Proposition 51K1659

Proposition de résolution relative à l'instauration du 17 mai comme journée nationale de lutte contre l'homophobie.

General information ¶

Authors

PS | SP Valérie Déom, Karine Lalieux, Marie-Claire Lambert, Yvan Mayeur

Submission date

March 11, 2005

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

anti-discriminatory measure public holiday equal treatment resolution of parliament human rights sexual minority

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA MR

Abstained from voting

VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Alexandra Colen (VB) voted to reject.

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 ¶

May 18, 2005 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Do you ask for the presence of the Government on this point? It is a parliamentary initiative.

Normally so, Mr. Minister.

Is there anyone among the colleagues who appreciates the presence of the government?

Always be appreciated.

If there is a consensus in the House...

(De minister verlaat het halfrond) (De minister verlaat het halfrond)

They do not for nothing call us the generous.

First and foremost, thank you for giving me the word.

To fall by the door, Mr. Speaker, I must confess that I was quite surprised — and that is an euphemism — when I took note of the fact that just today a proposal for a resolution was on the agenda aimed at proclaiming a national day to combat homophobia on 17 May. I was surprised, Mr. Speaker, because here exactly six days ago — not even a week yet — we buried the yet very intense debate about the split of Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde as a result of a capitulation on all fronts of the Flemish. Mr. Speaker, in that debate, the French speakers got everything they wanted, namely no division, and capitulated the Flamings.

The underlying tone used for weeks at the time to persuade the Flaming to let go of their combativity was mainly spread by the authoritative media with arguments that the citizen is not awake of it.

This is not the concern of the citizen, not in Flanders or anywhere else; the citizen is not awake of this. To formulate it in a plastic way, the chairman of sp.a — I don’t know if he is the chairman of sp.a-spirit, which has never become quite clear to me — has even taken the phrase “this is problem 177” into his mouth.

Mr. Speaker, when I was confronted with the agenda of today’s meeting less than a week later and there was a “Proposal for a resolution to proclaim 17 May as a national day to combat homophobia,” I thought: finally something that the citizen is awake of. That must be, because otherwise we would not have had to look up the problem around Brussels-HalleVilvoorde last week so quickly to finally go back to the agenda and the real problems, as the government told us. Finally, there is something that the public is really awake from.

I am going to look at that proposal. At the same time, I investigated a little how all this came about. It is very surprising to see this very important proposal only now. The 17th of May is already a few days behind. It is richly late.

It is also surprising that the reporter, who, however, is part of a party that has written the affair of sexual minorities highly in the flag, has not even made the effort to be present and that the government has also gently asked us for permission – I cannot blame them for that – to leave the Parliament at the beginning of the discussion.

I look at the proposal and I see that it has been signed by Mrs. Marie-Claire Lambert, by Mr. Yvan Mayeur, by Ms. Valérie Déom and by Ms. Karine Lalieux. Please do not apologize, but where are they? Their

Where are they? They are not there. The rapporteur is not there and the applicants are not there. What is this a story?

I read it a little better. I have found that the applicants assume that there are in fact no real problems for homosexuals in Western Europe in general and in this country in particular. They do not say it in so many words, although I read that homosexuality can now be experienced more freely than ever before. Homosexuality is now found almost everywhere: on the streets, in the press, on television and on the cinema screens. Homosexuality would even be fully accepted, as evidenced by recent legislative progress made in several countries regarding the recognition of gay couples. They admit it themselves.

The problem does not arise here at all. That is not my position. It is their position and who am I to doubt it? The truth is even different. In the list they are not talking about politics. However, I cannot get rid of the impression that homosexuality is also present in politics without causing problems. We even have legislation here that allows gay marriages. I would like to admit that I was personally against it.

The problem does not exist here. They say that with so many words. They refer to the history where the problem once arose. They refer to the Goelag Archipelago and to the concentration camps in Nazi Germany. However, that is the past. At the moment there is no problem.

