Proposition 52K1907

Proposition de résolution demandant au gouvernement belge de condamner les propos inacceptables du pape lors de son voyage en Afrique, et de protester officiellement auprès du Saint-Siège.

General information ¶

Authors

Ecolo Zoé Genot
Groen Wouter De Vriendt
LDD Jean-Marie Dedecker
MR Xavier Baeselen, Denis Ducarme, Jean-Jacques Flahaux
Open Vld Hilde Vautmans
PS | SP Karine Lalieux, Patrick Moriau
Vooruit Dirk Van der Maelen

Submission date

March 26, 2009

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

Africa AIDS contraception religion resolution of parliament disease prevention illness

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

FN VB

Abstained from voting

LDD

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 ¶

April 2, 2009 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I would like to thank the services in advance for the work they have done here. They had to do it very quickly, but they did it well. I would also like to tell you that the interventions of the speakers were more comprehensive than this report shows. Everyone will, of course, have the opportunity to clarify and defend their own position here.

Ladies and gentlemen, this draft resolution for which the House approved the urgent procedure at the plenary session of 26 March 2009 was discussed by the Committee on Foreign Relations at the meeting of 1 April.

In the introductory presentation, the main speaker, Mr. Xavier Baeselen of MR, emphasized that the unacceptable statements of Pope Benedict XVI during his first trip to Africa have caused a wave of reactions. To those who would attempt to make the words of the pope, the speaker introduces the following.

First, such statements have a great impact in Africa and put the fight against the AIDS epidemic at risk.

Second, the Pope is not only a church leader, but also a head of state, as such calling his statements to an official response by diplomatic means.

Third, the shock that the Pope’s statements have caused has also shaken the Catholic community, since these statements were updated in the official version released by the Holy See.

I come to the general discussion.

Mr. Francis Van den Eynde of Vlaams Belang finds the reactions to the statements of the head of a church exaggerated. That that person is at the same time also the head of state is only indicated as an excuse. He mentions that a long struggle has been waged against the interference of the Roman Catholic Church in state affairs, but that the state now threatens to do the opposite and threatens to interfere with religious affairs. However, he wants to maintain the strict separation between church and state. Therefore, he cannot be in favour of the draft resolution. Mr Van den Eynde also states that he does not comment on the content of the statements of Pope Benedict XVI.

The speaker is also of the opinion that, if one persists consistently in the reasoning underlying the resolution, one should also address numerous other situations, one more profoundly than the other, through official channels. It refers, among other things, to the polygamy permitted by Islam, which results in a man with different wives being able to infect more women with the HIV virus. Therefore, it is necessary to react strongly.

Mr. Van den Eynde emphasizes that he considers himself not as a defender of religious freedom but as a defender of the right to freedom of expression and the right to wander. It is thanks to this right that scientific breakthroughs have been possible.

Finally, it qualifies the draft resolution as completely inappropriate.

Mrs Juliette Boulet of Ecolo-Green! The words of the Pope are irresponsible. It expresses its explicit support for all aid programmes to combat the HIV virus and AIDS. It illustrates the seriousness of the situation by means of a number of figures and statistics. Given the specific position occupied by the Roman Catholic Church in many African countries, and the great influence it can exercise, Ms. Boulet considers a resolution calling for, among other things, a diplomatic response necessary. It emphasizes that the proposed resolution is not directed against the Roman Catholic religion itself, but against dogmatism.

Mr. Herman De Croo of Open Vld refers to the dramatic consequences of AIDS. The following elements lead him to fully support the draft resolution. He finds it, first of all, disturbing that there are high-ranking individuals who deny the effectiveness of the condom as a means of preventing AIDS. On the other hand, he points out that the draft resolution might be supported by more scientific arguments. Secondly, he believes that whoever puts people on the wrong foot in such matters commits a grave mistake. The authority with which the person who does so in the present matter is dressed only aggravates the situation.

Ms. Nathalie Muylle of CD&V says that her group is ready and clearly rejecting the controversial statements about condom use made by Pope Benedict XVI during his recent Africa trip. These statements strike the chest, are world-foreign and can have devastating consequences in the fight against the terrible disease AIDS. She therefore supports the considerations of this resolution and the request to the government to make it clear to the Vatican by official, diplomatic means that the Belgian government does not support and resolutely rejects the Pope’s position on HIV and AIDS. The speaker, however, points out that one should not judge the Pope’s statement in isolation. He has said much more than this single sentence and one should therefore put his statements in that context.

However, the CD&V Chamber Group will not endorse the explanation of this resolution, not because, first of all, it is too tendency and too selective, but especially because it is scientifically and technically insufficient and does not adequately reflect how complex the fight against HIV and AIDS in reality is. According to Mrs Muylle, the explanation leaves too little room for nuance and testifies above all to a too limited knowledge of the terrain. Mrs Muylle refers to AIDS specialists such as Peter Piot, who make it clear that the current HIV AIDS epidemic is the result of an extremely powerful combination of intimate personal behavior, including unprotected sexual contact and sharing of injection ages, and socio-economic factors, including poverty, gender inequality, social exclusion, migration and mobility.

Furthermore, the stigma, taboo and discrimination against people with HIV/AIDS as well as against the most vulnerable groups with regard to this disease remain huge obstacles to successfully recovering it. Especially in sub-Saharan Africa, where the epidemic still has a very large impact.

The sexual abstinence promoted by Pope Benedict XVI is only one aspect of the fight against HIV/AIDS. For example, it is certain that the condom is the only means that effectively protects against sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV/AIDS as well as against other conditions that may promote the infection with this disease.

Neither abstinence nor condom use are effective when used on their own, “in a “vacuum,” apart from other strategies. In other words, the fight against AIDS is a package deal. Experience in the field shows that HIV AIDS can only be successfully reduced by using a mix of resources.

Finally, Mrs Muylle points out the controversial statements about the fight against HIV AIDS by other authorities in the recent past and the fact that the reactions of the colleagues at that time were much lighter. It also highlights the valuable work done daily, in difficult circumstances, by Catholic NGOs and aid organisations operating in Africa.

Mr. Patrick Moriau of the PS says that the whole issue consists in the fact that a head of state, which also has a status of infallibility, has made unacceptable statements. He, by the way, suspects that it is not a mere ruthlessness but a well-conscious strategy. In support of his theses, he refers to other recent papal policies, including Richard Williamson’s reintroduction into the church.

Mr Bart De Wever of N-VA has a number of fundamental comments in the draft resolution. He considers that the resolution proposal is against the freedom of expression. The speaker says, however, that he disputes the validity of the papal statements. He says that science is convinced of the usefulness of condoms in the fight against AIDS.

Mr De Wever says that given the gravity of the proposed resolution, the applicants should have taken the effort to study the full text of the interview with Benedict XVI. Then one could have seen that his statements were made in a well-defined context and in some areas are yet more nuanced than one now lets appear. This is also evidenced by some reactions in the foreign press, and the presence of strong official reactions from other foreign governments. According to Mr De Wever, the resolution proposal is not an example of truth.

In addition, he also considers that the draft resolution testifies to selective outrage. There are numerous other authorities that have made incorrect and critical statements on the fight against AIDS. Should we now also call on all the ambassadors of the countries concerned, he asks himself.

Mr De Wever also points out the principle of separation between church and state. He believes that the church should not govern the state and that the opposite principle also applies: the state should not interfere in ecclesiastical affairs.

He also notes that the pope, as a religious leader, exercises influence solely on the believers – those who voluntarily choose to belong to that group. He relativizes the papal influence and the current issue and considers that the lack of success of condoms in Africa is not so much due to the Pope’s statements, but rather the result of the image that one has in Africa of sexuality experience.

In his role as head of state, the Pope has authority over the residents of the Vatican City. The speaker believes to know that the AIDS problem in Vatican City is not very serious.

The speaker also hopes that, if the present proposal is adopted, one will also adopt the same attitude towards other religions, such as Islam.

Finally, Mr De Wever considers that the proposed text injures the many praiseworthy efforts of Christians and Catholics in the field of AIDS prevention and combating AIDS. From that point of view, the proposal is unfair.

Mr. Georges Dallemagne of CDH can not agree with the statements of Pope Benedict XVI, although he thinks they should be placed in his right context. He said his party responded immediately. Although he follows the direction of the proposal, he considers that the explanation contains a number of scientific and factual errors.

According to Mr. Wouter De Vriendt of Ecolo-Groen, the selective outrage that the last speaker has placed on the face also applies to him, since at that time he did not protest at any moment against the dangerous statements of the South African president.

The influence of the Pope’s statements is, in any case, much more significant, since it is very likely that they affect the behavior of many believers. Furthermore, they are a real blow to the cheeks of all who – educators, NGOs, etc. – are engaged in the field in the fight against the spread of AIDS. Furthermore, it is necessary to consider the possible multiplier effect of those words of a church leader, which, however, are contradicted by numerous scientific studies. That said, such statements should be blamed by the church itself, rather than by a parliamentary institution. We can only regret the silence of a part of the Christian community.

Mr. Denis Ducarme of MR refers to the remarkable figures on AIDS victims, a total of 28 million deaths worldwide since the onset of the epidemic, and he labeled the Pope’s statements as very horrible, irresponsible and dangerous. These statements have the greater impact because the Catholic Church has millions of followers around the world. That impact is further enhanced by those words being spoken during a trip in Africa, as about 70% of AIDS carriers are Africans.

It should also be noted that such judgments can have consequences in Belgium itself. There is a risk that they will be taken over by other clergy. However, the resolution proposal is in no way directed against the Catholic community. A number of Catholics have said they regret the Pope’s statements. In preparing the proposal for a resolution, the authors took into account a humanistic dimension. The principle of the separation of church and state must, of course, be respected, also by the Pope, who has taken a position on public health policy.

Mrs Alexandra Colen van Vlaams Belang expresses her criticism of the draft resolution. She thinks it is an example of hysteria, which suppresses free speech. It is also very selective and opposes the separation of church and state. However, her opposition is not motivated by the fact that the resolution is directed against the Pope. She would feel equally uncomfortable if the text was directed against other religious currents or their leaders. The speaker also asks where the right to execute the Pope comes from.

Ms. Colen describes Benedict XVI as an intellectual, who is likely to have thoroughly considered the statements in question beforehand and intends to assess his statements in the context in which they were made. As she points out, among other things, that the papal statements were a response to the question of what the Roman Catholic Church – so not the secular authorities – can do in the context of the fight against AIDS. Based on a scientific article by Dr. Edward Green of the Harvard School of Public Health, she points out that the Pope’s statements are not simply stupid and that using condoms alone will not help the world. There are also many other factors. In that contribution, the social and economic situation of the persons concerned also plays a role. The author also believes that the promotion of the use of condoms may result in risk-compensating behavior, in which the data subjects feel protected by that contraceptive and would therefore also exhibit risk behavior. Ms Colen also believes that the statements have had the merit of stimulating the debate.

Mr. François-Xavier de Donnea of the MR indicates that the message spoken by the majority of the Christian community and hierarchy should not be disregarded by our debate. In this case, the Pope has pointed the faithful to an ideal to be achieved, with which he of course does not violate boundaries. This does not mean that the condom is useful for all those who fail to realize the pre-established ideal. The member welcomes that a number of amendments have been submitted. I will go into that later. They aim to nuance the originally submitted text. Certain texts of the proposal could be understood in a negative sense.

The speaker is ⁇ pleased that Amendment 11 by Mr. Moriau and others also refers to the control of other diseases such as malaria. Malaria causes more deaths in Africa than AIDS, but since it affects only the poor, the disease gets less attention in the media.

The speaker notes that the separation of Church and State is a delicate issue. Isn’t one at risk of falling into chaotic situations if one responds to every position taken by a religious authority? There are other religions than the Catholic. The dangerous positions of their leaders are often more reflective than the words of the Pope, even in Belgium.

Finally, the speaker considers that it would be regrettable if this text was perceived in Belgium as hostile to the Church and the Catholic religion.

Ms. Vautmans of Open Vld believes that the Parliament was obliged to respond to the pope’s views. All that has to do with AIDS remains too often a taboo, not only in Africa, but also in Belgium. The words of the Pope are therefore even more disappointing.

I am going to the discussion of the text and the voting itself. I will give a brief overview of the adopted amendments and the possible discussion therein. For more information, for the exact result, for example, I refer to the written report.

Mr Dallemagne, Mrs Muylle and Mr De Croo submitted an amendment aimed at removing the word “irresponsible” in recital A. Mr. Wouter The Friend of Ecolo-Groen! I regret that this amendment weakens the text too much. The amendment was adopted.

The following amendment focuses on consideration E. Mr Dallemagne, Mrs Muylle and Mrs Vautmans and Mr De Croo submitted the amendment. The amendment aims to replace the words “the use of condoms” with the words “the spread of condoms”. The amendment is adopted.

Ms. Muylle and Mr. Dallemagne and Mr. De Croo submitted an amendment, again on recital E, which means a supplement to the original recital. “And not least to the work that many Catholic NGOs and aid organisations have already done in the fight against HIV/AIDS, and this often in the most difficult circumstances.” This amendment was also adopted.

A subsequent amendment by Mrs. Muylle and Mr. Dallemagne and De Croo focuses on an addition to recital F. I read it before: “Given that AIDS specialists have already pointed out in the past that public figures, both political and religious leaders, should be very careful when making statements about HIV/AIDS and the fight against this disease.” This amendment was also adopted.

Mr. Moriau, Mrs. Muylle and Mr. Dallemagne and Denis Ducarme propose to supplement recital H — thus again an amendment — in order to remind that, within the framework of the Sixth Millennium Goal, not only AIDS but also other diseases must be combated. This amendment was also adopted.

Mr Dallemagne, Mrs Muylle and Vautmans and Mr Baeselen and De Croo submitted the following amendment aimed at introducing recital L in order to recall the continued attention of the Belgian Parliament to the fight against AIDS. This amendment was also adopted.

Mr. Dallemagne, Mrs. Muylle and Vautmans and Mr. De Croo submitted the following amendment in which they proposed to amend the first point of the petitionary part in order to express the protest requested by the Government at the Holy See by the usual route. Mr. Van den Eynde of the Flemish Belang saw in all those demarches an offer that takes hysterical forms. Mr. De Friend of Ecolo-Green! declared that he would prefer to indicate also to the nuntius to protest as indicated in the original text. The amendment was approved.

A subsequent amendment by Mrs. Muylle, Mr. Dallemagne, Mrs. Vautmans and Mr. De Croo aimed to add a paragraph 3. However, this amendment was replaced by a subsequent amendment by Mr Dallemagne and Mr Baeselen, Mr Muylle and Mr Vautmans and Mr Denis Ducarme. Mr Baeselen of the MR lightened the amendment and pointed out that the new paragraph aims to charge the Minister of Development Cooperation, within the framework of the partnerships, to continue the policy to combat the spread of AIDS. Mr. Denis Ducarme of the MR indicated that it is in no way intended to entrust the Minister of Development Cooperation with an anticlerical task. Mr. Moriau of the PS and Mr. Deseyn of CD&V, consider that this amendment does not actually add much, since it is simply asked to continue the already conducted policy. The amendment was adopted.

As a result of the amendments made to the text, the committee subsequently changed the title of the draft resolution. It was an amendment by Mr. Dallemagne, Mrs. Muylle and Mr. De Croo that aimed to replace the words "dangerous" and "irresponsible" with the word "unacceptable". This amendment was adopted.

The entire amended draft resolution was adopted with 8 votes in favour, 3 votes against and 1 abstinence.

Until then my report. Then I only have to thank my colleagues for a suddenly lively but yet correct debate.

I invite Mr Baeselen to speak first. Currently there are 13 members registered as speakers. Interested parties should register as soon as possible.

