Proposition 51K2767

Projet de loi insérant un article 391sexies dans le Code pénal et modifiant certaines dispositions du Code civil en vue d'incriminer et d'élargir les moyens d'annuler le mariage forcé.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

Nov. 23, 2006

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

civil law violence marriage criminal law

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld MR 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 ¶

March 8, 2007 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, this bill and the attached bill were discussed in the Justice Committee during the meetings of 10 January and 28 February 2007. In the introductory presentations, Minister Onkelinx emphasized that forced marriages constitute a serious violation of human rights. She also said that several studies and testimonies show that this problem still exists in Belgium to this day. Therefore, it seems necessary to criminalize forced marriage. Following the approval of this draft law, Belgium will be the second member state of the Council of Europe after Norway to incorporate in its legal order a specific criminalization of forced marriage.

Forced marriage is punishable by imprisonment from one month to two years, or by a fine of 100 to 500 euros. The attempt is punishable by imprisonment from 15 days to one year, or by a fine of 5 to 250 euros. These penalties are the same as those introduced by the Act of 12 January 2006 relating to hypocritical marriages.

During the article-by-article discussion, there were presentations by the gentlemen Schoofs and Verherstraeten and myself. During the discussion, the Minister also provided us with data on the number of investigation files in connection with Article 79bis, incorporated into the aforementioned Act of 12 January 2006 on arbitrary marriages, whether or not forced.

A technical amendment was submitted to Article 6. The entire draft law, thus amended, was adopted with 11 votes and 1 abstinence.

So far the report.

On behalf of my party, I would like to make a brief statement, Mr. Speaker.

We have been in favour of a ban on forced marriages for years. These marriages in which either physical or psychological coercion, or in a combination of both, is a fundamental violation of individual freedom. A cultural relativist approach to the problem is, in our view, completely out of the wrong. Studies show enough that people are also forced to marry in Belgium in order to acquire a right of residence here.

This government has already done a lot of work in this area. I refer, inter alia, to the law of 12 January 2006 on the punishment of hypocritical marriages and to the law of 15 September 2006 on the strengthening of the right to family reunification.

The figures given by the minister in the committee prove that in the meantime there are indeed files being opened by our parks. Since the legislative changes are only very recent, we will only be able to form a general picture of the persecutions and convictions on those points within a few years.

Conclusion, Madame the Vice-Prime Minister, colleagues: we will approve the bill.

Thank you, Mrs Lahaye-Battheu. Mrs. Lanjri is here. Something else yet? No one ? You only raise your finger up when it is almost too late, Mr. Schoofs. You will be the last speaker.

Mrs. Minister, colleagues, I would like to emphasize that we and our group are very clearly against forced marriages and, as we have shown in the past, also against hypocritical marriages. This is a fundamental violation of human rights. Especially today, on the International Women’s Day, it is appropriate to say that women often become the victims of this, that this cannot be accepted under any conditions and that it must, of course, be opposed. It is, by the way, completely contrary to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the recommendation of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe and other international bodies.

We know that the problem of forced marriages still exists today, including in Belgium. I have already accused this in this Parliament, along with the hypocrisy and also the abuses that exist in the field of family reunification. I have always said that these are things about which there should be no taboo. These are issues that must be addressed and discussed because there are too many victims.

We are therefore fully aware of the problem. But what do we fix?

First, forced marriage can already be punished in Belgium on the basis of other penalties of prohibited conduct resulting from that marriage, including physical or psychological violence, rape, threats. The State Council also notes that forced marriages can actually be punished in this way.

Second, last year – among other things by the bill of CD&V – the law was passed to punish hypocritical marriages. Now, that law also specifies very explicitly that hypocritical marriages which are simultaneously forced marriages—that is, if they are accompanied by coercion—can be punished. That law is, of course, a response to forced marriages which are simultaneously a false marriage and in which the partner intends to marry, with coercion in that case, in order to obtain a residence permit.

This law already exists and provides possibilities for punishment. In civil law, the nullity of a forced marriage can also be recognized and a forced marriage can be declared null. It is only true that today that term of 6 months after the marriage is much too short. Therefore, we would rather have seen that in this procedure the deadline would be extended. In this way, the existing law could have been preserved and the period had only to be extended.

The question is also what will be done with the current law in the field. How should the prosecutors and judges deal with this? On the one hand, there is this law in the criminal law and on the other hand there is the law of 12 January 2006 that sanctions the case through the Foreigners Act. Mrs. Minister, I have another question to you. Is it intended to extract this from the Foreigners Act since one will now be able to take action against everyone and not only against marriages involving foreign partners. A lot of forced marriages can also take place with partners who are Belgian. We also identify a deficiency there and we do not know what will be decided on the ground.