What they say, and not wrongly, is that it still occurs abroad and that there are many countries where someone who, say, is recognized as homosexual can have serious problems: in Africa, for example, and in Arab countries. I will give you some examples. Homosexual acts are prohibited by law in Algeria, Senegal, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Lebanon, Jordan, Armenia, Kuwait, Bosnia, Nicaragua. In a number of countries, homosexuals can be sentenced to more than 10 years in prison: Niger, Libya, Syria, Malaysia, Cuba, Jamaica, India.

By the way — but I will return to that later — Niger is an Islamic country, Libya is an Islamic country, Syria is an Islamic country, Malaysia is an Islamic country. Cuba is a communist country. Jamaica is a country with an African culture. Reggae and so on. India is partially Islamic.

In some countries, the law even provides for life imprisonment, including in Uganda. In a dozen states, homosexuality can actually be punished with the death penalty. Examples include: Afghanistan, an Islamic country; Iran, an Islamic country; Saudi Arabia, an Islamic country. There are others, but I will end my explanation here.

In other words, if there is homophobia anywhere, it is not here but especially in what remains of the communist regimes, in former communist countries, and especially in Africa and/or in Islamic countries. There is the problem.

Mr. Speaker, what are we going to do about this now? If I can believe the applicants, who are absent here, we will organize here every year on 17 May a day against homophobia.

Let us admit that it makes little sense. I see Fidel Castro sitting somewhere in Havana already behind his cigar and saying that Cuba should be careful, because the country still has a law that holds homosexuals in prison for ten years, while Belgium organizes a day against homophobia. I see the rulers in Iran or Afghanistan already saying that they should be careful with their legislation, which allows homosexuals to be sentenced to death, because Belgium has a day against homophobia.

No one believes this story. No one believes that this could have any effect, not even the applicants. They are not present here, just like the rapporteur. Mr. Speaker, I repeat that the rapporteur is part of a party which can be assumed to be the almsayer of political correctness and progressive thinking. Even they are not there. They do not believe in the proposal.

What remains of the proposal for a resolution? Well, it’s a lot of baked, progressive air. This is a meaningless proposal. However, it is full of political correctness, of course. This is the only reason why it was submitted: the political correctness to the bitter end and to the most absurd. Politically correct to the coffin, that is.

Mr. Speaker, curiously, if they could really do something about what is called homophobia, for example when they visit and contact other countries with legislation that I subsequently challenged, then they do nothing.

Not so long ago, my good group chairman, Mr. Annemans, visited Libya, a country where homophobia is very strong, together with the House chairman and the group leaders. Good colleague, you did not tell me in your report to the group that any initiative from Belgium has come to say to Gaddafi: it must now be done with that homophobia.

In fact, Mr. Stevaert, somewhat the pope of progressive thought in Flanders, has gone to Cuba more than once, to Fidel Castro. In fact, he is also a bit of your president. He was probably allowed to smoke good cigars there, and there, in the bars where Hemingway used to run around, in Havana, he was allowed to drink delicious cocktails based on local rum. But I haven’t heard, dear colleague, that Mr. Stevaert said to Fidel: “Young boy, you have to do something, because you are embracing the gays in this country.” No, there is nothing done.

Why do they not visit Cuba, Libya or other countries, of which I can give examples? I do not want to remember those other examples. What is already being said about homosexuality in Africa! I quote, for example, Mr. Mugabe, who was not so long ago one of the great coryfies of "la gauche bien pensante", in De Morgen, also a newspaper on which there is no doubt, the osservatore romano of progressive thinking in Flanders. On March 23, Mr. Mugabe said the following. “The British government is trying to promote homosexuality. We” — it is a speech to tribal heads — “as tribal heads must fight against such Western practices and respect our culture. British homosexuals" — I don't know why he has something exclusively against Britons; that's probably something special — "are worse than dogs and pigs, because they don't make a difference between men and women," said Mugabe, a coryfee of the left, until for a few years. That is now over.

I give another quote, again from Mr. Mugabe, this time found in The Standard of April 22, 2000. He talks about homosexuals and says, "They are sodomites and perverted, worse than dogs and pigs."

Now you think: well, that is Mr. Mugabe and with Mr. Mugabe we have had some problems in the meantime. He is no longer a coryfee. That is right.