First of all, I would like to thank Mr. De Vriendt for his report and his speech at this tribune. He was very attentive to the discussions that took place in our Committee on Foreign Relations. I must tell you that everyone defended their position and that a real democratic debate took place. At the same time, I would also like to thank the colleagues who co-signed the initial text of the proposal for a resolution and those who voted for the urgency last week. Indeed, a normal treatment of the draft resolution would never have allowed, I am convinced, that it would be adopted by Parliament. In any case, it would no longer make sense to do so a few weeks or a few months after submitting the text. Let these colleagues be thanked for their contribution!

As an introduction, I would like to point out a prelude on which I would like to base my speech at the tribune. The discussion we are holding is not about waking up, as I have sometimes read, old demons or reviving in our country old divisions. The proof of this is that after a serious discussion on the basis of the draft resolution, it will – I am convinced – be adopted by the very large majority of our assembly this Thursday afternoon. CD&V and CD&V have joined us and I look forward to it. We also worked together on amending a number of elements of the draft resolution. I would also like to thank them for this constructive work and congratulate me that we can vote together on this resolution proposal today.

The only message, the only signal that Parliament, through this proposal for a resolution, will send today, is a message of prevention and public health. Because, ultimately, this is exactly what it is about: health, the lives of men and women around the world.

Those who believe – I have heard it during our committee work and I have read numerous press and editorial articles – that it is ridiculous to remind with force the importance that our country attaches to the fight against the plague of AIDS in the world, those who believe that parliamentarians – and therefore a country – do not have to be indignated when dangerous messages are pronounced by a head of state who is, by the way, a spiritual leader, those have understood nothing in the sense of action and political commitment that is that of many colleagues in this assembly. They are often the ones who blame the fact that men and women politicians are often reduced to play a button-press role to follow lines imposed by a majority or a government.

Today, the demonstration is made, through the resolution proposal we discussed, that the man and woman politicians take commitments by depositing texts and asking the government to act in a true spirit of separation of powers. The legislative power, the House of Representatives will effectively ask the government to take action. It is in this Parliament that the draft resolution has been discussed and it is in this parliamentary assembly that it will be voted.

Mr De Wever, let us come to the proposal for a resolution in its own words. Indeed, like the Vlaams Belang, you have broadly expressed yourself in the Foreign Relations Committee on this issue. And like them, you voted against this resolution.

The resolution proposal that our Parliament will adopt is a message of prevention and public health. We will adopt considerations and requests.

The main request is known. Parliament will probably ask the government to protest by official and diplomatic means, via our ambassador to the Holy See, following the remarks made by Benedict XVI during his recent trip to Africa.

What are they talking about and why protest? I will try to answer these questions with you.

I have received many responses of support, but also of astonishment and consternation because the Pope’s remarks would have been distorted, taken out of context, or misinterpreted. But what did the Pope say? It is interesting to look at his true words.

I am sorry to have to tell you that there are two versions. There is the pronounced version, which has been filmed, translated, heard around the world. Then there is the version published a few hours later on the Vatican website, the official version.

I will quote what the Pope has said in Italian, so that it poses no problem of interpretation: “(...) si non è l’anima che sa applicarli, non aiutano. Not if it can overcome with the distribution of preservatives, that, on the contrary, increases the problem.”

I translate to you: "If there is no soul to implement them (the = financial means), they are not a help. This cannot be overcome by distributing condoms that, on the contrary, increase the problem.”

These are the words spoken. The official version, of course, became different. A few small nuances are added. Indeed, in the official version of the text, a double point was inserted after "condoms" and it was indicated that "this" could increase the problem. There was indeed a communication problem in this message.

Dear colleagues, the Pope’s remarks question the use of condoms as an effective means of combating the spread of the plague of AIDS.

In view of these doubts, would the whole world have heard it wrong? Would the whole world have a hearing problem? I have seen a number of reactions around the world from prominent personalities both politically and scientifically.

Michel Kazatchkin, president of the World AIDS Front, asked (I quote) "the pope to withdraw his remarks, which are a denial of the epidemic."

Alain Juppé: “This Pope is starting to pose a real problem!” Paris expressed its very vivid concern, Amsterdam, its astonishment, Spain reacted by sending to Africa a million condoms.

I will give you the end of my thought. The Pope said: “Condoms are not the only way to fight AIDS. There is, and we advocate, Catholic Church, faithfulness and abstinence," there would have been no problem and no discussion regarding this! It is legitimate for a spiritual leader to recall a number of values, in which he believes and I respect these values, that of fidelity or, for those who really want it, that of abstinence. But in this case, he went far too far and by specifying that the use of condoms increases the problem of AIDS, “he denied” the evidence, “he denied” the effectiveness of the condoms in the fight against the spread of the disease. This is unacceptable!

We reaffirmed this in the proposal for a resolution. These words are unacceptable because they are dangerous! In addition, they were pronounced under special circumstances, during his trip to Africa.

The problem of AIDS concerns not only Africa, where it is very important, but also Asia, Europe. It concerns us! Many young people in our country, whether they are heterosexual, gay or bisexual, at risk of shocking you, are unfortunately no longer aware of the potential risks of unprotected sex.

As Guy Gilbert recently said in an interview, the Pope is phased out of what people are experiencing. The cap is currently needed to avoid death! You can, of course, put yourself in the eye, get out of any context, but this is the reality of today! We must fight this plague.

Why officially condemn the words spoken on behalf of Belgium? My colleague, Denis Ducarme, whom I congratulate for the work we have been able to accomplish together, will return on this point, Belgium contributing greatly to the efforts to fight AIDS in the world. This is the main demand.

As for the other requests, I will simply insist on a very useful suggestion made in commission by our colleague Nathalie Muylle. It was also considered necessary to ask the Minister of Development Cooperation to continue efforts with partner countries in the fight against AIDS.

At the same time, I would like to point out to Mr. From Germany and Ms. Salvi that we will participate, constructively and voluntarily, in the review in committee of their proposed resolution. We are committed to it! Our action on development cooperation and fighting AIDS in Sub-Saharan Africa must continue!

The considerations we will adopt have been somewhat modified, under the constructive impulse of our colleagues from CD&V and CDH. On this occasion, we highlighted the unacceptable nature of the remarks and recalled their universal scope.

However, I would like to return to an element of discussion that was stated during our work. Some have said, "Other heads of state have made unacceptable, dangerous and unfortunate statements."Dear colleagues, we can react whenever necessary! It is the responsibility of every member to take an initiative. We took it on this occasion. As you know, Mr. De Wever, the words of the Pope have a universal scope. This is also reflected in the considerations of the proposal.

The international commitments of our country in this area are also recalled, as well as the indispensable respect for the scientific community that struggles daily and the organizations, including Catholic organizations. The Pope’s remarks are counterproductive to their work on the ground, which we emphasize.

I conclude, dear colleagues, by telling you that the remarks of Benedict XVI, head of state and spiritual leader – but it is in the name of his first function that we are justified to intervene – have shocked the world, beyond borders, but also – not unlikely to some – religious confessions and beliefs. It was not just a communication error. AIDS is devastating all over the world, and things aren’t going well with us – just the opposite! This problem concerns all of humanity. Condoms, both male and female, remain an effective way to combat the spread of the disease. I felt it was my moral and political duty to intervene, to react and to ask my colleagues – that is to say you – to adopt the proposed resolution with the widest possible majority.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, it should be from my heart. I have been in Parliament for several years, but rarely have I seen Parliament address a resolution so quickly as the resolution we are discussing now.

I have a double feeling. Yesterday morning I was in the Congress Hall introductory to a colloquium of various NGOs. The 2015 campaign in the framework of the Millennium Goals aims to halve hunger. In the discussion around the food crisis, a very important report was proposed, the IASTD report. It states that investing in good agricultural techniques in the North and South is a first necessary step to reduce hunger in the world.

None of the colleagues were there because of the work in the Foreign Affairs Committee. We could have raised so much. One sentence affected me very much. I quote from the World Food Programme of the United Nations: “Hunger and malnutrition kill more people each year than AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis combined.”

Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear. Yesterday in the committee, I also made it very clear: the CD&V group clearly rejects the controversial statements made by Pope Benedict XVI about the use of condoms, expressed during his recent Africa trip. These words hit us at the chest. They are world strangers and can have devastating consequences in the fight against HIV, the terrible disease that AIDS is today.

I would also like to clearly distance myself from certain personal initiatives of colleagues in the press of last week.

As a party, we didn’t have to wait to take away those statements. The prime minister personally said in the plenary session last week that he had a different position on this matter than the Pope.

This initiative does not come from our group. However, our group will support the three questions addressed to the government.

The first question is to convey the message by the correct, straight path, especially through a diplomatic representation. This is exactly the same way as when Mr. Dallemagne asked the Prime Minister a question a few weeks ago. He then asked to intervene in a similar manner in the appointment of Mr Williamson. The Prime Minister then responded in the same way that the intervention would take place through our diplomatic representation at the Holy See.

We will also support the second question, in particular the question that the Minister of Development Cooperation would pay much more attention to the problem of AIDS in the contacts he has in this regard with our partner countries.

Therefore, it is regrettable that – the time frame made it impossible – Mrs Salvi’s resolution did not accomplish it yesterday with the same zeal or speed. However, we hope – we have received a commitment from our colleagues in this regard – that after the holiday the resolution submitted by Ms. Salvi but also by our group members Mrs. Vervotte and Mr. Deseyn will be considered. Their resolution is really about what it should be about: we have already made a lot of effort today in our development cooperation on AIDS, but we can do a lot more.

I hope that the debate will be conducted with the same enthusiasm. I also hope that in the treatment we will receive the same amount of support the week after the Easter vacation.

Mrs. Muylle, do not apologize, but I would like to talk a moment about your last decision on the mandate to be given to the Minister of Development Cooperation.

If I understand you correctly, the aforementioned minister should be committed to combating AIDS. If I am wrong, you should point me out.

Please do not apologize, but I have the text of the resolution here for me. The previous part is not available. “The Minister of Development Cooperation, in the context of his political contacts with the authorities of third countries as well as with the international organizations and NGOs active in our country, must remind that the Belgian government does not endorse the Pope’s statements on HIV and AIDS and that they must under no circumstances have any influence.”

In other words, the mandate given here to the Minister of Development Cooperation is not what you say. This is what the Pope is going to contradict everywhere.

I would like to point out the above for all clarity. After all, it is another story.

Mr. Van den Eynde, it is no other story. I have pointed out at the beginning of my presentation that my party will withdraw from the statements made. I have also noted that the Belgian government and the Belgian development cooperation have already done a lot.

We are also concerned that today we not only condemn, but that the Minister of Development Cooperation also declares that Belgium does not follow the words of the Pope, but at the same time also clarifies what our policy is and which, additional efforts Belgium wants to provide.

The above is not in the text, but it is very clear the interpretation that we give to the text. We are therefore convinced that it will happen in the same, above-mentioned way.

You can interpret it as you wish, Mr. Van den Eynde.

In part of the resolution, namely in the explanation, there are many elements that we as a group cannot endorse. I said this yesterday in the debate.

First of all, we find a number of elements tendential and selective. Mr. Baeselen, we have just heard you quote in easy Italian. I’m not going to tame you, because my knowledge of Italian does not reach so far. In a previous meeting I have exactly the same words as you quoted, Mr. De Wever. In fact, I have quoted the Dutch text of the words of the Pope, which is derived from an original French text. I have the text here. I will not read it anymore, but I would like to point out that one can clearly interpret those words differently if one reads the entire interview. This puts everything in a broader framework, in which he also demands to take personal responsibility. He also says that a lot of financial efforts have already been made, but that they are insufficient and that more needs to be done. He also says that we should have much more respect for people who have AIDS and also take a much more human attitude, because we really shoot too short in it. Those things have also been said.

I made a similar statement yesterday afternoon, in the debate on NATO. We have in Parliament the custom of simply taking words from the newspaper, which is often already a journalist’s interpretation of the original words spoken. Then we will read another second newspaper, which probably took it from The Washington Post itself, which in itself was already an interpretation of the original text. This is Obama’s exit strategy. It has nothing to do with this, but it is in the same line. One reads first The Washington Post and then its interpretation in The Tomorrow and The Standard. These are the words Obama would have said. Here it is exactly the same. I do not want to deviate from what I have just said. I just want to say that the statements should be placed as a whole, in the broader framework in which the interview is outlined.

Madame Muylle, indeed, there have ⁇ been extrapolations but you will agree with me that, as the title of the resolution proposal that we voted in the committee says, "the remarks are unacceptable."

Mr. Baeselen, I don’t think you understood me right now. What I have now told you does not contradict anything. We take a distance from conscious statements. We just think that when you quote the words, you should also quote the entire interview. More we do not say about this.

I don’t feel like it hurts, Mr. Jambon, not at all.

A second reason why we have problems with the explanation is the fact that the explanation is far too little scientifically supported. Many AIDS specialists, not the least, including Peter Piot, who here, rightly, is quoted by many groups, say that the HIV problem is the result of a powerful combination, a cocktail of intimate personal behavior, including frequent unprotected sexual contact and the sharing of injection ages, and a number of socio-economic factors, including poverty, gender inequality, social exclusion, migration and mobility.

Furthermore, stigmas, taboos and discrimination, both with respect to people with AIDS and to the most vulnerable groups to the disease, remain huge obstacles to the successful reduction of the disease, not least in sub-Saharan Africa, where the epidemic still has a very large impact.

I recently watched a BBC documentary. It was about several countries in sub-Sahara, where in very specific tribes a widow must be appropriated – which must also be consumed – by another man of the tribe on the day that her husband dies within the tribe, within the community, otherwise she falls completely out of that tribe. These contacts happen unprotected, because they assume that they are a large family. That lives on today.

In many tribes today there is a belief that one can fight AIDS by having contact with a virgin. There are scary reports on this. Even very young children are used for this, precisely because they believe that they will cure the disease in this way. I do not disagree with what was said here today. I just want to prove that the fight is much more complex than the impressions of the fight I get here today. It is a package deal. We must do much more.

I agree that neither abstinence nor the use of condoms is effective when used separately from other strategies. The problem can only be reduced when a mix of resources is used. Prevention through contraceptives is one of them, but also awareness, access to medicines and medical research play a very crucial role in this.

Colleagues, I advise you to read the article by Peter Piot, the former head of UNAIDS, on this in The Lancet. He says very clearly what the mix is right, what the package deal is we need to come to a very good fight.

However, there are still problems. From various NGOs on the ground and from organizations working there, we hear that corruption and lack of technical capacity are often very major obstacles in tackling HIV and AIDS.

For example, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria was recently obliged to halt projects and funds in Uganda, Cameroon and Zimbabwe due to corruption. Also, in the same study, signals reach us that there is a lack of training and training of medical staff, precisely to build an efficient awareness program, prevention program.

Colleagues, there has already been said a lot about statements that others would have made on this subject. Yesterday, colleagues De Vriendt and Moriau raised that it is something different, because the statements of the pope he does as a church leader, a leader of a world religion and he has an incredible responsibility, so that we can not place his statements on the same line as those of for example Mbeki and various presidents or future presidents of South Africa, Gambia and others.

This responsibility is all the more important. If the heads of government and ministers of countries responsible for the health policy of that country declare that AIDS can be treated with red beet or that one should take a shower, as the likely future president of South Africa has said, then I find those statements all the more important and they have an equally large responsibility in that matter.

Colleagues, therefore I am also pleased that the amendment I submitted myself, which states that they are not separate statements and that statements by others are equally strong, ⁇ even stronger, has achieved it and incorporated it into the final text.

Yesterday I also saw colleagues again referring to a lot of literature, which is very good. Colleague De Wever, I also argued yesterday that there is a difference between historians and political scientists. Political scientists — I myself am one — dare to draw conclusions quite quickly. I have also argued yesterday that many historians take the facts and then draw a conclusion. I think that in itself is not bad. This could be an enrichment of the debate.

