. I have no objection to dialogue, but the most beautiful things have an end!

At the moment, what is happening, what is the signal sent? In case of dysfunction, when you are experiencing difficulties, express your dissent outside the institution, write to the minister and you will be heard and we will intervene by renewing the organs of worship! This is a very bad signal! This means that there is currently no representative of the Muslim community. Anyone can become a representative and ask for a way of working. I think it’s very clearly a bonus to the brothel and it’s going to pay off in the coming years, because there’s no reason that this doesn’t happen again.

You become the hard lawyer of a camp. I refuse to choose or interfere. It is up to Muslim women and men in Belgium to choose.

Well, since you come to the field of interference, I will only read the opinion of the State Council, which may have had to choose a camp. It is ⁇ that. The State Council has chosen one camp: that of law.

“In principle, it is up to the recognised worship to determine which body is competent to intervene as a representative body of worship towards the State, in particular to ensure the implementation of Article 181 § 1 of the Constitution. The establishment of a committee which is as generally responsible for the tasks assigned to it by the author of the project constitutes an interference with the freedoms mentioned above. It must therefore be possible to justify that such interference remains within the limits of the aforementioned articles of the European Convention on Human Rights and of the Constitution. The Islamic cult is a recognised cult. The State, faced with the necessity - while respecting the freedom of worship - to allow the Muslim worship to enjoy the rights conferred by the Constitution to recognised worship, is in the obligation to recognize the organs of the Muslim worship. However, it will be necessary to establish that the projected mechanism is the only one capable of fully achieving the aim pursued, in particular due to the specificities of this cult in terms of its internal organization and the impossibility in which it would find itself to present itself an organ that can be recognized as representative. In any case, such interference must remain as limited as possible and there must be a proportional relationship between the aim pursued and the measures aimed at achieving it.”

And here is, for me, the key phrase of this State Council opinion: "As an example, does not correspond to this requirement" - therefore this requirement of proportionality - "the too broad formulation of the text of article 4 § 1 er of the draft, which provides that the commission is responsible for taking all necessary measures for the organization of the general elections."

I have chosen the law camp. If you agree with the State Council, I do not understand why you refused to refer to this institution. In fact, it could have allowed everyone to feel completely comfortable with this text. However, this is not the case today. In fact, we have the feeling that citizens are viewed differently. Some are treated fairly by law, while others are less.

Furthermore, I am not reassured with the proposal that is made to us of a commission comprising four members: two magistrates and two Muslims, all appointed by the Minister of Justice.

When I ask questions about the criteria that will be used ...

Trust the Minister.

Mr. Daems, you have the right to trust the Minister. I like the rules and the rules. At the moment, however, I do not see on what criteria the four members of this committee will be chosen.

When I ask the question of what criteria will be used to designate the two magistrates who should participate in this commission, you say to me: experience. But what experience is it?

This choice will obviously include a portion of subjectivity; every choice always includes a portion of subjectivity. As you know, the committee will be composed of two judges. I think that we cannot question their independence, their deontological concern and respect. If one considers their professional experience, one can think that they are people who are accustomed to work truly respecting the goals we pursue, namely supporting the Muslim community in the electoral process. In addition, the executive of Muslims is invited to propose French- and Dutch-speaking persons who can be part of this commission.

You say that neither you nor I are capable of making a choice in a perfectly objective way. I agree with you on this point. In fact, the only people who are able to make this choice are those who were elected in 1998. In my opinion, if this solution is not perfect, they are, however, the only ones able to propose an organization of the elections that could be followed by an accompanying commission, as happened in 1998 and as this was welcomed by all observers at the time.

For my part, I am very worried about the outcome of these elections and how the latter will be organized.

by Mr. Courtois said that it would be based on the 1998 protocol to define the organization of elections and the organization of future assemblies. From what I hear, the scope of consideration of this committee is very broad in relation to the duration of the mandate of this future assembly, in relation to the quotas that will constitute it.

Can you give us the elements that allow us to frame the process and show us that this commission does not have a latitude completely disproportionate to the way it is constituted?

I have already said this in the committee. I will not spend my time repeating it, at some point, we must try to understand!

The reference framework is the 1998 framework. Compared to 1998, at the level of the Muslim community, including at the level of the present representative bodies of this community, there is a willingness to evolve. For example, general elections were not planned. For example, a cooptation was not planned. Even on these points, there is a willingness to evolve from the current representative bodies and also according to the letters I have received from other institutions of Muslim worship. The reference framework is that of 1998 with the adjustments desired by the evolution of this dossier and which are requested by all the organs of the Muslim cult.

Therefore, I understand that we are not within the framework that Mr. Courtois spoke about it recently. He wanted to note in the report that we are only in the 1998 reference framework. He looked very confident of himself and he found that the field was sufficiently framed only to respond to the remarks of the State Council. I would like to have the insurance he has obtained but, obviously, this is not the case.

Not only do you want to not allow Belgian Muslim men and women to renew their organs completely, but you also want to impose cooptation on them. Is this your will?

I do not impose anything at all. I believe that the only representative body currently is the assembly that has been elected. I believe that we must comply with what this Assembly proposes. You may be more representative than the assembly that is elected, but this is not my case.

Madame Genot, please conclude. I have no objection to dialogue, but the most beautiful things have an end!

At the moment, what is happening, what is the signal sent? In case of dysfunction, when you are experiencing difficulties, express your dissent outside the institution, write to the minister and you will be heard and we will intervene by renewing the organs of worship! This is a very bad signal! This means that there is currently no representative of the Muslim community. Anyone can become a representative and ask for a way of working. I think it’s very clearly a bonus to the brothel and it’s going to pay off in the coming years, because there’s no reason that this doesn’t happen again.