But I found other quotes, from other African leaders.

I will not read them all to you, it would become monotonous, but I will give you an example, again from The Morning of March 22, 2001, Sam Nujoma, you know, the liberator of Namibia, another of the great heroes of the left, who literally says and I quote: "The Republic of Namibia does not allow homosexuality. “The police have been ordered to arrest gay and lesbian people, put them in jail and deport them.” Sam Nujoma, almost holy declared by la gauche bien pensante. Almost declared sacred.

So when one has contact with those countries – for in Namibia we have development cooperation – when one visits those countries, when one receives official delegations from those countries, then one silences about all that problem. It is strange. We must organize a day here against homophobia while it does not exist but where it exists, there we keep silent about it. What is the declaration? Well, the statement is again the political correctness because, as I just said, organizing a day here against homophobia is politically correct but having criticism of Cuba, that can not, that is politically incorrect and that you do not, even not when it comes to homosexuality. So simple is that. Their

Therefore, I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that the proposal presented here is a baked progressive air full of political correctness. When one thinks even further and thus finds that it is primarily in those last communist countries or in African and/or Islamic countries that one is faced with this harsh approach to the phenomenon of homosexuality, when one finds it, then one must yet dare to ask questions about the multicultural society. After all, what is the multicultural society that some want to absolutely impose on us here?

It is a society in which, in addition to our traditional Western culture, there is also an Islamic culture and an African and ⁇ other cultures.

I ask myself – which is ⁇ not politically correct – whether we, with that multicultural society, by bringing these cultures into us, do not at the same time enter into the homophobia. I am not the only one who asks this question. The Tomorrow — apparently the gospel in this matter — of May 17, 2005 published an article about an American journalist who is at the head of a number of gay magazines appearing in New York and Washington. The American journalist had made the mistake of walking through Amsterdam with his boyfriend. He was attacked by young immigrants and was hard beaten. In his conclusion on the whole case, the journalist states that according to many Dutch — he received many sympathies from the Netherlands — there is a Dutch cultural war, a war between Western and Islamic culture. These are not my words, but the words of an American journalist who publishes gay magazines. Consequently, I use this situation, or rather the above text of the proposal for a resolution, to ask — again politically incorrect — a number of questions concerning what can be called the blessings of the multicultural society. The conclusion I have drawn from this, Mr. Speaker, is that one must act consistently if one wants to do something, that one must address the real problems and diligence for human rights, including those of homosexuals, where they are truly threatened, such as in Cuba.

It is unthinkable for me that a progressive political figure like Steve Stevaert would still go to Cuba, at least as long as this situation exists there. Their

I have therefore submitted an amendment, which is in fact a sort of alternative proposal for a resolution. I suggest, on behalf of my group, that if homophobia is to be addressed, it must happen where it really exists. That this is not politically correct will be a concern for us! My party is simply not being politically correct. In this proposal for a resolution, we have therefore called for concrete measures against those countries where homosexuality is still criminalized. I repeat: it is unthinkable that another political leader from us, ⁇ from a progressive party such as the Socialist Party, would go to Cuba. It is unthinkable! Their

Next, it is the duty of our government to warn the population of the dangers of the multicultural society. I think I have indicated, with sufficient arguments, that a multicultural society could in fact greatly undermine the traditional European values such as tolerance and tolerance. Their

It is, colleagues, the duty of all of us to watch over the survival of these beautiful values: tolerance and tolerance. In this sense, I would like to invite you to approve my amendment tomorrow. I thank you in advance and thank you now for your attention.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, compared to many other countries, holebi in Belgium are currently in a rather comfortable situation. Both the Flemish and the Wallish holebi movement are aware of this. They also acknowledge that this can be very transient. In other words, the clock can be turned back. Additionally, tolerance towards other people is accompanied by a counter-motion of homophobia. The proposal for a resolution to designate an official day to combat homophobia can only be welcomed and supported by liberals.