I come to the numbers. Mrs. Minister, I had asked you the figures a few weeks ago – I also received them – because we have determined that last year’s law on the ground has not yet led to any condemnation. I received the complete list. You also indicate figures from parquets that lead surveys to hypocritical marriages. That this happens is obvious because it happened before the law of last year came into force. For example, I note that there are no figures for Dinant, Antwerp, Turnhout, Tongeren and Oudenaarde. And this while I had already told you that only in the city of Antwerp in 2006 122 files were rejected. This figure was confirmed by the parket. My concrete question is how many convictions there have been based on the law passed last year.

This was not about the number of studies, because studies were done five years ago. Fortunately, attention has increased. I have reviewed the figures: there is still no conviction under that law. It can be said that the law is still recent. Our concern is this: it is good that there are laws, for that must be in order to punish things, but we note above all that the laws are there without leading to condemnation.

How does that come? I have already received signals from the people on the ground. The parks do not have the necessary resources. I think they still need to be strengthened for the work that comes upon them. In Antwerp and Gent, the numbers are very high. It surprises me, by the way, that in Charleroi, yet a large city, there is only a file in which an investigation was initiated. That is quite peculiar, that great differences between one city and the other. Apparently, not every parquet or municipal administration attaches equal importance to this. We believe that existing laws must be implemented first and foremost. Thus, one has an instrument to address forced marriages that are hypocritical. We must also use the laws that exist. Simply adopting new laws to susten our conscience is something we do not want to participate in.

Two more points. First, we note that in the present and to be approved proposal the lack of willpower is elevated to an absolute ground of nullity. This means that not only one or both partners can invoke the nullity because it was a forced marriage, but that outsiders can also do so. We understand that this should be possible in the event that the person himself does not dare. However, if it is an absolute ground of nullity, it may even be that, for example, in a forced marriage – there are – after ten or twenty years and when the partners have engaged in it, yet someone else can decide that it was a forced marriage and that it must be declared null. Then the partners themselves no longer have the possibility to continue the marriage.

A second important consideration in this draft is that even the perpetrator, the one who has exercised coercion to conclude the marriage, can also invoke this element and claim the annulment for a forced marriage.

Now I’ll let you guess why some will do that too. I see this happening nowadays in the case of hypocritical marriages.

Some people, especially men, have every interest in having the marriage declared invalid in order to escape the maintenance obligation. I can show you. I have already heard of cases of hypocrisy, in which the partner himself was co-responsible for the hypocrisy, but subsequently invokes the hypocrisy himself, because in this way he can escape the maintenance payment.

In this case, the victims are made double victims. First and foremost, they were forced to get married. Secondly, the partner by whom they were forced declares that it was a forced marriage, requests the nullity and thus escapes the maintenance obligation. Victims are thus doubled twice. This is not a good solution.

Finally, I repeat that there is absolutely something to be done against forced marriages. There are laws that already allow this. We especially believe that something needs to be done by better applying existing laws, and not as it is now. It remains unclear which law will be applied. Will the law-Onkelinx, which is now presented here, or the law that we passed last year, be invoked? Are there agreements on which law is applied when? This remains unclear.

Therefore, the present law is not the correct answer to the problem that must be resolutely and firmly addressed. That is why we will also abstain.

Mr. Schoofs, I had almost overlooked you in the matter of forced marriage.

Mr. Speaker, I was finally going to say something positive about purple and you almost prevent me. However, this is corrected with this.

I did not expect that, Mr. Schoofs.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Deputy Prime Minister, colleagues, first and foremost, I thank the reporter for her report. Indeed, the Flemish Belang is pleased that at last attention is paid to the approach to the problem of forced marriages. We are not accustomed to putting such rigorous legislation on our feet. Therefore, Paars is also not used to us giving positive criticism.

I have some concerns about this bill. I will explain them as soon as possible. First, as a lawyer, nor as a politician, I am in favour of a signal or symbol legislation. Let that be clear. This law should send a signal to the parks saying that they must take action against forced marriages. Whether they have enough tools and enough crew on the ground is another question. In any case, the signal is given today.

Second, this law is a symbol against the oppression of women, more specifically addressing certain communities that have established themselves in large numbers in this country in recent decades. Then I mention by name the Turkish, Moroccan and other Muslim communities. As stated above, I am normally not in favour of signal or symbol legislation, but in this case the exception confirms the rule. By the way, it is not just about signals or symbols; in my opinion, there is indeed a deterrent effect against the perpetrators. It is also a fundamental human right that is being violated. It is not just a punitive provision, it is about human rights that are violated and in this case it is therefore very important that this law is passed.

Attention, we are not satisfied too quickly. We need to go further, Mr. Minister. Problems must be addressed at the source. In this country, forced marriages and hypocritical marriages are indeed concluded. It is not the same. When it comes to hypocritical marriages, however, there is often coercion involved. Every well-thought man will know.

Second, we also need to pay attention to the problem of the choice of partners in the country of origin, a problem that is less addressed by the bill. A significant proportion of forced marriages are concluded in the countries of origin. That pain point may be less addressed by the bill. I must refer to a number of studies in the province of Limburg concerning marriages in the countries of origin. The choice of the spouse among Turkish and Moroccan people occurs for more than 75% in the country of origin. There are a lot of forced marriages. This is a first determination.

