Proposition 52K1186

Proposition de résolution visant à interdire l'utilisation de dispositifs répulsifs anti-jeunes de type "Mosquito".

General information ¶

Authors

MR Xavier Baeselen, David Clarinval, Olivier Destrebecq, Daniel Ducarme, Kattrin Jadin
Open Vld Mathias De Clercq, Willem-Frederik Schiltz, Sofie Staelraeve, Katia della Faille de Leverghem

Submission date

May 22, 2008

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

juvenile delinquency young person fight against crime resolution of parliament public health

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Abstained from voting

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 ¶

June 26, 2008 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. President, Mrs. Van Daele will report for us both.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, during its meetings of 10 and 17 June, the Public Health Committee discussed the resolution imposing a ban on the use of systems of the type Mosquito to expel hanging boys. Three ⁇ identical resolutions were submitted and scheduled during a first committee meeting: because of CD&V - N-VA and cdH, because of MR and Open Vld, and finally because of the PS.

The applicants demand a ban on the sale, placement and use of such devices. After mutual consultation, through an amendment to the resolution of MR and Open Vld, the text was completely replaced by a new text that was signed by the majority and almost total opposition and accepted with 12 votes for and 1 abstinence.

The presenters of the resolution agree on the inadequacy of a Mosquito device, for various reasons. First and foremost, for the sake of public health, the precautionary principle is to be applied because the hearing damage and also the potential impact on unborn fetuses – as it concerns not only adolescents but also children and unborn life – are still insufficiently known.

There are also ethical concerns.

First and foremost we are convinced that the Mosquito actually works discriminatory, because the high frequency of the sound signal can only be heard by -25-year-olds. Therefore, it is one particular population group that is fished.

It is also very important that we should not assume that all youths or all hanging youths effectively cause discomfort. When there is discomfort, it can be reacted in other ways. Moreover, the public space must also remain truly public space.

In addition, we find that these devices rather work symptomatically and do nothing to address the causes of any discomfort by young people. They actually move the discomfort to other squares where such a device is not present.

The representative of the Minister who was present shared, for the aforementioned reasons, both those relating to public health and those of an ethical nature – the concerns of the applicants.

From Open Vld, the suggestion was made to make the resolution known to all regions, because the cities and municipalities are now facing the demand for the placement of a Mosquito.

Vlaams Belang regretted not being involved in formulating the final text and also found it a premature measure. Flaams Belang prefers that the municipalities retain their autonomy so that they can freely decide. From MR it was replicated that the decision-making power of the municipalities would only lead to a lack of coherence of public health policy.

In the near future, colleague Jef Van den Bergh will further clarify the CD&V – N-VA position.

Thank you for your brief report. There were four speakers registered. The first speaker is Mrs. De Bont.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I would like to congratulate you and with this I am addressing myself not primarily to the colleagues of my own group, but to the other colleagues. These congratulations are not yet intended for the celebrations of tonight. I would like to congratulate you on the determination with which you hastened the government to help clean up the blaze a little.

Most of you have probably read the latest report delivered to the government on Tuesday by Mr. Jean-Marc Nollet. Mr. Nollet had made a calculation sum and had come to the conclusion that since the elections of 10 June last year, the successive governments, namely Verhofstadt II – the government of ongoing affairs –, Verhofstadt III – the government ad interim – and since Easter Leterme I, well-known 62 bills have sent to the Wetstraat. It was also noted that the vast majority of these bills concerned merely technical and administrative issues, such as the transposition of international treaties into legislation, or drafts from the previous legislature, which had already been approved in the Senate, or drafts that derived directly from the budget.

Dear colleagues, today a completely new, substantial resolution is added to this. This is a resolution that has been passed by Parliament at a turbocharged pace. A few weeks ago, the high urgency was requested for this resolution. Our group has not supported this high urgency because we believe that many other matters in this country are more urgent. More than a year after the elections, it is very urgent that a real government agreement comes on the table with a real state reform that should make it possible to address the real problems of the people and without which the cartel CD&V – N-VA would not join the government, by the way.

They have provisionally joined until 15 July. After 15 July, we must have a certain vision of the second phase of state reform and the split of Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde, but this is all to wait. We will see.

In any case, the federal level has not stopped; the Mosquito Resolution has acquired high urgency.