The Lancet was cited several times. He says very clearly the following. I want to read it once. “Every influential person, whether he is a religious leader or a prominent political figure, should be prepared to withdraw or re-formulate his words when he or she has made a wrong scientific statement, especially when it may have a negative impact on the health of many thousands of people.”

I recommend, it is a long article, to read it.

My last point is about the amendment and we are pleased that it is also included in the final text. That is also to refer to the efforts that many NGOs, very specifically Catholic NGOs, have made in the field.

I know very well what the Damian Action does in the field for the fight against AIDS. I also know what Caritas International is doing in the context of combating AIDS. I know their programs. These consist of prevention – also with contraceptives – from sensitization, from providing a lot of medical care. We therefore find it important that these efforts are included in this text.

I refer to a study in The British Medical Journal, which clearly demonstrated the link between the number of AIDS patients in a country and the percentage of Catholics in that country. I will not say that this has to do with the statements or with the moral authority of the Pope. It has to do with the fact that in many of these countries there is a highly expanded structure of NGOs and also a very large number of Catholic NGOs that ensure precisely that a very effective policy is carried out in those countries, resulting in immediate results on the ground.

This, I believe, has met most of my group’s aspirations. In the context of considerations, there is clearly more balance. I have also said why we stand behind the three questions that have been asked to the government. Therefore, my group will agree with the submitted result.

Thank you, Mrs Muylle. The word is to Mr. De Wever.

Mirari Vos, my colleagues. You will be surprised, or it has really surprised me, that this resolution has received such a high urgency. It must therefore be a very important and urgent matter. This is a first determination. I am glad that in this house there is still a very healthy sense of priorities. No matter how many worries, quanta cura, we are affected socio-economically; we take plenty of time to hold a parliamentary debate on this very important issue – the papal statements on the use of condoms in Africa. We do this after yesterday indeed with high urgency this matter was discussed and approved in the committee. This happened on April 1, following a debate that I personally found worthy of the day it was held.

The resolution as it now proposes has been substantially modified. The worst is out, I would say. The resolution will be approved by the presenters, which are the purple-green parties and – to my surprise – List Dedecker who also follows this debate with very great interest, I see. CD&V will also approve this resolution and that surprises me. I listened attentively to Mrs. Muylle and now it surprises me even more. I can only suspect – that is my bad character – that an exchange has been agreed here, namely the weakening of the available part in exchange for cohesion within the majority and the approval of CD&V. I can understand this as a realpoliticus but I ask your attention, colleagues, and ⁇ the colleagues who have not submitted it, for what still stands. One can draw on what has been taken out, but there is still something in it.

For example, I read in the explanation, black on white and without shade: "Abstinence does not work. Condoms are the only means that really works.” That surprised me because I thought that abstinence was the safest way to avoid sexually transmitted diseases. I am wrong, however, because the secular power of Belgium tells me that abstinence does not work. In other words, if I abstain from sex, I can still get sick. This is a great disappointment. This could have made certain periods of my life look very different. No, I need to use a condom because that is the only way I can protect myself. There is a lot of stuff there! This undermines the Catholic morality. Abstinence does not help. You have to have sex and use a condom.

We can only fear, if that is true, that those words of the Pope will indeed have an impact. This is also stated in the explanation: “The words of the Pope will affect the behavior of hundreds of thousands of people, all enthusiastic Christians.” But if they are fervent Christians, would they not follow the abstinence? To what extent will the AIDS problem hit those fervent Christians? I think: only if they will apply this resolution and give up the abstinence, which Belgium recommends them. Very very strange. I find all this very strange.

Nevertheless, the applicants conclude that the Pope has thereby killed thousands of people and helps spread the disease further. That is pretty much something. I find it surprising that you approve that.

In the available part, it becomes completely hilarious, I would say. You should read consideration C, which states that the statements of the Pope will have great consequences here, in our country, because here there are certain clergy who take over his statements and discourage the use of a contraceptive. In that consideration, we are no longer talking about condoms, colleagues, we are no longer talking about fighting AIDS. This is about the essence of Catholic morality about sexuality. This is not possible; it is dangerous. Dangerous certain clergy of the sect that the Catholic Church is apparently. A preventive measure should not be recommended, colleagues. This is completely independent of the fight against AIDS! This is about the essence of Catholic morality. Very very strange.

If you read all that – I assume that those who wrote it and will approve it still believe that it is all true – then you would say: we must declare war to the Vatican City. At least that.

But no . After we have determined that with a certain type of morality – the condom, no abstinence – and that the Pope will kill thousands of people, what will we do? We will write a letter. We will do that. And a letter! Our ambassador to the Holy See will let you know that we, the secular power of Belgium, disagree with the Pope. I think the Vatican City archives will be large enough to classify that letter too.

But of course, it does not remain there. In the second part of the resolution, we will also again act vigorously against every state and every organization that dares in the future to speak after the Pope. Urbi et orbi we will act against it. I hope we still have enough paper paper in reserve, because we will need it. The vigorous action of our secular power, everywhere in the world, every state, every organization!

The above-mentioned text is deplorable.

When I was an assistant at the university and a student would have submitted this, then I can tell you: it is understated, even for the level of this Parliament!

I listen very carefully to Mr. Speaker’s comments. by Wever. You can have fun with these problems, Mr. De Wever; I know very well that many things are fun for you. In the end, what do you regret? Is it not going far enough or is it going too far? At the beginning of your speech, you tell us that this resolution proposal no longer has force because much has been taken away from it. For the clarity of our debates, could you explain what was removed from the text and what strengthened the resolution proposal?

Mr. Baeselen, that is the debate in essence. That was what I just wanted to start with. It is true, le ridicule ne tue pas. Do not blame me for this, I only read your own text. I have a few concerns. That this is nonsense, you must not blame me. I will basically answer what you ask me. You know what has disappeared from the available part, I do not need to tell you. We would convene or dissolve the nuntius. We will not do that in the meantime, we will write a tough letter. I do not want to avoid the debate. I want to do that even with burning worry.

There are more important considerations to not approve the resolution. I have four and I will explain them in detail, without filibustering.

A first consideration is the principle of truth. Much has already been said about this by Mr. Baeselen and by Mrs. Muylle. What has been said and what should we condemn? I want to be very clear and that will make you happy. To assume that condoms would be counterproductive in the fight against AIDS is a very stupid statement, a very stupid opinion. If you have read the latest issue of The Lancet – Mrs. Muylle has referred to it – you will have read in that top medical journal that the latex condom is the best means to combat AIDS transmission when one engages in risky sexual contacts. One can also choose not to do so, but if one does, the condom is the best remedy that exists to date. If one denies it, if one says it is not true, if one says the opposite is true, then one is stupid talking about selling. That is a stupid opinion and I think no one in our house will contest that, ⁇ not after your presentation, Mr. Baeselen, because it was of a rhetorical broadness and moral highness that has deeply affected us all. You have entered that open door very skillfully. As the resolution states, someone who still defends it has an irresponsible and unacceptable opinion.

Mr. De Wever did not hear my question, so I will put it in Dutch.

Mr. De Wever, you said at the beginning of your intervention that the resolution was weaker because a few words were taken out of it. What are the considerations or words that were withdrawn from the resolution, causing you to find that the resolution is weaker? I have not yet received a response to my question.

I have answered, but maybe you have it in the Dutch not understood. I will say it in French. In the first version we were going to summon the nuntius, now we are just going to send a letter.

If that is not a weakening, Mr. Baeselen, then I do not know. I don’t know if you correctly assess the magnitude of diplomatic incidents, but turning a call into a bad letter seems to me a weakening. I may be wrong. I am not a diplomat.

Can Mr. Baeselen interrupt you?

As much as he wants.

Mr. De Wever, you are not mistaken in saying that the text has been amended, but what matters in the end is that Parliament will ask the government for an official and diplomatic protest.

Whether it is done through a convocation of the Apostolic Nunce, whether it is done through a letter sent to the Apostolic Nunce, whether it is done through the Ambassador of Belgium at the Vatican, little me warm. What matters is that Parliament decides whether or not to ask the government for an official protest.

I find that you find that the Apostolic Nunce should have been summoned and that the proposal does not go far enough.

Mr. Baeselen, I take my words back: it is not weakening, absolutely not, it is actually all the same. I suggest that you put it in an ad in the Streekkrant, which is approximately of the same order. Then it is also conscientious, because it is read very tightly in the Vatican City.

I was just at the point where I was giving you right. If one says that condom use is counterproductive, then that is an irresponsible and unacceptable opinion. This is literally stated in your resolution. Even if one could, as a Democrat, make a statement of opposition to the word “unacceptable”. One might say “unacceptable from our perspective,” because I think there are not many unacceptable opinions.

(Science of the Lord De Wever)

Ladies and Gentlemen!

You have the old version.

I just say that. I am not intellectually capable of speaking Italian. I can try to explain it in the pope’s mother tongue, even with the accent of his region. I don’t know if that would help for a better understanding.

I just said it is capable. There is “irresponsible and unacceptable” and I say to you that as a Democrat I make a counternote to the word “unacceptable”. I quite believe in freedom of expression and I believe that freedom of expression should be protected, not for opinions about which we all agree, as you proclaimed here: politically correct opinions, which are so generally accepted that they hardly need to be expressed. The protection is just for the opinions with which we disagree, the opinions that we all find stupid. These are the opinions that should be protected by freedom of expression.

From our perspective, someone who says condoms don’t help is someone who tells a stupid opinion, but the right to stupid opinions exists. Those who sit in Parliament long enough will no longer question this. I think that freedom of expression also applies to the Pope, especially in matters of faith. It is possible that I completely misunderstood it. That is very clear.

Before one charges about an opinion expressed by the Pope, the search for truth dictates that one examines very closely what he has said exactly. You have quoted the wracked passage in Italian. I would like to put this passage in the context. He said it in Italian, but I will do it in Dutch.

I quote: “What I would like to say is that the AIDS problem cannot be solved with just advertising slogans. If the soul is missing, if Africans do not help each other, then one cannot solve this plague by sharing contraceptives. On the contrary, we risk only to make the problem bigger.”

The [...]

You now interrupt the Pope’s words. You take a certain risk. I ⁇ ’t do that if I were you. You may not be a believer, but you never know.

The [...]

Mr President, is this normal?

Continue to talk.

I am a historian. There are historians and hysterics.

I will continue with the quote. The Pope continued: “The solution can only come from a double commitment. First, a humanization of sexuality, that is, a spiritual and human renewal that involves a new way of interacting with one another, and secondly, a true friendship above all and especially with those who suffer, a availability, even through self-sacrifice, to be close to the suffering fellow. These are factors that really help and bring visible progress.”

Who says “no sex” ...

The Church is not against sex, Mrs. Detiège. She is for a certain experience of sexuality that you probably find very ridiculous. In my opinion, one has the right to believe in it and to express it. I believe in freedom of expression. I even believe in religious freedom. Please flash me out of this stage.

These are the factors that really help and bring visible progress.

Therefore, I want to say that our double effort must consist of renewing the human person from within, giving spiritual human power for proper handling of one’s own body and that of another – it is about sex, Mrs. – and this ability to suffer with those who suffer, to remain present in situations of trial.

That is what the Pope says. How should we read this text? There has been a lot of text exegesis in this. This is very interesting, but how should we understand it?

It can be understood as the presenters of the resolution understood it. That can. If you read it with the worst possible intentions, and you make the worst possible intention process, then you can read that. That says more about you than about the text. It can also be read in a different way, in a balanced way. Mr. Van Biesen, I take the Guardian. This is not a right-wing newspaper. It is the newspaper of the progressive left. Tomorrow is the United Kingdom. She wrote about this passage, under the title: On condom use, the pope may be right.

She writes: The arguments are worthwhile, because you cannot solve AIDS in Africa with condom campaigns because the availability of condoms is insufficient, its use goes against deeply rooted cultural patterns – as Ms. Muylle also cited – male machism behavior and the weak position of many women and the promotion of condoms against a background of war and poverty, risk behavior works in hand.

The Guardian also reports the facts and figures. In numerous Eastern European and African countries that have chosen to use condoms radically and only, the number of infections went up. In Uganda, the only African country that has driven behavioral change, the figures have dropped. That’s what The Guardian says. It is another way to look at the pope’s words.

I also noticed that the World Health Organization has not responded. Maybe that’s because the WHO has long shifted away from a unique focus on condom distribution in favor of the so-called ABC approach: Abstain, Be Faithful, some people can, and Condom Use, for others who can’t. In this context, the Pope’s position sounds plausible. There have been many reactions internationally.

I read then that those foreign governments – France, Germany, Spain – use a very careful word to the Pope, not a shadow language. Very careful word use: I must say that I missed this very much here.

I have heard a number of speakers, including Mr. From Wever, which refer to newspaper articles that appeared in England, Germany, the Netherlands. There is also an article by a scientist. It would be questioned whether condoms are the solution or a solution to the AIDS problem.

You can quote any newspapers you want, I have a lot of respect for journalists, even for those of "The Guardian". Nevertheless, the Bible on this subject, is probably rather the 2008 report produced by the United Nations and UNAIDS that reminds us very clearly that the condom, male and female, is an essential means of fighting AIDS.

You can continue to read your articles but, if you want, I will give you a copy of the report!

Mr De Wever, Mrs Detiège wants to interrupt you. After that, you will also be interrupted by a member of your own group, Mr Jambon.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond very briefly, because Mr. De Wever, as I just heard, strongly advocates monogamy.

Mr De Wever, it is your full right to advocate for this.

Have you heard me advocate for monogamy? I advocate the freedom to advocate monogamy. That is something completely different.

What I just wanted to point out for a moment is that you need to be careful. Even with monogamy, there is still a chance that someone gets AIDS. Many young people, for example, practice serial monogamy. If you are conducting the debate, you should pay attention to the previous point. This group is still vulnerable. In this Parliament, in the discussion of the Millennium Goals, we have taken action to bring the above to the attention.

Mr. Speaker, I am addressing you.

We are debating a resolution that will or will not give a mandate to the Minister of Foreign Affairs or to the Minister of Development Cooperation. I note that the Government considers the issue in question not important enough to be present at the debate.

Is the presence of the government not part of its responsibilities? Can we call the Minister of Foreign Affairs?

A member of the Government must be present in the debate. I had seen a secretary of state, but I don’t know where he is going. There should be an expert member of the government. (The Romanian)

The debate should not go out of hand.

Mr. De Wever, I assume that you of your group chairman cannot continue your speech, or does he allow it?

Can Mr. De Wever continue his speech?

Mr. Speaker, if my party leader permits me, the following.

I do not want to judge about it, but I think the subject is of such importance that I would like to deal with it even in the absence of the federal government. For me, this is ⁇ not an objection.

You agree with each other internally. You go on.

I am grateful to Mr. Ducarme and Mrs. Detiège for challenging statements that I have never taken and for refuting facts that I have never cited, but well, I am already just that one understands only what one thinks one wants to understand. This is very tired, but you get used to it over time.

All I want to say is that one can read the text of the pope with a certain intentionality, while there is more than any other intentionality possible, such as that of The Guardian, of the WHO and of a number of foreign government leaders who have also reacted negatively, but in a very “specialized” way. If I compare that with what some politicians and authorities in our country thought should be brought to bear, the contrast in style and dignity is ⁇ great. The contrast in intentionality may also be.

I note that our Minister of Foreign Affairs, who is indeed not present, has almost called for this resolution to be put to the vote. He said: I would like to do something if Parliament asks me to do so. Ergo, just do it. I think he had a dark brown suspicion that he would not have completed that within the government.

I think this is ⁇ deloyal. This is a strange way of political enterprises within a majority, but we have seen two more in the past year. This resolution was drafted at the request of the Minister.