A second finding, made recently in Limburg – I advise all those who adhere to political correctness to put their fingers in their ears – is about sexual activity among young people. A study found that immigrant boys display a lot more sexual activity than indigenous boys. I am talking about the 18-year-olds. On the other hand, immigrant girls very strongly hold to their virginity. I respect that, of course. This will not always be a conscious choice. Everyone should be aware of this. It is not up to us to make a decision on the choice of one or more partners, when it comes to the immigrant community. Finally, it is about the free choice of man.

The study, which shows that immigrant boys have more sexual contacts than indigenous boys in secondary education, and immigrant girls live strongly retreated in their community, should open our eyes to the problem of marriage choice in the home country. What happens then? The immigrant boys who carry out their activities here often choose a marriage partner in their country of origin, because they want a pure, virgin, immigrant girl. They are of the girls here not sure that they have behaved according to the norms of their culture.

This is a first determination.

Second, the immigrant girls who live here are also often married to a partner in the country of origin, of course, to keep family reunification and immigration flow ongoing, to maintain it.

These are practices that are intolerable. These issues must be resolutely addressed.

I know that in such cases it is not often or not always forced marriages. However, I will take the opportunity to make the necessary criticism of such practices. It is also a criticism of the address of purple. The supply of a first generation is ⁇ ined in this way. This will not be stopped in the current legislature. However, the next government and governments will have to do all the work on the aforementioned issue. In the other case, the government does not get the problem under control and the foreigners remain present in large, isolated and segregated communities on our territory.

The political response to machismo behavior within the Muslim culture must indeed also be given, as well as to the equality of male and female, which must be guaranteed in our society. Therefore, the legislator will also have to link the choice of partners with people in the home country.

So far, Paars has not had the courage to do so. Nevertheless, we believe that the present bill should be supported. After all, it is a step in the right direction. We know that it would be a very bad signal – especially on this day, colleagues – not to fully approve the current bill, which the Flemish Interest will do anyway.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I regret that Ms. Lanjri was not present in the committee because she raised questions that could have been discussed there.

Mrs Lanjri, I gave, in commission, the figures of a part of the judicial districts. I look forward to additional information about Brussels and Antwerp; they could be quite significant in this matter.

Furthermore, there are differences between the provisions that were envisaged by Minister Dewael and those that are envisaged in the framework of the bill that is submitted to you today.

With regard to the incrimination provided for in the Foreigners Act, forced marriage is a means of obtaining legal residence. In the bill that we are dealing with today, there is a question of forced marriage regardless of the situation of persons. Therefore, these are two different situations.

For the rest, I am happy that the coincidence of the calendar has wanted us, on this International Women’s Day, Mr. Giet, to look at the important problem of forced marriages.

Forced marriage constitutes a serious violation of human rights, or rather, should we say, gentlemen, a serious violation of women’s rights. Consent to marriage is a right recognized by all. It is included in international laws, treaties and conventions. This right must be respected.

In Belgium, the figures show that this is not the case. The study conducted in 1999 by the KUL is edifying. Thus, 27% of Turkish and Moroccan women over 40 years old residing in Flanders and Brussels, who were interviewed, said they married under coercion.

A little later, in 2003-2004, according to a survey conducted by the UCL on forced marriages in the French Community among a panel of 1,200 students aged 15 to 18 years, 73.4% of young people say that forced marriages still occur in our country and 23% say they have experienced forced marriages, mainly among acquaintances and sometimes within the family.

These are alarming figures that demonstrate that Justice must have the necessary resources to act against this form of violence against women, whose most basic rights to a loving and emancipated life are undermined.

Punishing these practices is what the text you will vote on today proposes. Belgium will, after Norway, be the second member state of the Council of Europe to include a specific incrimination of forced marriage in its legal arsenal.

The draft that you are submitted to vote proposes to punish any person who, by force or threats, compels someone to enter into a marriage, with a prison sentence of one month to two years or with a fine of 100 to 500 euros. The attempt to make a forced marriage pass through will also be punished with a prison sentence of fifteen days to one year or with a fine of 50 to 250 euros.

It is about protecting women in their right to enter into a freely consented marriage, protecting their freedom, dignity and physical integrity.

I also let you imagine the heavy, oppressive atmosphere in which a forced marriage is organized. It is not suitable for the appeal for cancellation. Indeed, being subject to pressure from its closest surroundings, dirty, shameful, the victim rarely has the courage to act in justice.

At present, the public prosecutor cannot intervene, except in an annulment procedure initiated by one of the spouses. The project – this is also its originality – remedies for this state of fact. In the event of serious indications of forced marriage, the Prosecutor’s Office may, on its own initiative, initiate a judicial procedure for the cancellation of this forced marriage.

The project you submit to your vote and this day symbolic is an important advance for giving right, by all the means possible, to the too many women who, at us, submit themselves yet and silence to these barbaric practices. (Applause of Applause)

It does not often happen to be applauded at all banks.