Mr. Speaker, I am not against the fact that we do not want to discuss Mosquitos for too long, even if this is a very important thing. I would like to ask my colleague to come to the most important point.

You’ve been talking for five minutes and you haven’t talked about the Mosquitos yet.

The [...]

In any case, I would like to weigh the importance of this resolution against the importance of other issues, but Mrs. This Mosquito resolution has indeed also received high urgency. Last week it was approved in a short period of time, as we want to do today, in the Committee on Public Health. Only our group has abstained from it for the simple reason that we absolutely do not understand why this resolution should be dealt with in a row both in the committee and today.

Even the argument cited to serve as an example in Europe by this resolution could not convince us. With such a weakly substantiated resolution, we would not dare to go out in Europe.

The initial several resolutions submitted by the various majority and opposition factions could easily be transformed into a common resolution because all actors had let themselves comfortably together on the waves of politically correct thinking. The unanimity in the Chamber Committee was devastating.

In connection with Mosquitos, the word hangjongren or the expulsion of hangjongren is regularly used. More should not be. Mosquitoes are taboo. They pose a danger to public health and to the hearing of young people, although this is not proven by any scientific study. They are discriminatory and unconstitutional, they claim. However, no advice was obtained from the State Council.

For all clarity, even for our group, Mosquitos are not a point of faith. I find the same-name beasts even quite irritating, but in the end that does nothing about the matter. We would like to base our arguments on a rational basis.

Mosquitoes are no more or no less than virtual fencing. They do not feed the youth. They do not make a value judgment. They are simply closures for certain places where one cannot tolerate crowd at certain times at certain times for various reasons, for example because one wants to rest there, because one is restorative, because one wants to work there and more.

This does not mean that young people cannot live in other places at that time. It can never be the intention that Mosquito’s can simply, in any case, be crushed. They may have a limited scope of application. If they are used in the public space, it is normal that the government, the community, decides about it, and not by anybody, therefore for anybody can not simply place fences in the public space.

In this regard, we believe that the principle of subsidiarity should be respected as far as possible and that the local authorities are best placed to make an opinion on this.

Of course, if scientific research would really show that mosquitoes pose a danger to public health or that they would damage the hearing of young people, or even if the birds or the flowers suffer under the high tones, it is indeed up to the federal government to intervene and take action.

The Cabinet of Minister Onkelinx has therefore ordered to investigate the side effects of these high tones. However, we do not yet know the outcome of this task.

Of course, it makes no sense to have a study carried out, to commission a study, if the result of that study is not expected or if the decision is already determined in advance. Research is absolutely appropriate. If scientific research indicates that the disadvantages of such high tones do not outweigh the benefits of potential applications, that argument may be a reason to prohibit the applications. However, all applications should also be banned, including the high tones used by young people to make their GSM sound without adults being able to hear it.

Proper research into possible side effects of ultra-high tones is fine. Mosquitoes are not indispensable; there are alternatives. Acting in the interests of public health is good. With this we have no problem. However, since this is apparently not the main concern of the presenters of the present resolution, our group will abstain today at the plenary vote.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, “The Mosquito is designed to disperse groups of teenagers who act in an antisocial way.” These terms are those used by the company that markets the Mosquito to define what is an anti-youth device, a system that, according to publicists, diffuses a sound that soothes morals.

In fact, it’s no more or less than an unbearable whistle for the human ear until about the age of 25 – I understand that the colleague doesn’t hear it or doesn’t find it disturbing.

The device consists of a high-frequency generator and a speaker. It emits sounds of a frequency ranging from 17,000 to 18,000 hertz, unheard signals for adults but so irritating for children and adolescents that they leave the vicinity of the Mosquitos emitters after a maximum of approximately 6 minutes.

Great Britain, Switzerland, the Netherlands, France, the United States, Australia and South Africa are so many countries victims of the invasion of this weapon that carries a serious and unconscious attack on the physical integrity of the population, a system that I think – others will share my opinion – violates human rights. Our country is not spared and if we do nothing, our youth, our teenagers, our children and our babies will also be subject to the dangers of this object which I would call infamous.

So will we leave our children as vulgar buttocks and wandering dogs that we want to remove because harmful and overwhelming or unwanted in certain places? This is not acceptable in a democracy. No one can deny that the use of the Mosquito constitutes a violation of the conventions on the rights of the child, that it violates the fundamental freedoms and constitutional rights of any citizen simply because it is an obstacle to the freedom of association and assembly of young people, the freedom of movement, the right to life and the prohibition of torture.