Charles Michel says it is scandalous. Laurette Onkelinx says it is dangerous, but she also finds me dangerous. That will happen already. Yves Leterme is also known as "un homme dangereux". I don’t know if this should be taken so seriously.

Mr. Landuyt said, while he was still there, that he should pull a condom over his tongue to the Pope. Very very subtle!

Mr. De Vriendt was talking about asshole, criminal. Mr Flahaux believes that the ambassador from the Vatican City should be recalled. Marleen Temmerman calls it a crime against humanity. That is pretty much something.

Ms. Vautmans says we go ten years back in time because the previous pope silenced about condoms, which, of course, is not at all true. The encyclical Humanae Vitae calls on the Pope against any use of contraceptives. This is therefore rather a continuity in the declaration of the Catholic faith by the highest authority of the Church, or that this Pope has suddenly taken a very strange opinion.

I read a number of such opinions, which suggest that here in some factions there is such an eagerness to react against the Pope, who is in conflict with the search for truth, for balance and for a normal way of reading and approaching texts. That is already the first reason for not approving this resolution.

A second reason that I find much more relevant is the problem of selective outrage. One is now going to send a letter to the Holy See and one also declares itself willing to send many letters to or to act vigorously – I don’t know what that is – against all others who will follow the Pope. There are many things that have preceded the Pope.

Mrs. Muylle, you have cited Jacob Zuma, leader of the ANC and soon ⁇ president of South Africa, a country facing the AIDS problem until now. She says a shower is enough to wash HIV genitals after having sex with a HIV-positive woman. Somewhat closer to home we have our own Princess Astrid who, in her capacity as Chairman of the Red Cross, thus expert in the field – in all fields – has suggested in Mozambique whether AIDS could not be addressed with homeopathy. Nor is it really an opinion that testifies to great responsibility or to a great knowledge of matters – it is one of both – but against which we must still act. I suggest you also send a letter to Laken, by express; it is not so far away.

Thabo Mbeki, former President of South Africa, has insisted for years that there was no link between AIDS and HIV, that it still needs to be proven. The drugs that could have helped, he excluded because they would be so-called toxic, only support the Western pharmaceutical industry and aim for the re-colonization of Africa. It was only after heavy pressure from AIDS activists that these drugs were allowed, although Mbeki added at the time that he really knew no one who suffered from AIDS. In South Africa, colleagues.

The current South African Minister of Public Health, whose name I will not try to pronounce – it is a lady, for all clarity – is against AIDS medicines. She advises people to take instead garlic bread, onions, a lot of vegetables, especially beets, lemon juice and olive oil. Then you are immune.

The Gambia president has found another remedy. One green ointment, a bitter yellow drink and two bananas are enough to cure AIDS or stop being a carrier of the virus. He was asked for the exact ingredients, but he refused to release them.

Colonel Gaddafi has said: AIDS, AIDS, AIDS, we hear nothing else, that is terror, that is psychological warfare: AIDS is a peaceful virus, because if one stays clean, there is no problem. AIDS and malaria are the forces of God defending Africa from re-colonization. Africans who are heterosexual do not have to be afraid of AIDS.

Annette Lu, vice president of Taiwan, said: AIDS is a punishment from God. God thinks that the time has come to punish, because otherwise there will no longer be any difference between people and animals.

I can continue like this for a while. I will save you from what is being told in the Islamic world by government leaders. I honestly dare not say this. I have a few page quotes with me, but I dare not present them to you honestly.

In short, I think there is something wrong with your sense of priority. That you have really waited for the words of the Pope to shoot in the gun against a head of state who makes unacceptable statements...

You cannot blame me. I am not a politically correct hypocrite. You, who find all this so important, have missed a lot of opportunities. Why now just the Pope, who gives his opinion in a fairly balanced text, and who gives the opinion of the Church, chapters?

I read in the resolution that we must take into account that he is a head of state. I rarely read anything so ridiculous. The Pope is indeed a head of state, he is also a secular leader, of Vatican City. The subjects of his prophane authority are the inhabitants of Vatican City. I don’t know how it is with the AIDS problem in Vatican City. I also don’t know if the papal words have a serious impact on the use of condoms in Vatican City. But I think that people like the Minister of Public Health of South Africa have a slightly greater impact on people for whom the problem is relevant, than the Pope has on the inhabitants of Vatican City. They dare to put such things on paper.

The fact that he is a head of state is a narcotraffic. I think that will only be wrapped up, I think. Mr. De Vriendt also said this in the committee: you capitalize on the Pope only as being a religious leader, as someone who exercises a moral authority over a lot of people. There can also be an indication at places. Would it really be the people who follow the Pope in everything, who in Africa suffer from the AIDS problem, who spread AIDS? I do not have that impression.

Mrs. Muelle has said something about this. You can also read in The Standard what Luc Bonneux said about it. It is a global authority in the field of epidemics. He says that sexual morals in Africa are not determined by deep faith. It is not profound Catholic practices that cause a very large spread of AIDS. Rather, certain sexual morals that are inherent in African men are very harmful in the light of the AIDS problem.

I may be mistaken, but I think the Pope has addressed these people especially when he said it in Africa. One can only hope that his words would have some impact. You simply treat the Pope as a religious leader. I honestly do not think that his influence is bad there, but on the contrary. I also heard the Pope constantly calling, in Africa, to stop committing violence. I do not have the impression that believers or unbelievers in Africa are very much concerned with this.

One can therefore put a counternote to the impact of those papal words, and not a little, but –– this is my third point – if you really capitulate the pope as a religious leader from our secular power, the Kingdom of Belgium, then there is something to say about the separation of church and state. That is much more important. It is one of the principles on which liberals founded liberal bourgeois democracy at the end of the Enlightenment, at the end of the 18th century and in the 19th century. More is not. It’s just that cornerstone that you pull away for a moment. It is a small fundamental principle, namely that the church governs the church, and therefore is free in matters of faith, and the state governs the state. The church does not govern the state. It took the long 19th century to make the church that diet.

I started with Mirari Vos. Those who know their history know what is stated in that encyclical. Then there was still a problematic mentality in the church, in relation to the interference with secular authority. Since then it has been over. Now that is over and now we are crossing the border from secular authority. Is this really our intention?

As long as the Pope, or any other religion as far as I am concerned, does not call to lay down our civil laws by our side or to step with our feet and thus commit crimes, will we not ⁇ interfere with what is said in the church or the mosque? We will not do that, I hope. If we do, then the fence is really of the dam. I invite you, the presenters of the resolution, to draw through your logic consistently, for then you can still wipe out loud before your own door. You can take that very literally and start by listing here in Brussels in every mosque what is told about AIDS, homosexuality and sexual norms and values. You can then submit a lot of resolutions.

I am not surprised, Mr. Flahaux, that you agree with this. Allow me to say that tomorrow I really ⁇ ’t want to wake up in a country where people like you have the absolute majority, because in the name of freedom and great democracy they will reinstate dictatorship and totalitarianism from the profane authority. I know it is fruitless, but I would really like to invite you to think very well about what you are actually doing. We are now going to take the Holy See from the secular authority in Belgium to say how the Catholic faith should be declared, what is acceptable for us to believe and what is not. What hell are we doing?

I now come to my fourth and last point. I will make it very short. It is about the principle of justice. My sense of justice is strongly stimulated by this resolution when I see and know what is happening from the Catholic belief in Africa. Check out the Caritas International website. You must look at how many countries – I will not list them, because then I am busy for a long time – in the world, including in Africa, from the faith belief, people’s suffering is alleviated. One should look at who stands next to AIDS patients in countries with criminal heads of state or health ministers making criminal statements. There the Catholic Church is present on the ground with the Caritas group. 40% of all AIDS patients in South Africa are cared for by Christian-inspired institutions, 40% in a country where not even a majority of the population has the religion as obedience.

Do you not find it a little unfair, after all that I have told you – when you see what kinds of heads of state in the world make statements; when you see what the separation of Church and State should imply; and when you really want to read what the Pope has said – that you take action considerably now and only against the Pope? Do you not find it a little unfair to know what good works are done from that faith and from that Catholic institution in those countries? What can you say about this, dear applicants of the resolution? If you could put something in opposition to that, you might have been morally slightly better armed to submit this kind of resolutions. I am very sorry that you did that despite all.

I would like to address my last word to the CD&V group. Mia, among others to you personally. You are not going to approve that, right? Read what it says! I have watched your body language from time to time times my talk. She spoke books. I hope that your voting behavior will not later say the opposite.

Mr. Speaker, Dear colleagues, Dear Government, we are discussing here a resolution presented with an unprecedented force of action, gravity and involvement in this Parliament, and treated at an unprecedented rate, with the intention of fighting against something that is called unacceptable and unacceptable by members of the Open World, something that was called criminal by a young man of Green!, something that hits the chest of CD&V, namely a statement by the head of the Catholic Church, Pope Benedict XVI, on AIDS in Africa and the role of the Church there. Apparently, the Pope should not make statements on the fight against AIDS. He should not have an opinion. The Belgian Parliament will conduct a real inquisition against him and will determine what opinion the Pope should have.

Because, according to what guidelines are those statements classified as unacceptable? According to that, used by the Belgian liberal politician Karel De Gucht, and the whole purple-green ideas coalition that has been suffocating the social debate here for more than a decade. That idea-promotion does not allow freedom of expression, shakes every rational debate in this country, and will now, in its arrogance, call to order the head of the Catholic Church, the moral authority of millions of Catholics worldwide.

At the same time, there was the risk that Belgium would make itself endlessly ridiculous on the international stage. The Parliament would ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs to convene the papal nuntius, to sign an official protest against the pope’s statements in Africa on AIDS and how to fight it. Could there be a panic in CD&V? Imagine, the government-Van Rompuy who reads the Pope the lesson. This is Herman Van Rompuy. That would have been very embarrassing for our current Prime Minister.

In order to save him from that anguish, ⁇ the requirement to convene the nuntius was revoked. In exchange for that so-called weakening – eventually there is still an official diplomatic protest – CD&V now approves the resolution. CD&V, as a faction, still formally distances itself from the Pope and his statements, and cuts the mouths of the few Catholics she still has in her ranks.

The resolution, however, remains a totalitarian and inquisitory document that seeks to suppress any opinion on AIDS control that is not propaganda for the rubber industry. Therefore, our group is in principle opposed to this resolution, as it is a violation of the right to freedom of expression and, in addition, a violation of the separation between church and state. With what the Pope presents to Catholics, over whom, by the way, he does not exercise power but a moral authority that they voluntarily accept – a misunderstanding that apparently lives with the left, that this would be a position of power – politics has nothing to interfere. That is our principled position. For the sake of freedom of expression, for the sake of the separation between church and state, we as politicians can not approve a resolution of such a direction, no matter which religious or ideological leader it would be directed against.

Specifically, with regard to the so-called statements of the Pope, we heard in addition to the epitheta unacceptable and unacceptable also the term unscientific. Open Vld believed that the Pope was unscientific. The young man of green. He called him foolish. CD&V claimed that he was a world stranger. To evaluate those reviews, it is useful to know what the Pope has said. After all, it could not be read in any newspaper in the midst of all the hysteria last week. Then only a transcription from Italian, a literal transcription in Dutch of the answer in Italian to a question asked in French to the Pope in an airplane on the way to Africa. The question was not about the fight against AIDS but about the role of the church in the fight against AIDS in Africa. The journalist literally asked: “Holy Father, among the many plagues that plague Africa, there is the special problem of the AIDS epidemic. The position of the Catholic Church in the fight against this evil is often considered to be unrealistic and inefficient. Will you address this problem during your trip?” The Pope replied in Italian: “I would say the opposite,” so about the unrealistic and inefficient perception of the church’s position. He says: “I think the most effective presence in the frontline of the fight against HIV and AIDS is precisely the presence of the Catholic Church and its institutions. That is what it is about him.” He names the St. Egidius Community, the Camillian Sisters and all other religious and religiously inspired organizations that serve the sick in Africa. He said: “What I would like to say is that the AIDS problem cannot be solved with just advertising slogans. If the soul is missing, if Africans do not help each other, then one cannot solve this plate by sharing contraceptives around. On the contrary, we are at risk of only making the problem bigger.”

The phrase that was always quoted here came from a like-dance: if the soul is missing, if Africans do not help each other, then one cannot solve this plague, on the contrary, then one risks making the problem bigger.

He suggests a solution, of course from the standpoint of the Church, because he does not say what secular organizations should do, he does not say what politicians should do, he answers the question: what can the Church do? The solution, he says, can only come from a double commitment. First, a humanization of sexuality, with a whole explanation about it. And, secondly, a true friendship above all and especially with the people who suffer. He repeats that further, thus a double solution: from his point of view, give people spiritual and human strength for a proper handling of their own body and that of another, and this ability to suffer with those who suffer, to remain present in situations of trial.

If you know the situation in Africa, that answer is a very clear answer. I will go further into that. He is also not the only one who expresses that position. So that was his answer to the question: can the Church in Africa do anything else? This is what he says that the Church can do. So what is missing, that soul of Africa, the fact that the Africans do not help each other, especially in political terminology, the situation in Africa in terms of human rights and women’s rights, and the scandalous habit in Africa to leave people who suffer from AIDS and to push them out of the tribe and family, these are two things that, according to the Pope, need to be worked on and where the Church has a task. So the judgment is about what the Church can do, not what the rest of the world is doing.

The judgment is not about condoms as a technical means, but about another problem that is not technical, but moral, namely the soul that is missing in Africa: Africans do not help each other. It’s about Africa, it’s not about Belgium or California or the rest of the world.

He proposes two remedies. What is revealed? Pope Benedict XVI is apparently not so unscientific, world stranger, or backward, but is taking part in an up-to-date debate that is now full of scientists and organizations who have been trying to get the AIDS epidemic in Africa under control for decades. His statement has caused a whole reaction, not only negative, not only a storm of protest as we experience here, but also articles written by epidemiologists and scientists who say the problem is indeed more than what we can fix by spreading condoms. We ourselves have known this for a long time. They explain that a further approach is needed, namely a mentality change in African society and sexuality experience.

His plea for the humanization of sexuality and for solidarity with the sick is supported by authoritative voices that cannot be suspected of any sympathy with the Catholic Church. In the United States it is the liberal newspaper The Washington Post and in Great Britain it is The Guardian, from which also colleague De Wever has quoted. These newspapers gave the word to scientists who knew about the AIDS problem in Africa.

In The Washington Post, Edward Green, a medical anthropologist at the Harvard Public School of Health, writes that, I quote in translation, “it’s time to do more in Africa about AIDS prevention supported by evidence.” He concludes in his article that Pope Benedict XVI “has the evidence on his side.” In the article, he refers to studies, including a 2003 study made for UNAIDS by Norman Hearst and Sanny Chen of the University of California, a study on the effectiveness of condoms for the United Nations AIDS program. They found no evidence that they help as a primary measure for HIV prevention.

Since then, articles in journals such as Science, The Lancet and The British Medical Journal, still according to Dr. Green, have confirmed that condoms in themselves have not helped to combat epidemics, which, like in Africa, affect entire populations. They are not talking about risk groups or target groups, but about the specific African phenomenon.

In an article in Science in 2008, ten AIDS experts came to the conclusion that in the epidemics in Africa south of the Sahara there are not enough results to conclude that there is a measurable delay in new infections. It has helped where targeted specific target groups, such as the brothels of Thailand and Cambodia.

In theory, these are again the words of Dr. Green, promoting condom use should work everywhere. Intuitively, it should be better than nothing. However, this is not shown in the study in Africa. He gives a number of causes, possible causes. I quote them because I am not a scientist.

One of these is called risk compensation. When one reads his explanation, one automatically recalls what the Pope said, the risk of aggravating the problem. Risk compensation, says Dr. Green, means that when people think they’re safe at least a portion of the time, they’re just starting to engage in more risky sexual behavior.