Nevertheless, on behalf of my group, I would like to make a few comments to the present text, which have only a constructive intention. First, there is the unquestionably determinable example function of this country with regard to holebi. The Liberal Party has contributed to this in recent years. The same-sex marriage has been introduced. There is an adoption arrangement in place. There are decrees and laws for equal opportunities. House owners who do not want to rent to holebi's are prosecuted and punished legally. In addition, it remains a fact that suicide attempts are more common in young holebians. It is not necessarily about homophobia, but about the uncertainty of young people to dare out. For example, the latest SERV study on holebians on the labour market shows that a lot of holebians do not dare to outsource themselves in their work. Once they have done so, the reactions appear to be much better than originally thought.

The Flemish liberals fully follow the reasoning that discrimination against holebies should be fully countered. Last week, the VLD presented a comprehensive note containing ten measures and focus points for an up-to-date holebi policy. There is a need for a positive policy that creates a framework of equal opportunities, combined with a repressive policy that punishes discrimination against holebi.

Both facets seem to be fairly well observed in this country. In one breath, it can be added to that everything can be better. But that also applies to other phenomena, such as poverty reduction or an equal opportunity policy for immigrants, value colleagues on my right.

Since the WHO removed homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses on 17 May 1990, the Parliament asks the government to proclaim 17 May as a day to combat homophobia. In principle, the liberals have no objections to this, but we see this as a first step. No matter how you turn it or turn it, initiatives like this will only have a full impact if they are carried out internationally. Following the example of International Women’s Day and World Animal Day, it seems more interesting to us that a day to combat homophobia would also be implemented by the United Nations or at least at European level. I hope that we, together with all the groups, can continue to work on this.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, the VLD would like to support this resolution. Nevertheless, we hope that this is a first step towards a full-fledged International Day to Combat Homophobia.

Finally, we hope that initiatives will be taken so that everyone will do their job. Prevention campaigns are within the competence of the Communities. We therefore hope that the federal government will take the necessary initiatives and contacts with the governments of the counties for that part of the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I did not intend to start with a quote but after Mr. Van den Eynde I can hardly otherwise. Mr. Van den Eynde, you can guess three times who the following quote comes from: "You know how gay people have community? It is a violent act in itself in which one enters someone by an unnatural path. My brother has handled this dramatic experience by speaking them well. He himself became gay. I suspect most people become gay because they have been abused by gay people. Mr. Van den Eynde, this is not a statement of any Muslim leader, not a statement of any African head of state. It is a decision of someone who was only slightly built to be included in the party management of the Flemish Interest.

Fifteen years ago, the World Health Organization removed homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses. Over the past fifteen years, the openness to holebi sexuality in our country has also increased enormously. That openness found a political translation in the social contract, the anti-discrimination law, the opening of marriage and hopefully also soon in the possibility for children to be adopted by a gay or lesbian couple. This is a ⁇ positive evolution that can only be applauded. Nevertheless, it is appropriate to have lasting attention to holebi-phobia, which is hatred towards gays, lesbians and bies. Not to ignore the positive social tendencies, as we have known them here. We have gone a long way but we must ensure and strengthen that evolution because there are still politicians, even in this Parliament, who have taken a very different opinion than the politically correct thinking of the left that Mr. Van den Eynde has so beautifully referred to.

Can it not?

You can do it, Mr. Van den Eynde, but then you should not blame African leaders here on the tribune for things that you apply yourself.

What you actually claim is that no one should deviate from your truth. That is what you say. Everyone should agree with you about anything, if it is politically correct.

I called for it, but you did not applaud. That surprised me.

Tolerance is also a politically correct value, so only those who are politically correct can use it? Congratulations, the cards are clear. You continue to claim that your opponents are intolerant, so you can refer us again to the fire stack. You do this already in your witch hunt against all who call you right, and you will continue to do so. The only thing you are looking for is the ratio.

Nothing is wrong with my ratio, and that also applies to my emotions. I do not condemn you to the burning stake. I only say to you clearly and clearly that I can accept from a tolerant person that he preaches tolerance, but from someone who himself is not tolerant not. So simple is it.

You are like the Pope.

Mr. Van den Eynde, I invite you to read in the report where I would have said that only politically correct opinions can be proclaimed. I only mentioned a very specific judgment.