This device insults the ethical and social rules that should animate our society.

Far from being an adequate response to the problems of juvenile crime or harassment, these devices only shift the problem, further digging the intergenerational gap. They mean that we accept that everyone can remodel their social landscape on a daily basis.

The issue of public health should also be addressed. The Minister of Public Health has urgently requested the opinion of the Higher Health Council to know the impact of this device on young people and pregnant women. Nevertheless, in the committee, I had already specified that many studies conducted abroad conclude that there is a significant danger to the health of young children and especially fetuses. ORL doctors and scientists say that prolonged exposure to 95 dB, the emission capacity of Mosquito, poses risks for hearing and for pregnant women.

I want to mention an incident in the province of Liège: a teenager was victim of violent headaches and nausea while waiting daily for a bus in front of a bank equipped with a Mosquito emitter.

The sound is not meant to cross walls and doors, but what about the barriers that make up the skin? So what about the effects on the fetus? In April last year, the French justice ruled through the tribunal de grande instance of Saint-Brieuc banning a private to reinstall on the façade of the house an anti-youth box. By forcing him to pay compensation to a 23-year-old young woman, the French justice therefore acknowledges the dangerousness of this device and the fact that it is a noisy, discriminatory and illegal weapon.

Last April, the European Commission refused to take a decision on the ban on mosquito because it believes that it falls within the competence of the Member States.

So, what are we waiting for to vote on this resolution? The federal government and all those, many, who have positively participated in the discussions will have to be very vigilant when transposing, in the coming months, this proposal for a resolution banning the commercialization and use of this anti-youth repellent on Belgian territory.

In the face of so many scientific uncertainties, the government must apply the precautionary principle to ban this sound weapon. Faced with such a discriminatory drift, which criminalizes all youth, which violates individual rights, the Belgian State must react with firmness and show the example to Europe and, why not, to the world.

Yes, we have to do it in an emergency! We are a few days away from the big holiday and some will be tempted to remove the unwanted from their façade by placing a Mosquito, as one installs a fly killer in the fresh rays. Yes, the consensus of all the Democrats present here and the approval of the federal government are as strong points in bringing this resolution to an end, as are the many others that have been taken by the cities and municipalities of the country.

The joint work that has been done with my colleagues Jef Van den Bergh, Colette Burgeon, Mathias De Clercq, Marie-Martine Schyns, David Geerts and Muriel Gerkens, as well as the vote in the Public Health Committee, paves the way for our assembly to remind that the union of Democrats remains intense and that it retains all its reason of being, so it does not dislike the honorable colleagues, value colleagues, who take their feet in the liberticide reasoning, who complain in the exaltation of repression and in the cult of self-reliance, animated by the thirst to infringe on the individual freedoms of the citizens of this country!

Thank you for your attention, but also for your vote.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, still unknown in Belgium a few months ago, the Mosquito quickly became the subject of much attention. For those who do not know it yet, the Mosquito is a device that, by emitting unheard sounds for adults, only disturbs a well-defined part of the population, namely young people. While the effects on the health of adolescents, young children as well as infants and fetuses are not yet demonstrated – Ms. Minister Onkelinx has commissioned a study for this purpose – it is only necessary to recall that the use of this device is discriminatory and stigmatizing.

This process, targeting only young people, is based on prejudices that cannot be accepted. Having taken the initiative in the Walloon Region, the Socialist Party is widely mobilized in its struggle against the Mosquito. Marc Tarabella has thus questioned his European colleagues in charge of Youth. Local initiatives have also multiplied by order, motion and, recently, the joint government of the Walloon Region, the French Community and the French Community Commission has requested the prohibition of the use of this device in Belgium.

Exceeding the threshold of politics, the mobilization gained considerable scale through the petition launched by the Memory Territories – ⁇ this is what disturbs the Vlaams Belang – which demands the prohibition on Belgian and European soil of this system. In order to meet these demands, which are both ethical and related to public health, the PS group therefore submitted a proposal for a resolution aimed at prohibiting the sale and use of such devices. The Public Health Commission, by integrating in one text and considering all those who had revolted against these anti-youth repellents, quickly found a consensus that is now proposed to you.