Another reason is the nature of the target group. This is not about specific target groups. It is about the ordinary population in Africa. I quote again: “Among a significant proportion of the African population, people have two or more regular sex partners that overlap over time. These multiple, simultaneous, fixed sexual relationships form a giant, invisible web through which HIV and AIDS spread.”

What has helped? Strategies that focus not only on the technical means to prevent infections, but on mutual loyalty and monogamy, or in any case on a reduction in the number of partners. He also refers to the example of Uganda, which has used the double approach from the beginning and thus can present positive results in reducing the spread of HIV and AIDS. In addition, in 2004, there was a joint statement, published and endorsed by 150 AIDS experts and representatives of the United Nations, the World Health Organization and the World Bank, which in addition to the promotion of technical means also confirms that – I quote from the text – “the first priority of sexually active adults should be the promotion of mutual fidelity.” Furthermore, progressives and conservatives agree that condoms are not the answer to issues that are still critical in Africa, such as sex between generations, gender equality, ending domestic violence, rape and sexual coercion. Based on these observations, Edward Green concludes that in this case the Pope may have the evidence on his side and that more is needed than what is promoted in the present resolution.

The Guardian, a leftist British newspaper that cannot be suspected of sympathy for the Pope, actually goes even further.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the speaker two questions to clarify what she says here.

First, do you believe that condoms can stop the AIDS virus? That is my first question.

Are you asking about my faith? Did I understand this correctly?

I suggest that I ask my second question before you answer.

I understand that you advocate that one should actually work on people’s social and sexual behavior to reduce AIDS in Africa.

The [...]

I am not yet finished. I have not asked a question yet.

They are men who use condoms.

There are also female condoms.

I suggest that I ask my question.

Suppose that only ten percent of men use a condom – that’s what happens – would you then advocate to stop that too and only engage in social behavior, knowing that by using a condom by only ten percent of men in Africa, the number of patients can decrease significantly? I would like to receive an answer from you.

What was the second question?

Mrs, if you have listened to what I said... I will repeat the question.

If only 10% of men in Africa wear a condom, would you advocate working rather and ⁇ only on the social-sexual behavior of those men, knowing that even if only 10% of men wear a condom, the number of AIDS patients in Africa decreases significantly? Have you heard the question now?

I have heard both of your questions, but I do not know if you understood my point of view. I am not pushing my own solution forward. I have quoted from an article written by a doctor, in which he builds on his scientific studies to rely on the Pope’s claim, in particular that the use of condoms alone is not enough, but that there must be a change of mentality in Africa.

I am a fellow in that area and you are not. So I just said that doctor said it would be best if there was evidence that the double approach would work better. If you want, I can give you the article.

I never said what I think the remedy would be. That is not my job either. I am a Germanist. I am not a doctor, I am not an epidemiologist. I am not a health worker. I do not pretend to claim the solution. I only find that the Pope, the head of the Catholic Church, in our Parliament is disguised for statements of which parts have been pulled out of context.

You do not answer the questions.

No, and I will not answer that either. I am not going to judge what will happen. My opinion about condoms and my sexual behavior does not matter to you. Your behavior doesn’t interest me either.

Ms. Van Broeckhoven asks for the word for a short response.

Mrs Van Broeckhoven, I have all the respect for you as a scientist. That is not the problem. However, you should not try to force me into a sophisticated discussion as you would with your students.

Mr Colen, the Chairman had given me the word.

Mrs. Van Broeckhoven, give another short replica and then let Mrs. Colen continue her presentation.

I cannot give a short response.

Mrs Van Broeckhoven, recently, members broke a lance for freedom of expression. This implies that everyone here should be able to express their opinion and that their opinion should be listened to.

I have received no answer to either of my questions. That is very clear.

Mrs. Colen, I have not polled your sexual behavior. I didn’t even ask what a particular doctor said. In that case, just as well the conscious doctor, who is an expert – who you are not – could have come here to explain.

You are the one who, in your capacity as a people’s representative and as someone of standing and respect, gives a presentation here. So you must also answer the questions that have been asked to you. You do not do that.

It is not necessary to hide you behind the fact that you ...

Mrs. Van Broeckhoven, if you want one person in Parliament here to admit that they are behind the Pope, then I am willing to be that person. I want to do it, if that is your intention.

However, if you ask me what I think about using condoms or any other form of sex, you should be at a different address. I am not in Flair or in Day All.

Mrs Van Broeckhoven, you have the right to interrupt. Mrs Colen has responded to your satisfaction or not. You can also replicate. Now, however, she must be able to continue her speech. In the other case, it becomes a talk barracks, which may not be the intention.

The [...]

Mrs. Van Broeckhoven, you must not agree with me.

I was in the process of picking up a number of people who from an entirely different perspective say about the same as what is shown from the context that the Pope has said in other terms, but scientifically supported. I leave in the middle or I, or you want to agree with it. I will give it to you.

The Guardian, a linked newspaper of British signature, goes even further than the article in The Washington Post. Daarin staat, vertaald: "Wanneer het gaat om condooms as weapons against aids in Africa, has de paus gelijk." This is stated in The Guardian.

I have no opinion because I do not know enough about it. I find that this is said in respected newspapers that are not of Catholic signature or that one cannot suspect of dogmatism or prejudice.

They picked up a dr. Catherine Hankins, the leading scientific adviser of UNAIDS, points out that it has proved impossible in Africa, as they have been working on it for 26 years, to use condoms as necessary to stop the epidemic. “In Africa,” writes The Guardian, “the spread of AIDS has continued to rise while the promotion of condom use has increased.”

by Dr. John Richens, also cited in the article in The Guardian, a lecturer in sexual health and HIV research at the Royal Free And University College, published in The Lancet the results of a study showing that the use of contraceptives in the fight against the virus also undermines that same struggle because it encourages risk behavior at the same time. Thus, we are talking about the phenomenon called risk compensation in the other article.

The Catholic Church’s assertion that a purely technical approach to the AIDS problem in Africa is doomed to failure and that the only effective method must be aimed at behavioral change. This is again something that is stated in The Guardian. I can read it in English if you want:

“The only really effective method is one that aims to change behavior, as in the case of Uganda, where AIDS transmission rates, almost uniquely in Africa, have gone down. Fidelity and abstinence were promoted by major religious organizations with support from President Museveni, who called for a return to time-tested cultural practices that emphasize fidelity and condemn extramarital and premarital sex.”

“The Ugandan model suggests there should be fatalism among the international agencies about changing the behavior of young people and there should be less fatalism in the world about acting to save Africa from poverty and war, which is the main burden of Pope Benedict’s message from that continent.”

That was, in any case, only an attempt to show that the Pope’s statements were also somewhat supported by others, who cannot be suspected of prejudice. Per ⁇ there was something more in it. In his plea for a change of behavior, the Pope is therefore in fact on the same line as many human rights organizations, separate from the scientists. Especially African women’s organisations are increasingly calling for such a change of behavior. They are increasingly calling for an approach in Africa that addresses the social position of women and the classical patterns of sexual morality.

Amnesty International states the following, I quote what is stated on their website: “The AIDS pandemic is more than a health problem and is inseparably linked to the fundamental human rights, namely the lack of them for the African woman.” Amnesty International reports that of the 14,000 new infections per day worldwide, more than 1,600 infections occur during pregnancy, delivery or in the postnatal period. AIDS is transmitted from mother to child. As far as I know, a condom is not effective against it.

Amnesty International also says that women are four times more likely to be infected by men than vice versa. In sub-Saharan Africa, girls between the ages of 15 and 19 are six times more likely to be HIV-positive than boys. The simple fact is – this is still the explanation of Amnesty International, you can see that on their human rights website – that women in Africa are not masters of their own sexuality experience and their own health. Amnesty International calls this, I quote again: “The cultural norms that promote male sexuality. Men are encouraged to have multiple sexual partners and thus carry the infections within their own family, where the woman has no free choice.”

I repeat – which is evident from that website, as well as from other websites, including AVERT, SWAA International and many other websites of women’s associations, which have often arisen in the field itself in Africa – that the general pattern of sexual behavior in Africa is referred to by many women as a major source of spread of AIDS, because it keeps women in total deprivation of rights and oppression, so that they can not even decide on their sexuality experience.

Worse, if a woman is infected, it is she who is stigmatized and attacked or expelled by family members. This does not happen to the man, but to the woman. The fear of such discrimination often prevents them from confessing their illness or being treated, which then naturally reinforces the effect of the illness.

Amnesty International also denounces the widespread sexual violence against women in Africa, which increases women’s risk of HIV infection: women are traded for prostitution, married as children, or raped within the marriage, within the family and acquaintance circle, or by strangers.

Amnesty International also highlights the impact of practices such as female genital mutilation. That mutilation often occurs in group rites where the same cut is used successively on many girls, without sterilization, so that the whole group can be infected. I don’t know if one can pull a condom over such a cut to stop the infection.

Amnesty also points out that the myth that AIDS can be cured – referred to here – by having relationships with a virgin has led to an increase in sexual violence against women worldwide. The victims are getting younger and younger because they want to be sure that she is a virgin and the perpetrator will be healed. As a result, young girls are increasingly forced or lured into prostitution, and with young girls in Africa we mean girls who are not yet at puberty, and even younger, because customers want younger prostitutes. For the girls themselves, the consequences are catastrophic, both because of their biological immaturity, which makes them much more susceptible to infections of all kinds – not only AIDS, but all sexually transmitted diseases – and because of their even lower status on the discrimination scale than that of adult women.

In a report by Human Aids in June 2000, it was also explicitly pointed out the entire problem of the growing youth of victims of sexual violence and forced prostitution, precisely through that apparently widespread myth that an infected man could heal by having communion with a virgin.

I mention that, just to show at what level one works in Africa. So it really isn’t about a kind of Western society, where people choose their own lifestyle and then bring up technical tools. I think one of the major mistakes, not only of the presenters of the resolution, but throughout the entire discussion, is that many Western people simply project the knowledge of our own society on a continent that requires a completely different approach and a completely different perspective.

Amnesty International concludes in all that piece specifically about AIDS and the position of women in Africa, that HIV and AIDS are a matter, not of condom use, but of women’s rights. Inequality and the unrighteousness of women and girls have greatly contributed to the rapid spread of HIV. Only by seeing that infection as inseparably linked to women’s rights can one truly fight HIV and AIDS. This is the feminist translation of the message that the Pope has poured in moral terms.

In the end, this is exactly what Pope Benedict XVI is calling for. He speaks of the humanization of sexuality, the correct handling of one’s own body and that of another, instead of sexual exploitation, oppression and selfishness.

There are also more and more women’s organizations in Africa that are founded by women who have experienced the destructive effects of AIDS in their families, their villages, their surroundings themselves. They all advocate an approach to AIDS that is not limited to the spread of condoms. They complain about the unilaterality of this approach. In the African context, they say, one will never be able to eradicate AIDS unless one comes to a profound change of mentality within the entire society regarding the sexuality experience and the position of the woman. I recommend you read the websites of AVERT, SWEA International and some others. They are filled with anecdotes and experiences of women. This is not a pleasant, but realistic reading.

They also complain about the unilaterality of the aid service because they often have a shortage, not so much of condoms but of medicines for people who are infected. These drugs could even help newly infected people, babies and mothers. There is also a shortage of basic medical equipment and medical personnel. These are the problems they face every day.

The strict separation between the secular advocates of condom propaganda and the religiously inspired field workers who emphasize the importance of abstinence and loyalty is very quickly fading away. This is ⁇ the case for people who are engaged in the concrete fight against AIDS on the ground. Everyone on the ground, and everyone who follows the problem, knows that in Africa, people have long been removed from the blind belief in condoms as the solution to the AIDS problem. More and more people are also beginning to work on the necessary, fundamental reversal of the African mentality and society. The Pope is engaged in this approach. He also says that the Church has a task here. Is this now unscientific, world strange and silly? I think of no. The CD&V is in the chest. The purple-green thought police blindly march for an approach that has failed in Africa for 26 years. Those who hysterically go against the pope have drawn up a resolution that is so unscientific, world-strange, and reckless that wise people can do nothing but reject them. That is what our group will do.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I will not hide that I feel a little more comfortable in this position than in that of a reporter. Now I can say my own opinion.

I would like to start by giving three figures that outline the context of the whole debate. There are 33 million people infected with HIV, 7,500 people are infected daily, and 67% of all HIV infected live in Black Africa. These are only three numbers, but they are important figures as the Pope made his statements during his first trip to Africa. That is where the biggest problem with HIV AIDS arises, which is getting worse every day, colleagues, as there are 7,500 infections every day. I can hope that we all agree that HIV AIDS is still a problem today.

It is in this context that the Pope has made those conscious statements. The Pope’s statements have achieved one thing: they have underestimated the credibility of condoms as a means against the spread of HIV and AIDS. The credibility of a means just intended to address that growing problem was undermined by the Pope’s statements.

The Pope is a head of state. If the head of state says such a thing, it is incomprehensible and unacceptable. As an authority holder – Mr. De Wever and Mrs. Colen – to say such things is indeed dangerous, insidious and criminal, because the impact of his words is enormous. The impact of his words is countless times greater than the impact of the words of a head of state. We may regret it, but the Pope’s words still have an impact on millions of people.

Mr. De Wever, I do not capitulate the Pope as a spiritual leader. You just accused me of that. I do not do it. What I am chaptering is his statements, because they are influential and go against every possible common sense and against every scientific study. That is what I chapter, and with me my whole group and all the signatories of this draft resolution.

I think, Mr. De Wever and Mrs. Colen, that we would better ignore this nonsense of the Pope. But the problem is that so many people listen to his statements. They listen to what he says, and then ignoring is no longer an option. I think that we as Parliament... We have indeed been working on this discussion for a long time, that’s right. The draft law on the various provisions, which indeed has a more concrete impact on our country, has not required so much time. Nevertheless, we are obliged to ask our government to sign a protest against such statements.

I am pleased that in the light of the first version of this resolution, the competent minister, Minister of Foreign Affairs De Gucht, has effectively already said that he will comply with this resolution. Colleagues, it is not often that we adopt a resolution in this Parliament that has an effective weight.

I have the impression that there are green ones! Rap is very happy and delighted. Well, a child’s hand is soon filled. The Minister himself invites Parliament to submit a resolution. He says that he will then naturally turn them into reality. The opposite would be bad, so I don’t understand why you are happy about it. Furthermore, I would like to say that it is the duty of a minister to apply a resolution whenever this Parliament adopts it. Do you think the government is escaping the influence of Parliament? It is possible, but it should not be theoretically.

Mr. Van den Eynde, you are not naive, I hope? How long have you been in Parliament? I’ve been in parliament for two years and I know – and now I speak for a moment as an opposition member – that members of the government rarely follow the resolutions we adopt here, unfortunately.

Mr Van den Eynde, however, this is a resolution that the Minister of Foreign Affairs has already publicly declared that he will follow. Therefore, we are not in the air vacuum here. If the Minister of Foreign Affairs does not do that, then there will surely be people, my group, for example, to ask him a very urgent question.

... ...

Mr. Van den Eynde, I also want to tell you that the words of the Pope will not be limited to his words or to the people who will hear his message. There is a multiplier effect. The Pope’s statements will be taken over by countless priests worldwide. They will spread his words further, the joyful message that the spread of condoms does not actually help in the fight against HIV and AIDS. Is that what you want, Mr. Van den Eynde, that people will take up and spread the words of the Pope? Do you not believe in the science that says that condoms really help against HIV and AIDS? You have to tell me, you have the word.

Mr. De Vriendt, I still give someone the word but Mr. Van den Eynde asks it now.

Mr. Speaker, you are beaten in your prerogatives as President.

What I want is the right to free opinion. This applies to everyone, including the Pope. I want that. When a pope or any religious leader makes a statement based on his religious conviction, that is for me his fundamental right. It is also our right to claim the truth about these statements. Well, we have not heard that truth here. This has been demonstrated here by Mr De Wever and even by Mrs Muylle.