This resolution reflects two traditional demands of our country’s cave movement: on the one hand, the address of cave violence and on the other, the international solidarity that is necessary at this point. Discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and a fortiori holebifoob violence must be strictly addressed. In recent months, both in Brussels and in Antwerp, there have been complaints about the increasing violence against holebies, which has also remained without effect.

The youth judge in Leuven recently caused a trend break by convicting 3 young people for violence against a gay couple who walked hand in hand across the street. Cases related to strokes and injuries are often spoofed or killed at the police station. However, one of the intentions of the Anti-Discrimination Act of 25 February 2003 was that violence incited by hatred would be taken more seriously. The judgment of the Leuven youth judge is a prime of a violent crime and is an important signal to society.

The Centre for Equal Opportunities and for the Combating of Racism calls for the police to pay more attention to the preparation of processes-verbal. Officers must not only record facts, such as strikes and injuries, but also clearly indicate what happened just before the facts or what exactly was said.

In this way, the court can better and more accurately assess whether there is discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The discussion of the resolution provides a great opportunity to ask the government to ask priority for such violence through a letter to police services and parket.

Colleagues, also in the Flemish Parliament spirit has submitted a resolution for a national day against homophobia. Among other things, in education, the care of the elderly and for people of immigrant origin, there is still a lot of work to be done in the field of awareness and prevention. Especially in terms of acceptance of holebiesexuality within the immigrant communities in our country, there is enough feed for discussion to include that in the conclusions of the intercultural dialogue.

Ladies and gentlemen, holebi’s in Belgium are currently well prepared. Mr Tommelein also mentioned this. However, the cave movement in our country wants to be solidary with the rest of the world. It is not enough – I would like to emphasize it strongly – to make May 17 a national day against homophobia, if we remain blind to the great problems that arise in other countries.

Therefore, the Cave Movement demands that all persons who are deprived of their liberty, persecuted, convicted or mentally or physically tortured because of their sexual orientation or gender identity be internationally recognized as political prisoners or political refugees. All texts, conventions or international directives prohibiting discrimination must explicitly include sexual orientation and gender identity as an unlawful basis for discrimination. Governments should include the equal treatment of holebians in their negotiations and contacts with countries where holebian sexuality is still criminalized or where holebians are still prosecuted.

It is an important requirement, for which the cave movement demonstrates annually at the Gay Pride. It is an important task of Parliament to also give a voice in the future to the people who are oppressed in other countries because of their sexual orientation, for example by organising hearings in Parliament.

Finally, colleagues, it is not least the call for an international day against homophobia, which is contained in the resolution, which makes that sp.a-spirit will adopt the resolution with very great enthusiasm.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask Mr. Bex whether he will, consistent with the end of his presentation, approve my amendment. It is the only amendment that includes its final contribution.

Secondly, I would also like to ask whether from now on he will publicly and formally point his finger to the visit of, for example, Mr Stevaert to Cuba.

I do not think it is necessary to amend the proposal. Sp.a-spirit is behind it.

As for Mr Stevaert’s and others’ journeys, I have no problem with going to other countries. If we are no longer allowed to visit the countries where holebi sexuality is still a problem today, we will only close ourselves in our own great equality. I think that would not be a good thing. It is precisely an essential task of politicians to proclaim abroad the message contained in the resolution. That is what we want to ⁇ with this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to promptly remind you that the object of this resolution is double.

First, it is good to continue to remain vigilant with regard to a matter in which, in domestic law, we have made several advances. But when we hear that there is no problem here, the establishment of this national day of fight against homophobia is even more justified. We know that there are problems. Homosexuals are confronted every day. We have cited examples of attacks that they continue to be victims of every day. There are still discriminatory behaviors, especially in the area of housing, job search, etc. We should not banalize things. Let’s stop saying that at home everything is fine. It is not true. Hence the interest of creating this day of fight against homophobia, to remain vigilant in the face of this situation and to constantly carry a message of tolerance.