Also, I can only rejoice at the broad signal that parliamentarians from almost every political group can send today to those who see in youth only a harmful element.

Colleagues, I didn’t really think that a resolution proposal that is so broad would still lead to such an animated debate. Nevertheless, the problem is of such nature as to call for an animated debate.

Mr De Bont, I would like to address the word to you in particular. You may be interested in moderation, but I would like to address the word to you. You fulminate here against the high urgency with which the proposal is pursued and dismissed by the Chamber. You say that something is not thorough and ask if it is useful. You rightly use the principle of subsidiarity: is it the Parliament that must do it; are the municipalities no longer competent to do so.

I have also heard you say that it is a closure, though of public spaces. A liberal is already itching when it comes to closing public spaces, which should be accessible to everyone. You rightly say that if such a decision is made, it must represent the will of the public and must be broadly carried out. However, I thought I had understood that the high urgency and the proposals in the committee could count just on that broad, almost wide, approval.

Worthy of the name People's Representative, I have the pretense to launch here that the proposal has been widespread by the Chamber, by the people, and that one does not want the public space to be delimited in such a way. How is that done, Mrs. De Bont and other members of the Flemish Interest? I also address the other people’s representatives, but there is the opposition who could not agree with our joint proposal.

In addition to the principle of subsidiarity, I would like to point out the principle of proportionality. You say that it is not scientifically proven that the device would be harmful. Not only the harmfulness, but also the extent of infringement on my freedom to appear in public, to enter a store accessible to me, is important. What the device is capable of doing is an unauthorized equalization of people, a categorization merely based on their age and nothing else, not because of criminal behavior, not because of a criminal record, not because of a skin color, but purely based on age. Mrs. De Bont, what if one invented an apparatus that chases people who are larger than 1.80 meters or 1.93 meters, or that keeps women out?

I would like to interrupt Mr Schiltz for a moment. I am moved and emotionally excited by the arguments he raised. I want to ask him if he can tell me where the problem is present in this country at this moment. I do not know any municipality in Flanders – maybe there are in Wallonia, because I heard the PS fulminate afterwards – where those devices work. Per ⁇ he knows it? If they do not work in Flanders, I wonder if he is not hunting ghosts or fighting windmills.

Mr. Van den Eynde, I do not know any Flemish municipalities where the device is operating.

The [...]

Allow me to clarify, Mr Van den Eynde. I also don’t have to wait until a problem arises before I want to intervene, ⁇ not when the problem arises in the neighboring countries around me and the device has already come on the market. We don’t have to wait for that, Mr. Van den Eynde.

There is no need for urgent discussion.

The high urgency, Mr Van den Eynde, is motivated by the fact that the device will be available on our market very soon due to the free movement of goods. It is already available in Germany and the Netherlands. I think the urgent treatment is justified. In addition, the discussion on the emergency request has already been held the last time.

I will limit myself here to the reason why the aircraft with all its power and widely carried by Parliament – I am grateful for that – must be banned.

I was talking about the fact that the proportionality or the extent to which the aircraft interferes with my liberal rights to enter public spaces is unlawful. You argue that it is justified in a hospital. Still in a hospital? It must be able to heal calmly. But Mrs. De Bont, if we hang the hospitals full of mosquitoes, how should I get my three-year-old children who suffer from pneumonia there, or what should I do if my wife has to give birth? Should there then be hospitals for the elderly who need to rest, full of mosquitoes, and other hospitals where the joyful cry of children is a pleasure to listen to?

Mr. Schiltz, you are a little exaggerating. The mosquitoes are not hanged in the hospital, but in very limited places. I also love freedom. But there are fences. Not all public spaces are open; even Parliament is sometimes closed. That is the reality.

By the way, you will be able to enjoy your rest in the hospital, because you will not hear them.

I don’t know if there are still colleagues who may be suffering from it. No to?

Mrs. De Bont, I found it flagrant – I will not exaggerate – when you simultaneously advocate for peace and things that can bring peace and suggest to bring them especially in places where many children come and must come. They will not be in the hospitals, of course, this is not the matter. I just wanted to illustrate the absurdity of your arguments in these.

It is an apparatus that illegally violates our fundamental rights of freedom, equality and equality. I consider, Mrs. De Bont, that the authorisation of that device testifies to an unbearable security drift, and I am therefore very grateful to the Parliament that we will soon approve this proposal for a resolution by a large majority.