That is what I want: the truth and the right to have a free opinion, nothing more.

Mr. Van den Eynde, you are registered in the debate, so you will have the word later.

I suggest that we listen to Mr De Vriendt and let him finish his speech, because otherwise it will take a very long time here. There are eight speakers registered.

I would like to replicate very briefly. Mr. Van den Eynde, if you have read the resolution, you know that there is nowhere that we deny the Pope the right to make those statements. However, we reserve the right to protest against such statements if we find that such statements are counterproductive and criminal. That is something completely different. This resolution does not limit the right to free expression.

The Pope’s statements are also a cheek blast for everyone who is engaged in the awareness of AIDS and the HIV problem, everyone who is engaged in the fight against the AIDS problem.

It’s not just about NGOs, it’s not just about teachers, it’s about everyone who wants to make an effort and who is now confronted with the statements of someone who has very much authority, unfortunately, and to whom very many people listen. The people who work for that awareness, for that fight against AIDS feel tremendously lacking and feel pressured in the corner.

I had hoped, I will not hide this, and I would like to address myself here to the initiators, that we would ask to protest with the nunti. The text is now weakened. We will record the protest through our ambassador to the Holy See. I find that regrettable. Nevertheless, if that can increase the support level for our resolution, then that doesn’t have to be a huge problem.

I went around because I was going to keep it short. I would like to conclude with the very simple question whether this resolution will do anything. I think so.

There was a political signal. There is also a need for a signal from the religious community itself. It is time for the religious community itself to rebel against such statements by someone who is still its supreme authority.

The decision of Minister De Gucht that he wishes to comply with this resolution pleases me. It can also contribute to an effective protest, a diplomatic protest against the Pope.

I would like to conclude by saying that this resolution may be a signal, a stretching hand to the many Christians, the many believers, Mrs. Colen, who also effectively oppose the statements of this Pope.

If we can take initiatives together in this Parliament, if the religious community can organize itself and give a signal to the Pope, this world can already be much better and we will not have to hear such backward, criminal statements of a very high authority in the future.

First of all, I would like to thank Mr. President. De Vriendt for his brief report, which was because of the time that was allocated to him.

As the rapporteur pointed out, this report does not reflect all of the arguments raised in the committee. That is why I will allow myself to return to some of them.

To begin with, I would like to remind you that we have no difficulty in protesting against the Pope’s remarks about the distribution of condoms. Our party expressed itself on this subject by the voice of Catherine Fonck, Minister in charge of health prevention in the French Community, in the hours that followed the Pope’s statement.

I am a public health doctor. I have worked for a long time on AIDS programmes in Africa. I know the importance and severity of the epidemic of this disease. I also know the importance of prevention, proper use of condoms and, more generally, the role of responsible sexual behavior in the prevention of AIDS and in enduring the epidemic.

I would also like to recall that it was following my intervention with the Prime Minister here in the plenary session, a few weeks ago, that Belgium sent a first protest to the Holy See regarding the denialist statements of a bishop. Furthermore, I feel ⁇ comfortable in the debate that occupies us today; I know the matter and I have no difficulty in protesting on the issues that annoy.

The resolution arrangement as amended by our care and by members of several other parliamentary groups is therefore quite suitable for us.

Even though the Pope’s statements are not exactly the ones ⁇ in the text of the original resolution, even though they must be given in the context and within the framework of the entire interview granted by the Pope, it is true that these statements cast the trouble and are likely to reinforce the campaigns of prevention and combating the spread of the AIDS epidemic.

The amendments we have introduced allow us to avoid statements that sometimes seem aggressive to us, to avoid lending to the Pope terms he has never spoken, to highlight the work of NGOs – Ms Muylle just mentioned it – including Catholic NGOs, many in the field of AIDS prevention in Africa, and to propose a classic procedure of protest with a third state. This is the one that was used a few weeks ago. It seemed to me logical to reuse the same type of procedure.

I would like to thank the members of the committee who voted for these amendments. They led to a resolution that seems to me today more consistent with reality, with the usual and sober diplomatic practices.

That being said, as I said in the committee, I would like to return to the developments that seem to me—this is the term I used in the committee—particularly foolish. I smiled when I heard Mr. Ducarme said that he quoted many press articles but preferred scientific literature. By typing on Google the keywords of the developments of its resolution, I came across a press article that ⁇ exactly the developments of its resolution. This was an article in a Belgian newspaper dated 16 March 2009. It is curious, on the one hand, to hear him say that he would have preferred to have references of scientific articles and, on the other hand, to base almost all developments in the resolution on a single press article of a Belgian daily. It is a pity.

Mr Dallemagne, you know, as I do, that in a proposal for a resolution, Parliament adopts considerations and a device. During the discussions, you have rightly wanted to change some things in the developments.

I sent you this text. You were abroad and I did not initially receive any response from CDH and CD&V.

The [...]

I just said that we had to react quickly. You know, like me, that in sensitive matters such as that of Foreign Relations, if one does not react by a quick deposit of a text so that it is taken into consideration urgently, nothing happens.

There may have been in the developments – I agree – some approximations. I admit my own fault.

But you will agree that the considerations and the arrangement were consistent with what is traditionally found in the resolutions proposals. By the way, you have yourself recognized it, since you have desired quite quickly to join the text of our considerations and our device.

Mr. Baeselen, I hear well your act of contrition, which honors you!

Nevertheless, I find this a shame: these developments underlie the resolution, they justify it and weaken it. I will return to the arguments; although they are not the subject of today’s vote, they have been the subject of your resolution. In view of these developments, the resolution is weakened.

I just wanted to point out Mr. Unfortunately, I missed the opportunity to take advantage of his expertise. I regret it, because I know that he is a field man who knows this matter well. I hope that next time you will be able to react quickly to our resolution proposals.

I will come back. Some elements remain disturbing in these developments, and even more than disturbing: they are completely counter-truths, stigmatisations, which is therefore better not to find in these developments.

From the beginning, I remind you that we agree with the arrangement of the resolution and that we will vote on it without any problems. With regard to its developments, I will first cite two or three points that are worth returning to them, even if only to avoid permanently that some read them again thinking that they have underlined the resolution, which is not our case.

First, "In most African cultures, sexuality is associated with fertility and the use of condoms is therefore hardly accepted, since it suppresses the possibility of pregnancy." They have a sexual act only when they want to have a child: that’s exactly what is said.

In this regard, it is better to stay in the nuance. That’s why we used the term “majority” and not “all Africans.” Please do not overly simplify considerations to support your thesis. It is clear that this is true “for a majority” and not “for all”.

I find this very stigmatizing for our look at African sexuality and the fact that this African sexuality would automatically be considered by Africans as an act of reproduction. I find this deplorable!

Another pearl in these developments that I quote again: "In many African countries there is a superstition, according to which to cure AIDS, the carrier of the disease must lie with a virgin."

The [...]

But no, Mr Baeselen! This superstition exists. I did a lot of research on the internet. To tell you all, I only found it in South Africa and I want to admit that it exists in one, two or three other regions of Africa, but again, it is exaggerated to claim that it exists in “numerous” African countries. I’ve done some research, but I don’t have any scientific evidence about it, I have to confess it!

It is a shame to add further that condoms are the only way to prevent AIDS. Because it is understood that one can accept these superstitions and therefore these practices as long as the condom is used. This element seems to me silly and does not seem to correspond to the reality of African sexuality and beliefs. For me, this is a really abusive generalization!

Mr. Dallemagne, you are doing a little too much. and honestly! We discussed with you and me in the Committee on Foreign Relations the problem of sexual violence committed in particular in the Congo. What have we emphasized in particular? You have mentioned the existence of certain practices. It is a reality. We highlighted, in the problem of the Congo, that soldiers carrying the AIDS virus committed sexual violence on women, especially on virgins, in order to cure themselves from AIDS. It is a fact! You have raised it! One simply wanted to remind that some beliefs transmitted in these countries actually posed problems with the use of condoms.

There are several ways to prevent the spread of the disease.

You have been discussing this topic for four and a half hours yesterday in the committee and you are making perfect retits here! We are not going to repeat the debate that took place in the committee!

I would ask Mr. Germany to continue.

This is an important discussion and Mr. Baeselen is right in nuancing the words that are found in the device.

I will be brief. I will ensure that Mr. Dallemagne can proceed immediately. I would like to say the following. If Mr Dallemagne is of the opinion that this text is so stigmatizing in the face of Africans, then I can quite understand that he will vote against or abstain. If he will approve this text, then he should not now see about the stigmatizing of this text.

We will adopt the arrangement we have amended and we regret the developments as they weaken the resolution.

I would not want to give the impression of making proselytism but I would also like to quote a passage from this resolution: "In the Christian regions, the growing influence of the Protestant sect and the traditional influence of the Catholic Church, prohibiting the condom, add to the problem."

I have here a very interesting in-depth study from the "British Medical Journal" which dates from 2005. I do not draw any conclusions or causal links because I am a scientist. This study shows that the more prevalence of Catholicism is important in African countries, at least seropositivity is important. You will draw the conclusions you want, but this is totally contrary to what you have stated in the developments of the resolution.

There are still a whole series of peripheral affirmations. You say that abstinence does not work. I am not a great specialist in abstinence but I find this a bit short.

When it comes to saying that only condoms work, I know a lot of public health doctors – and not anonymous dark ones – including Peter Piot, who would see their hair laying on their heads and climbing to the ceiling. I agree to say that the condom is very important. But, once again, was it necessary to go to this caricature to support the resolution? When we tragically forget all the work that remains to be done in the equality of rights between men and women – and it is a central theme, a key element in all AIDS programmes (WHO, United Nations AIDS Agency, FNUAD) – I find this regrettable. We forget all the work that remains to be done on adolescent sexuality, the problem of transmission of the disease from mother to child, which requires retroviruses and not condoms. This transmission is responsible for 1,300 contaminations per day in Africa.

It is also omitted to mention the problem of the use of non-sterile syringes not only among drug addicts but also in many African dispensaries and hospitals. Again, it is a bit short!

The text also contains a series of rather random, approximate and caricatural statements. I would like to distance myself from these developments because they truly stigmatize a population and are not consistent with reality.

I will conclude by saying that my group supports, of course, the protest but it wants more. My colleague, Véronique Salvi, and I myself submitted a text here a few weeks ago. We wish for an intensification of Belgium’s struggle in the fight against AIDS in Sub-Saharan Africa, both in the preventive and curative aspect, and we hope that each of us will be at heart to intensify this struggle. In 2007, there were 1.5 million deaths from AIDS in Africa. It is one of the leading – if not the first – causes of death in Africa. This must truly mobilize us both when it comes to protesting and fighting actively on the ground to avoid additional sick and to be with AIDS patients.

The floor is given to Ms. Vautmans.

Mr. Van den Eynde, I think your group has already expressed itself. I have thus allowed the member of the Open Vld who must leave us to intervene now.

For me everything is good. I just went to the president. He said to me, your turn has gone to Mr. Dallemagne. I took this into account and I waited. Now it is being exchanged again. Mrs. Vautmans may speak for me, I do not care. If you tell me when I am on my turn, I can arrange my dinner. If you say, 'It's good, you're the last speaker; then I'm going to eat quickly. Are we agreeing on this?

Dear colleague, I thank you for your gallantry. I invite you to support you. I will then give the floor to Mr. Murray and then you. Is this suitable for you?

I would very much like to let Mrs. Vautmans come forward.

Thank you, colleague, for your galantiness.

Dear colleagues, I have heard a lot about this today. I have ⁇ heard a repeat of yesterday’s three-hour debate in the committee, which I regret. I think we should think about how to work efficiently in our House, without having to listen to the oat clap to exactly the same arguments. I have questions about the creativity of my colleagues.

My presentation will be very short, please rest assured. Either one agrees that a politician should respond to the Pope’s statements, or one does not agree with them. That is the basis of the matter we are talking about today.

I have heard a lot of theoretical explanations on scientific points here. I am not a scientist, I am a politician. We with Open VLD – I see my group leader sitting here – are of the opinion that we should react, not because, like some – they are not here, I think they’re all going to eat; apparently that’s more important – we’ve been infused, we want to play political games, or from selective indignation, which others have indicated to us today.

No, it’s not about selective outrage. Dear friends, if you really know the problem, then you know that you must respond to those statements of the Pope. It is our duty.

I have heard very often narrow things here, Mr. Speaker, about the speed of the resolution. Well, I can only invite you, colleagues, to take them as an example in the future. I am very proud to have reached a resolution within a week. This is how a parliament should function. This should serve as an example for the future matters we will discuss here.

I have heard many other things here. Mrs. Muylle found the discussion on Wednesday annoying because she had a colloquium on Wednesday morning. Mrs. Muylle is not here now, but I would like to remind her that on Wednesday the Committee on Foreign Relations will meet. Then one knows that one cannot organize a colloquium, because otherwise one crosses the work of the Committee on Foreign Relations.

Mr. De Wever talks about selective outrage, because we now only respond. I will say this to Mr. De Wever, because he will probably also be eating or drinking somewhere. Mr. De Wever, we regularly respond in the Committee on Foreign Relations when human rights are violated. We will not see him. We have taken a position towards China; we have taken a position towards Bulgaria and many other countries. We spoke about the murders of women in Mexico, about the fight against AIDS. We follow the ethical foreign policy of our Minister Karel De Gucht. We will support and continue to support this policy.

Human rights are crucial and we do not want to make concessions.

Why should we respond now to the Pope? The Pope is a world leader. His words are not innocent.

When I was a cabinet employee of the former prime minister, then cabinet chief Luc Coene told me: you must know that your hands as a prime minister’s co-worker are no longer innocent. The hands and words of a prime minister have a lot of weight. They are no longer the words of an ordinary parliamentary member or an ordinary citizen. When one has such a function, your words and actions weigh more than when one does not have a function. Therefore, I think that we must absolutely react to the Pope. His words have consequences.

I know it. We don’t go to the priest to ask if we can use a condom. Fortunately, we do not go to the priest to ask whether we are allowed to have an abortion. Fortunately, we don’t go to the priest to ask if we get euthanasia. In Belgium, separation from church is a fact. It also sounds like that.

But, I have been in Brazil, I have been in Peru, I have visited half of Africa. The reality is different, dear friends. There is still faith in the words of the priest and the heads of tribes and religious leaders. This is where you will be asked for advice.

Mrs Jadin, we were in Africa when the Pope made his statements. We visited the traditional leaders to challenge poverty there, to help promote the fight against AIDS there. We saw it on the spot. They listen to the religious, to the traditional chefs.

Therefore, it is revengeful that the Pope made such statements on his first trip to Africa. We were there. What have the leaders told us, Mrs. Jadin? They regret the statements. They said that their policies would not help. So I am very proud that Parliament has had the courage to react so quickly.

The next thing should be from my heart. Here in Belgium there is still a taboo about AIDS, sexuality, seropositivity. Even here, after all, it remains difficult to convince men to use a condom.

I started teaching AIDS prevention in schools during my training in criminology. I always did a test there. I asked in a classroom – I will not do a survey here because I might be surprised about the results – who used the pill and who used the condom. Most girls raised their hands and said they were taking the pill. I asked if they used the condom when having sex: “No, that is no longer needed.” I said, you protect yourself from new life, but not from death.

That is the reality. It is still difficult in Belgium to persuade men to wear condoms. In Africa it is much more difficult.

Now I will really wake you up. When I went on a Free Clinic internship in Antwerp, I worked with seropositive prostitutes. They are in Belgium. They get paid more when they dare to have sex without a condom. There are men who love a challenge. So they call it. This is Russian Roulette.