On the other hand, we must note the advances at the international level, and we can look forward to all that Belgium has achieved, like other European neighboring countries. In any case, let us bet that what is happening at home may become a universal truth tomorrow. That is all we can wish for.

The discussion is close. The discussion is closed.

Mr. Speaker, at this slightly advanced hour, I find that there is a member of the CDH present in the banks, the gentlemen Annemans, Van den Eynde and Mortelmans of the Flemish Interest, Mr. Tommelein of the VLD and a member of the Parliament of the PS.

and the President. It must remain.

The president must, of course, remain until the last, until the light is out. Their

What are we talking about today, dear colleagues? It is a change to the naturalization law of 16 March 2005, two months ago, in which we have a few comments. Their

A person was allowed to obtain Belgian citizenship, while it was later established that a prosecutor’s office has objections to this due to an ongoing investigation. The Flemish Interest wishes to formulate three comments on this subject. Their

First, the fact that in this Parliament two months after the vote, on 16 March, on a seemingly full feuilleton of naturalization laws, we were forced to return to that vote by removing someone from Sierra Leone from the list with this current bill. This should lead us to reflect. On the other hand, it also does not really surprise us because possible misuse of the entire procedure around the fast-Belg law and its too short advisor mines is embedded in the law of 2000. Their

A few years ago, colleagues, more specifically in March 2002, we also had to apply the same procedure to seven persons, with this difference that when the naturalization laws were adopted in the Chamber and were transmitted for approval to the King without he had placed his signature under the naturalizations. Their

With the current bill, the situation is actually even worse. The last vote of the naturalization laws in this Chamber has already taken place. The laws have been handed over to the King who has already signed them.

Therefore, in this regard, it goes from evil to worse. Consequently, we must use all kinds of witches to publish the naturalization laws of 16 March in the Official Gazette together with the law of today, in such a way that citizenship is granted to the persons concerned and at the same time deprived. The question is: how long will we have to wait before the naturalization laws are published in the Staatsblad, and after that it would appear that one of the new Belgians would have something on his Christmas tree that can not pass through the beugle?

Second note: all Flemish parties, and colleague Tommelein even with the VLD at the head, at the 2003 federal elections swore heavy oaths on the fast-Belg law. It had to be adapted, read: to be strengthened. So far this has not been done by this majority of liberals and socialists. We know very well why that file remains blocked, especially in the Department of Justice under Minister Onkelinx.

I have read the various interpellations and oral questions of my colleague Jan Mortelmans, but also those of the other Flemish parties, yet again. These interpellations and oral questions brought to the attention a number of shortcomings in the rapidBelg law. In my view, the repeatedly formulated aspirations were always correct. I only note that nothing is happening on the side of the government, unless the Minister recently, following the latest interpellation and questioning round in the Chamber Committee for Justice — after so many years, I would say, the insight is on the day — her administration has given the order to evaluate the rapid Belgian law. It is probably much too late, because we have known these shortcomings for several years. In addition, a number of experts and professors from various universities have already curved on this issue a few years ago.

I do not immediately expect anything new. The only question is whether this is not another distraction manoeuvre. How much time will the administration of Minister Onkelinx take to reheat these reports by way of speech and come to the same conclusions? I have therefore more than the impression that this will not be before tomorrow, but in the meantime, of course, new Belgians are being created on the current band, with all the risks thereof.

I come to my third comment. Nevertheless, I would like to point out to the colleagues of the majority parties present that only one-third of naturalizations take place through the favour of the House of Representatives and two-thirds through the declaration of nationality. This means that the officials of the Population Service of the cities and municipalities must consult on opinions and that the decision is irrevocable after one month, with or without opinions from the various bodies.

That is to say in concrete terms that if a case such as we are experiencing today in this Chamber occurs in the declaration of nationality, there is absolutely nothing to be repaired. Nationality is granted. point and with it. Through these channels, of course, there is no rushing to this either. Consequently, we believe that those few cases that come up here in the House of Representatives are in fact the tip of the iceberg. In practice, there is much more to be done than in this case. That, I think, should be clear to everyone.

Those three comments, Mr. Speaker, I would like to pass on to this Assembly.