Mr. Speaker, like many other colleagues in this assembly, I have reached a certain age that prevents me from ever experiencing the hearing effect of the Mosquito apparatus. I do not want young people to suffer this completely unacceptable discrimination. It is on this first principle that Ecolo-Groen is based! prohibition of the use and sale of such devices. In our devices, it is simply forbidden to take measures targeting a population category based on age.

In my town of Bassenge, at some point, the mayor wanted to ban the gathering of young people. He had to turn around and prohibit gatherings. The result: the population can no longer gather after 22:00. This is not very funny and it is even properly scandalous, but prohibition measures intended exclusively for young people are still not allowed by our legislation.

The other important dimension is our rejection of these illusory methods of controlling the problems posed by young people or other groups by purely technological means. It is not by installing devices that will prevent people from gathering that we will solve the difficulties of young people, that we will be able to explain to them in which places they can gather and teach them to respect the calm of a street. It is through local policies, it is by meeting them and adopting policies in their favor that we can do this.

The third argument that we discussed in the Health Committee is the emission of waves of a certain frequency that have an impact on the health of the population. It is true that we do not know the degree of danger of these waves but we know that they have an impact. In the name of the precautionary principle and for the health of young people, including young children, it is important to us to prohibit these devices.

I will allow myself a small deviation from the planned arrangement and this proposal that we have supported and will support today. For this text, we found a majority of parliamentarians to consider that sensory toxicity exists and that in the absence of scientific certainty, it is appropriate to take precautionary measures to preserve public health and that in parallel, the government would request studies on the short-term and long-term effects of exposure to this device.

I am pleased that this is formulated in this way in this proposal for a resolution and I draw my colleagues’ attention to the fact that we are constantly exposed to a series of waves that we do not perceive as easily as those emitted by the Mosquito devices and which pose similar risks and raise the same questions.

We will return with a proposal for a resolution – a proposal that should have already been examined – so that the same precautionary principle, with the concern of ensuring the health of citizens, can be addressed in a much broader way than is the case with Mosquitos. I recall that if the waves of the latter are only perceivable by young people, it is not less that they can also affect, in an unperceivable way, the entire population.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, our group had also submitted a bill, but we joined the initiative of Mrs. Jadin and supported that resolution.

Some colleagues say it’s a non-debate, but I’ve looked at a number of websites where those devices are offered and sold and I was saddened by the rhetoric with which young people are treated there. If there are problems with young people, this should be addressed in a broad youth and prevention policy.

The sale of Mosquito’s is a whole generation of punishments for the calamities of a number of young people. This is shooting with a cannon on a mosquito.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, many things have already been said here, but there has not yet been explained what Mosquito’s technology is based on. The technology is based on a technology that was originally used to drive out moles. You know those devices. One puts them in a molshope, when a mol appears again in the garden. There is an unpleasant sound that can only be heard by the mol. Hopefully it is unpleasant enough, so that the mole no longer stands out in the garden and decides to look for the beautiful equal garden of the neighbors.

A mosquito does the same thing. The device produces a ⁇ irritating, rumbling sound that can only be heard by young people up to about 25 years of age. It is so annoying that after a while, young people can no longer stand it and go to the neighbors. Thus, one can enjoy the quiet quiet without rotting children in the vicinity. Fantastic is, right? CD&V - N-VA does not think so, along with – fortunately – many other groups in Parliament.

In our opinion, it is indeed a terrible device that drives young people out of places like mole from a lawn. If that is not a point of faith for some, we can only regret it. A device that discriminates, stigmatizes young people, shaves a whole population, that is, all young people on the same chest and makes a price be paid for the misconduct of a few, that we cannot accept.

This is a wrong and inhuman approach. We do not even need scientific research for this. It has nothing to do with health. It has to do with ethics. You will live as younger but in a square where such a Mosquito has been installed. Shouldn’t it be the intention that young people can no longer or dare to go outside? There are other ways to deal with that small minority of young people who cause discomfort.

CD&V - N-VA is therefore very pleased that Parliament can make a quick decision today and with this resolution gives the government the opportunity to prohibit the use and sale of the Mosquito in Belgium. Fast action is ⁇ necessary at the beginning of this summer, to ban these devices before they also become socially embodied in our country.