When I was working with those seropositive prostitutes, I was sitting on shit in Antwerp. We had a common kitchen and a common shower. It was 15 years ago, not 45 years ago. I told my co-workers what I was doing in Antwerp. The next morning I came into the kitchen: the dishes were gone, and also all the plates, all the bags and all the glasses. Whenever I showered, they were afraid that I would infect them. There is also ignorance here in Belgium. You don’t know how you can get infected. The taboo exists, the fear and discrimination exist. We need to react harder. We must respond to anyone who denies the usefulness of condoms. I think that is our duty.

Some people stood here on the talk chair and I thought they were still in a television program. I want to point out to them that there are fifteen thousand registered seropositives in our country. I wonder if they do not prefer to look at The Smartest Man; they would rather look at the performances on the speaker’s floor in Parliament.

Two members of N-VA come back in. I hope you will read the report later, then you will notice what I said.

You do not have to agree with the resolution. It will be approved by a large majority. I know the Minister will implement them. I am happy about that. It is our damn duty.

First of all, my colleagues, what a topic! The Catholic Church, the Pope, the Sex! There is something to do with humor! In addition, this has been the case.

Unfortunately, behind all this hides 2.5 million people who die each year from AIDS: the equivalent of the number of deaths after the 2004 tsunami. You probably remember that after the tsunami, we witnessed an important solidarity movement. Every month, AIDS causes as many deaths as a tsunami. I have to admit that I have sometimes been shocked by some of the words I have spoken today.

My second observation concerns the manicheism that can be observed. Thus, when one accuses the Pope of having held irresponsible statements, it is as if one had attacked the entire community of believers, as if one had said nothing when Mr. Mbeki and his health minister made scandalous remarks in South Africa. Let me tell you that I denounced their words in this country, which was much more difficult than doing it from here. It is not because it is said that what happened in Gaza is scandalous that we are still in favor of Hamas that wants to erase Israel from the world map. We should stop this manicheism that places one on one side and the other on the other. Furthermore, I would like to add that Mr. Mbeki was fired. I don’t think the Pope will be one day, but you never know.

Furthermore, and I regret that Ms. Muylle is no longer present, we should not hierarchize the plagues that strike Africa (hunger, AIDS) according to the number of deaths. Everything is connected. Poverty is linked to health and hunger. We voted a major resolution on this issue a few weeks ago.

In addition, I really feel that we are discussing a resolution dealing with how to fight AIDS or the influence of religion in the fight against AIDS. It is not about that! This is a resolution on the words of the Pope.

I’ve heard several times of “The Lancet.” This latter became the Bible, the reference book. Let me point out that, on November 11, 1995, “The Lancet” called for the decriminalization of cannabis. I therefore assume that all those who referred to the Lancet today will sign the bill on this subject that I will be pleased to reintroduce given the unanimity that is emerging.

But let’s go back to what we are talking about tonight. Pope Benedict XVI’s first trip to Africa should have been an opportunity for him to turn the page on several events that – let’s admit it – shook the Catholic Church: rehabilitation of integrist bishops, including the scandalous Monsignor Williamson who held deniationist statements, the excommunication of a Brazilian mother and her daughter who had aborted after being raped by a member of her family. But no, from his arrival on African soil, the Pope found it appropriate to declare, speaking of AIDS, that if one did not put the soul in it, if the Africans did not help each other, one could not solve the plague of AIDS through the distribution of condoms. On the contrary, there was a risk of increasing the problem.

This position is not new in the head of the Catholic Church. The idea that the use of condoms can make AIDS worse is the passage of an additional step, whether you like it or not. A position that ⁇ seeks to highlight a Catholic ideal that I understand (chastity, faithfulness) but which is completely disconnected from the reality of the ground. Furthermore, I am sure that these statements are not necessarily shared by the vast majority of believers, especially when you know the drama that Africa lives with this plague: 29.4 million people living with AIDS, an AIDS that killed last year 2.5 million people. I’ll take the only example of Swaziland where one in two people are infected – it’s actually scary!

Everyone, of course, will go from his own reflection, sometimes sharing these words, nuancing them, revolting themselves, rectifying them. In our eyes, they remain irresponsible and dangerous and undermine the efforts of prevention, awareness-raising implemented by states, by NGOs, by international organizations. They can also have a negative impact on our development goals and on the implementation of our cooperation and public health policies in Africa because they involve, whatever the reasons invoked, the credibility of condoms in the fight against AIDS – which is not the only way to fight, we all know.

My dear colleagues, I also think that this succession of facts (the reintegration of the College of Ancona, the support of Monsignor Williamson, the remarks on the condom) is revealing a dangerous strategy of the Church. We will see what the future reserves for us.

Some will say that it is not necessary to confuse the Church and the State, others than a Parliament that condemns the words of the Pope, it is to confuse the spiritual and temporal message, it is to confuse collective emotion and political reflection. But when the pope goes to Africa both as a spiritual leader, head of the Catholic Church with a global aura and as the head of the Vatican State and makes such statements, isn’t it already an interference in the affairs of each state? A political-spiritual leader like the Pope or others cannot ignore the political scope of his words and must remain cautious in his words.

Certainly, others before him allowed themselves to make scary statements on the subject; I cited President Mbeki in South Africa, for example. But they are not spiritual guides like Benedict XVI. And then, simply, it’s not because some people say dwarfs that one is forgiven of those that one prophesies himself. The PS has had a strong reaction that some have called inappropriate, or even irresponsible, in a resolution text, asking to recall the Belgian ambassador to the Holy See to give him the position of the Belgian Parliament and the government.

As political representatives, it is important for us to raise awareness of the seriousness of these statements and to express all our disapproval so that in the future, limits are respected, especially when they have been crossed on our own field of political action. This resolution should not be justified only by the blow of emotion.

In the Committee on Foreign Relations, yesterday, after more or less relevant discussions, we adopted a consensus resolution. I am always in favor of consensus resolutions.

However, I would like to return to a point that I find hallucinating. It concerns the sub-amendment that asks the Minister of Cooperation not to subscribe to the words of the Pope and to explain to partner countries that these words will have no influence on the policy carried out, an amendment on which my group abstained. Indeed, this amendment underlines, by its very existence, that a member of our government could therefore be influenced by the words of the Pope.

Dear colleagues, how could one imagine for a second that the policy of our government could be influenced by the words of the Pope or any other religious leader, by the way? It’s completely absurd or I’m mistaken about the cognate.

To return to the resolution, the main goal is obviously not to declare war to the Vatican. It is about condemning the words of the Pope, to get our government to react concretely. This goal was shared by almost all parties. The means to do so have brought back our old ideological divisions, sometimes even within the same party.

We will vote for this resolution, I confess, a little counter-courtesy, as others will, and I understand it, but more for reasons of political common sense than of real will.

Finally, let us remember: it is a resolution, neither more nor less!

The only real problem, the essential problem, is the fight against AIDS, which must continue and intensify. We must remain vigilant and active in the fight against this plague. Condemning the Pope’s remarks, once again, does not mean that the condom is the only solution, but the scientific community is unanimous on this: it is one of the solutions to halt the spread of the disease.

That is why we must react when the legitimacy of our action is questioned.

I wish to conclude, Madam the President, dear colleagues, thanking Benedict XVI: thanks to him, we have addressed the problem and we can now hope that these discussions will bring awareness of the acute problem of AIDS today. Unfortunately, the rest is insignificant.

What a poeha, what a noise, what a trouble!

This country is entirely in crisis. Unemployment rates are rising day by day. We are financially out of balance. Automotive factories threaten to be closed. And this Parliament, which would have to deal with so many problems at once, suddenly finds the time to throw everything overboard, including the agenda of the Committee on Foreign Relations, to hold a huge and long debate. about what? About a statement made by the Pope in an airplane that took him to Cameroon; a statement whose content is not even as certain as it seems at first glance. After all, the supporters of the resolution bring the text in Italian and the opponents bring the text in Dutch and apparently the words do not exactly match each other.

What is essential, colleagues, is that this Parliament is going to take a position — a position whether or not right, it does not matter to me — which was welcomed by a religious leader within the framework of his mission as leader of a church community. I am told that this is not meant to harass Catholics.

I can’t leave it, Mr. Van den Eynde. You say there is an economic crisis. The Foreign Relations Committee deals with foreign policy. You should know this because you are in our committee.

You wonder why this should be about the Pope. I would like to summarize the resolutions submitted by your party on the Dalai Lama and Tibet. This is also a religious leader if I am not mistaken.

If I would overtake all the resolutions of your party that are currently pending in the committee, then we could look at what matters you have submitted that are ⁇ less important than this. I would like to point you to that. (Light applause to you)

A little more applause to the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, please.

Mrs. Vautmans, as long as you interrupt me, I will answer. When we intervene in favor of the Dalai Lama, it is not about his Buddhist views, nor about reincarnation, or about principled views, but it is only about a principled view of us. That is freedom of religion, freedom of opinion and freedom of association. That is what it is about. If we defend that, that is the position that we will continue to defend, also in this Parliament, against the totalitarian climate that prevails here at this moment! (Light applause to you)

If my party chairman applauds for me, it means that the whole party applauds. Your party leader has not applauded yet.

In our party there is freedom of expression, but in your case it does not work, Mr. Van den Eynde. It is good to remind us of this.

We are a party in which we agree. That is right.

Sometimes we are told that it is not about the Pope, but that it is about a head of state, of one of the smallest states in the world. The Holy See is the smallest state in Europe. It is never about the Pope as such, but I heard very strange things in the course of the debate. Mr. Patrick Moriau found it necessary to include in all this discussion yesterday even the Pope’s policy with regard to the people of the Pius X Society and his policy of abolishing excommunications.

Our very respected Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, who led the committee’s work on this resolution yesterday morning until a little after 13:00, had to welcome a delegation from Qatar well half an hour later. There was very few people. I was not there either.

The [...]

Yes, there was someone from our group.

That is right.

She ⁇ to me that you apologized for the fact that there was so little people, because we had long worked on “a resolution against the pope”. That is literally what you said.

The [...]

As far as I know English, it means “against the Pope”.

... concerning the Pope!

The [...]

Mrs. President, Mr. Van den Eynde quotes me through a third source. This is of course a mistake.

Please continue, Mr Van den Eynde. You were not here. You have noticed your absence here. So, rest assured to continue.

Mrs Vautmans, I do not cite you through a third source, but through a colleague from my group in whom I have 100% confidence. But well .

I come back to the game of catching Catholics. What surprises me most in that story is that it has not only been succeeded to throw aside all the work of the Parliament, and ⁇ that of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, for a resolution which could also be voted after Easter, even though for some it might have been fig after Easter. Meanwhile, certain questions related to matters that are much shorter near, such as the Geneva Conference on Racism, cannot be addressed because there we had to suddenly, out of the blue, move to condemn the Pope’s statements.

Even more strange is the following. When we concluded today at the committee meeting at the adoption of the report that there was no quorum, we have managed to organize a total mobilisation of all parties within a little quarter of an hour. I have been working in Parliament for almost 20 years. I have never experienced a mobilization so quickly.

The Christian Democrats of CD&V and CDH were clearly present. It went against the Pope, but under the singing, probably, of the well-known anthem “Onward, Christian soldiers”, the regiments of CD&V were ready to support the majority in it, though this time it was not intended for the defense of “For outer and reerd”, on the contrary.

All that, to hear then in this plenary session of those same Christian Democrats how unfortunate the text they will adopt is. I refer to the words subsequently pronounced by Mr Dallemagne. These words confirmed what he said yesterday. I quote him literally from the committee of yesterday: “Ce texte est baclé.”

But I also refer to the very peculiar explanation of Mrs. Muylle, who here has clearly demonstrated what was all wrong in this story, and how indeed this story was misused to cowion the religion, of which she seems to be a representative, which word is not too strong. In the end, we must know that the Christian Democrats, including the Flemish, will approve this text.

Paris is worth bien une messe. Here it will be the reverse. The participation of the government, the leadership of the government, is responsible for putting one’s own principles completely aside at some point.

My criticism, Mrs. Speaker, in all this text is not the criticism of a Christian Democrat but the criticism of a man who calls himself a free thinker and who proudly invokes that free thought.

Then I can only conclude that today we are violating one of the most fundamental rules of classical democracy, namely the separation between Church and State.

I would like to remind you that throughout the 19th century and even part of the 20th century we have had to fight against the plague called clericalism, namely the attempts of the Church to influence politics from its spiritual strong position.

I recall the fact that Priest Daens, the first member of parliament who dared to speak Dutch here in this Assembly, was broken by the Vatican at the request of Charles Woeste, after a very intriguing game in which the Belgian diplomacy already played a dirty role.

I would like to remind you that the same Church in the face of the Flammers has something good to do. In 1906, there was a letter from the joint Belgian Bishops’ Conference stating that Dutch was a language that was not suitable for higher education. Cardinal Mercier – whose statue stands so beautifully there at Saint-Goedele – or pardon: at the Cathédrale Saint-Michel – spoke in 1909 about two peoples in this country: one had to command, the other had to work. Those who had to work were, by chance, those who spoke Dutch.

I could go further to 1966: the mandate of the bishops in connection with Leuven, against which then all Flanders, including the Catholic Flanders of that time, revolted.

In other words, we have a tradition in combating clericalism. But if we have built up this tradition and are proud of it, then we must – Mrs. Detiège – dare fully apply that tradition and also denounce clericalism that camoufles itself as anti-clericalism, or that promoted by the official humanism.

That’s something I’m doing now. After all, this text is nothing but a political interference in church affairs. Whether the Pope is right or wrong in his statements does not matter. A church leader has the right to take a position and defend it. If he is wrong, it is his responsibility, not mine.

You must be consistent in that because I will tell you that you are very selective in that area. Islam officially promotes polygamy, limited to four but still polygamy. You can try to tell me what you want, but the risk of AIDS spread will be greater in a society where you have to serve four women than in a society where you are limited to one lady. Mrs. Detiège doesn’t bother, polygamy doesn’t bother, as long as it is not promoted by the Pope, it doesn’t bother. Mrs. Detiège, if we now go on with a round of all the ideologies and religions that have to say in this country, then I will not limit myself to Islam but will quote another type of church. It is a church in which one gathers in buildings that are usually very discreet, little striking and can only be recognized by initiates because somewhere there is an embedded triangle in the front door. People gather there in a very strange way, smoking with a mouthpiece of seaweed. They talk to each other with a disciple, master, or grandmaster if it is not with Knight Kadosh or with thirty-three. As far as I am concerned, all this can be heard. Mrs. Detiège, in those clubs even ladies are not allowed to enter. In those clubs that have had so much to say in politics in this country for 10 years, even ladies are not allowed to enter. Sometimes this should also be accused. Don’t think I’m holding a speech here against the lodge, for me, too. What is permitted for one must be possible for the other. In that, this text – I believe Mr. De Wever said it later – is fundamentally unfair.

You mentioned my name three times so I would like to answer very briefly. When it comes to polygamy, I want to say that I am against it. However, I am also a little surprised by the hypocrisy in our country when one sees how many men or women who are well married there are still others, multiple women or men on the other hand. However, it should be noted that polygamy between hooks still exists in our country.

But of course, in some way. However, it is not about that. What is said is that one system does not reap criticism despite the fact that it preaches polygamy and the other is systematically under fire. However, you are right. If we were to limit ourselves in Africa to the classical polygamy, it would not be so bad. However, we have just returned from Benin – Mrs. Vautmans was there – and polygamy in Africa has other dimensions than that.

What I would like to return to, however, is to the text itself, not to the contemplative part, but to the demands that we put in the text.

I will continue, first, to stop at point 2, which reads: “Strongly respond against any state or organization that in the future would question the usefulness of using the condom as a preventive measure against the transmission of the AIDS virus.”

I was talking about totalitarian thinking. Well, we are so far. When doubt is forbidden, the dogma is present. From now on, we must here absolutely and forever believe in the dogma: “The condom and the condom alone saves everything.”

Moreover, colleagues, when doubt is forbidden, science is no longer possible. Science can only develop when people have the right to question everything.

Doubt is in my eyes and as a free thinker blessing for humanity. Not merely accepting assurances and dogmas seems to me obvious to anyone who invokes the right of free thought.

Doubts are absolutely forbidden here. Not only will it be banned, the government will also react vigorously. What it means to “react strongly” I do not know. However, I suspect that the two above mentioned words contain the famous declaration of war, some of which have already been spoken in the last few days. What is strong reaction? I do not know. Is that the regiment of the paracommandos against the Swiss Guard? I do not know. In any case, it is clear that it is about strength.

It becomes even stronger. The Minister of Development Cooperation, at this time Mr. Michel – Mr. mini-Michel –, is instructed – I read – “during his political contacts with authorities of third countries to remind that the Belgian government does not endorse the Pope’s statements on AIDS and that they must under no circumstances have any influence on the Belgian policy on development cooperation”.

In other words, we make Michelleke a kind of mini-pause here. He must go against the Pope everywhere. He must also go and tell the brave people of the Third World everywhere that we disagree with the Pope and that he should warn them before the Pope.

What is this a story? How does the present text come together?

You will understand that in the present circumstances, I am on behalf of a faction that promotes freedom highly, who knows what it is to fight for free opinion and has experience with it – our free opinion is often compromised – emotionally – I admit it – will end.

We live in these Netherlands where, in the sixteenth century, a general uprising broke out against a Spanish rule that was not only strange, totally strange to the nation, but also inquisitorious. Unfortunately, only the North was liberated and the South remained occupied. But in this struggle, which was also a struggle for free opinion, many people died. That was not so soft at the time: the fire stack spread loudly and frequently.

When I think about it, and I now have to experience how here in a text that was flanked in two or three days, one tries to restrict a church leader in his freedom of opinion, then I can only think back to the struggle for the free opinion of that time.

Then I say, as our ancestors did: for that free opinion we want to remain faithful to the bidding bag and fight under the motto that was theirs, vive les gueux.

For the good information of our colleagues, I would like to point out that after Mr. There are still three speakers left.

I followed with interest yesterday’s committee remarks. Bis repetita non placet.

This is what I said recently, Mr. De Croo. We have exactly the same debate as in the commission yesterday!

Bis repetita non placet. It’s as if we didn’t listen to it yesterday.

We will finish our work in wisdom. Mr Flahaux, I give you the word briefly.

I would like to speak here as a parliamentary MP, but also, first and foremost – this is exceptional – as a Christian.

The words I heard ⁇ surprised me. I feel like I’m going back a century or a century and a half at least. I heard things that made me think of some doctrines of "Kinder, Küche, Kirche". It is not surprising that people are photographed with Jean-Marie Le Pen. I had the impression that two parties were changing names: one becoming the "New Vatican Alliance" and the other the "Vatican Belang".

Of course, we must condemn all inconsistencies regarding AIDS, including those pronounced by the Pope, including those pronounced by Muslim authorities! Let us not forget that Belgium is a special country.

The Vatican is also a state, but it only counts 1. It has 274 inhabitants and is the only state in the world to be populated by 85% of men. The Pope is first and foremost the undisputed spiritual leader of hundreds of millions of Christians.

The Belgian system is different from the French system of the separation of church and state. In Belgium, this is a system of cooperation between churches and the state. It is therefore in this sense that there are still te deum in churches today, on dates that should not please the extreme right and the extreme right, on May 8, November 11 and November 15. There are always church factories. There is still the imperial decree of 1809 that stipulates that the servant must be lodged by the commune. There are always religious teachers in the teaching of the state and in the free education paid by the state. Priests are always paid by the state. I assume it; it does not pose any problem to me.

Therefore, it seems to me, we have the right, as Christians and parliamentarians, to say what one thinks not only of the Pope as the head of the Vatican State but also as a religious authority.

I really feel like I am back at the time of the debate about the pill or about abortion. Recently, I heard a recording of the remarks made by Ms. Simone Veil defending her bill at the French National Assembly. We know what has been said about him, in particular by some ultramarine Catholics. Today, I feel like I have returned to that time.

What annoys me in the Pope’s statement is not that he stated that condoms were not the solution. Everyone will agree that this is not the only solution. But to say that the use of condoms makes the situation worse is totally unacceptable. This is also the reason why I asked Minister Charles Michel. Such statements go against the work done by Belgian and European NGOs for a very long time in Africa.

Of course, loyalty can be a solution. But efforts in this direction have been made in Uganda; it turns out that this is not enough, not to say that it is useless.

Let’s not forget that Africa is the continent of what is called the “second office”. I want to talk about extra-marital relationships. No matter what laws are made to prohibit them, they will always exist. And that is normal! We are human beings. The state, the Vatican, or Islam do not have to interfere with what happens in the bed or people’s sexual relations.

Recently, a debate was held on the RTBF as part of the Sunday noon broadcast. On this occasion the representative of the Opus Dei, which is an institution within the Church ⁇ close to the Pope, said the following: "It is time for the truth to again have the right to speak." This person has his truth as it is his right, but to consider that there is only one truth is to go back a century and a half.

As a Christian, I was murdered by hearing the Pope’s words. This latter has thus become a complicit, ⁇ involuntarily because he is completely shifted from reality – let us not forget that his journey was somewhat difficult and that in his youth he belonged to the “Hitlerjugend” – of the development of the AIDS phenomenon of which Africa holds the record, Therefore, I call on all Christians, Catholics of this Assembly to support this resolution with force. In fact, I would not want that after the historical drama of the Inquisition, we know that of the genocide of Africa.

I am not a Christian, I am not a Catholic. I prefer the beautiful legends of paganism, those stories that can serve as examples of a heroic life. I am therefore ⁇ not here to defend Benedict XVI, but since I am close to paganism, without, of course, believing in the ancient gods, I am a supporter of freedom of expression, a pagan and a resolute opponent of intellectual terrorism, of the dirty stupidity carried by the single thought and the politically correct.

So then, the pope would deserve a blame for not believing in the capote, presented as a quasi-miraculous means of preservation! The Pope has the same words as Professor Edgar C. Green of Harvard University in the United States. The findings of this scientist’s research project on AIDS prevention state: “There is a systematic relationship highlighted by our best surveys, including the one conducted by the US-funded AIDS Survey, between easier access to condoms and their more frequent use and higher and not lower rates of HIV infection. This may be due in part to the phenomenon known as risk compensation. This means that when using a risk reduction technology, such as condoms, you often lose the benefit of risk reduction through compensation, which is to take more risks than would be done without risk reduction technologies.”

What does this mean in reality? I will tell you. NGOs arrive in a village. They raise awareness about AIDS, distribute condoms, etc. People, knowing that they are protected—everyone knows that in Africa the natural sexual freedom is greater than at home—have become accustomed to this freedom. NGOs are disappearing. Very few people in Africa can pay for a condom. When one knows that in Zimbabwe, a person’s daily income is less than one euro, who can think that they will first pay the condom before offering themselves food? It is ridiculous to think that!

What worries me most is that the Pope is attacked for daring to say that the best way to avoid AIDS is marital loyalty. That the word “faithfulness” may scratch the ears of some of my dear colleagues, I understand it very well. But the Pope is the guarantor of dogmas, of intangible precepts. The Pope, dear colleagues, is Catholic. Maybe it’s a scoop for some of you, but it’s Catholic.

Others are communists. Who would accuse them of obeying the precepts of Marx and Lenin, and who would be surprised? Certainly not the signatories of this resolution. Islam and Judaism also advocate strict and firm social rules. Islam and Judaism are also against abortion, against contraception. Who would dare to blame them? Certainly not the signatories of this resolution.

The fact that the Pope defends the idea of marital fidelity and not the interests of the Durex company will shock only the naive and dishonest. That the Pope is concerned with the fate of the African populations abandoned by most of their governments, from Zimbabwe to Sudan and from Swaziland to Somalia, there is no doubt. The Pope loves Africa and Africans. I would rather have more love for Europeans.

If the individuals who are at the basis of this proposal to resolve an unparalleled stupidity doubt it, I propose to attach to their request a conviction for racism. The ridicule that will blow up our Parliament will then be total.

Our group was shocked by the words of Benedict XVI. There have been many assumptions about his reasons. Were these the words of an elderly man outside of reality? Was this a very conscious man and using marketing to reach Southern countries as best as possible? I will not go into these assumptions. I take advantage of our debate today to briefly recall the situation: 33 million sick, 7,500 additional infected each day. We have a real problem and that is why the question of condoms is central.

But this is not the only question: the treatment is also primary. 77% of severely AIDS-affected Africans do not have access to treatment, and 74% of anti-AIDS drugs are still under monopoly, even in developing countries. We spent a lot of time discussing the words of the Pope. I have another draft law to be proposed to you, which is pending in the Economy Committee. This bill aims to implement a text on intellectual property that was passed to the WTO a few years ago.

In 2006, the European Parliament requested that work be carried out on this proposal to amend Article 28 of the Belgian Patent Act of 28 March 1984 in order to use the provisions of Article 30 of the ICCAT in accordance with the instructions given in the Doha Declaration in order to include, among the exceptions to the rights conferred by patents provided for in Article 28, the possibility to export generic versions of patented medicinal products for reasons of public health.

This is fundamental because the price of drugs and new HIV treatments remains a major obstacle and it is quite possible to divide the market, that the pharmaceutical companies that have conducted their research can enjoy their monopoly rent in our countries but that generics can be shipped to the countries of the South. The countries that manage to stop the AIDS pandemic are Brazil, Thailand and other countries that have access to HIV treatments. Therefore, I would like that time could also be devoted to addressing changes to the Belgian law that would help to curb this pandemic.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, what does it take to the Holy Father? What wind blows on Rome? In January of this year, the Pope returned to the excommunication of denial bishop Williamson who said there was no evidence to prove the existence of gas chambers during World War II. In March 2009, Benedict XVI supported the excommunication of doctors who practiced a therapeutic abortion on a nine-year-old girl. The poor woman was raped by her father-in-law. Wasn’t that enough? Were the doubts not sown enough? Maybe not ! A few weeks ago, Benedict XVI traveled to Africa. Journalists accompany him for an interview on the plane that takes him to the African continent. Of course, one of the questions that will be asked concerns the use of condoms.

Benedict XVI had taken knowledge of the questions well in advance. He had plenty of time to think about the answer he would give. Several versions of what he said have been mentioned. I have here the true version, the one retrieved by all serious information sites. Benedict XVI said: “We cannot solve this plague by distributing condoms. Rather, it increases the problem!" Yet the United Nations, the European Union, our governments all agree to say the opposite.

I have heard many speakers referring to newspapers, a teacher’s article, etc. This is a bit surprising! The report on the global AIDS epidemic published in 2008 by the United Nations is, in my opinion, the Bible! It is written in this scientific Bible that it is essential to promote the correct and regular use of male and female condoms to combat the epidemic.

Did Benedict XVI not read this report? Didn’t some of the members here read it? Probably not! However, you have had time. AIDS is not new. Other figures have been cited but, since 1981, there have been ⁇ 30 million deaths. Today, 33 million people are AIDS-borne on the planet, which is equivalent to three times the population of our small country. Two million children under the age of 15 are affected by the virus. Nearly 70% of these patients live in Africa. We have understood this well, with regard to our health policy on the level of cooperation. Charles Michel has confirmed how important it is for Belgium to fight AIDS in Africa. This is why 5 million euros are invested by Belgium in the United Nations AIDS Fund and 35 million euros are invested in various programs in which we collaborate with a number of NGOs, in order to fight MST and AIDS.

In this context, Belgium is making a significant effort. Per ⁇ this is what has produced such a vivid reaction from Karel De Gucht, our Foreign Minister, and Charles Michel. Having heard the words of the Pope, they both felt that it was even more serious to hold them as part of a trip to Africa.

But do not Benedict XVI’s theses putting condoms on the index at the time of AIDS also have an impact in the world and even in Europe? How do 1.4 billion Catholics worldwide and more than 200 million European Catholics react when they hear the moral obligations that are thus dictated to their religious convictions? How do they also react when they see the positions of other religions? A lot has been discussed here.

Dalil Boubakeur, the rector of the Great Mosque in Paris, tells us: “To avoid disease, all means are good. The great rabbis said, “When there is a deadly danger, all means are good to protect us.” Thus, a part of these Catholics, when they hear the other religions express themselves in this way, must be through doubts.

All this is at the global level or at the European level. But at the national level, I think that these words of the Pope also cause various problems. For two years, we have heard the theses of Bishop Leonard speaking of “the inefficiency of the condom” or of a small priest in my region who, as part of the catechism courses, indicates to young people: “If you want to live your faith in a harmonious way, you will not put a condom in your sexual life.”

However, AIDS also exists in Belgium, not only in Africa: 1,000 new cases are diagnosed every day for several years. In 1997, there were only 698 diagnosed cases. For comparison, it is useful to know.

The Minister of Health, Laurette Onkelinx, responded quickly. This is also the reason why Bishop Danneels recently stated that "Benedict XVI should not have held such words." Per ⁇ this is also why the Secretary-General of the Christian Trade Union reacts even more firmly.

Thank you to these Catholics of Belgium for their sense of responsibility. Thank you to all those Catholics who supported our proposed resolution. There are many.

But we should not just react. Scandalizing ourselves in our corner is not enough: we had to act. It is in this sense that the resolution proposal we have submitted requires the government to respond officially and diplomatically to the Holy See, through our ambassador, and to make known with firmness the Belgian disagreement on the statements held by Benedict XVI on the condom.

This is a new, unused approach that would see Belgium as the first country to act in this way among all the 170 states represented at the Holy See. At MR, with Xavier Baeselen, we were still somewhat circonspective: what welcome would be reserved for our proposal in our country, very connected still under Baudouin in the Vatican?

First, the statements of the Minister of Foreign Affairs comforted us, then the statements of the Prime Minister. The Government intended to respect the ongoing parliamentary initiative and to comply with the requests made by Parliament in the context of this proposal for a resolution. We were also supported by the many co-signators of our resolution proposal: the PS, the Open Vld, the sp.a, Ecolo-Groen!, the Lijst Dedecker.

I would like to thank the MP for reacting so quickly. Between the PS and the MR, there are many differences but undoubtedly that on a number of cases such as this, our approach to humanism is ultimately quite close.

We had to react quickly. It was necessary to ask for the urgency to consider this proposal in Parliament. It was not useful to react after Easter, Toussaint or Christmas. It was necessary to react immediately following the statements made. I am therefore grateful to all the parties that supported the urgency, to all the co-signatory parties of course but also to the CD&V and the CDH who, despite the distance they have kept from the text, have come closer. If they had not done so, they would probably have been alone!

In a public health problem like this, political action is fundamental.

Some have spoken of the separation between church and state. This is obviously a fundamental principle that must be respected, but if the Church respected this principle of separation and did not rise as a great counselor of public health policies, there would be no problem! We respect Benedict XVI as the head of the Catholic Church. We respect him as head of state, but we want to remind you that he is neither a scientist nor a doctor and that therefore he should remain in the spiritual sphere.

We also want to remind you that the promotion of condoms is a fundamental element, recalled by the United Nations, in the fight against AIDS!

With Xavier Baeselen, we wanted this proposal for yesterday, to react to the unacceptable because irresponsible statements of Benedict XVI, for today, to determine the diplomatic reaction of our country which, I am sure, will make many disciples in Europe and the world, but we also wanted this proposal for tomorrow. The Government must – as provided in point 2 of the requests – respond firmly to any State or organization that, in the future, would question the usefulness of the use of condoms as a means to fight AIDS.

To conclude, this kind of statement is no longer admissible, it is no longer untouchable. It is time for the introspection of Benedict XVI! It is Belgium that says it.