Proposition 53K0219

Projet de loi visant à interdire le port de tout vêtement cachant totalement ou de manière principale le visage.

General information ¶

Authors

MR Daniel Bacquelaine, Corinne De Permentier, Denis Ducarme, Jacqueline Galant, Kattrin Jadin
Open Vld Patrick Dewael, Gwendolyn Rutten

Submission date

Sept. 28, 2010

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

clothing criminal law

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Party dissidents ¶

• Zoé Genot (Ecolo) abstained from voting.

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 28, 2011 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The Internal Affairs Committee discussed the bills at its meeting on 30 March 2011. With 14 votes against 1 to 1 abstinence, the committee decided not to obtain the opinion of the Legislative Division of the State Council. It also rejected, with 15 votes against 1, the request to hold hearings.

Ms. De Permentier further explained the basic proposal in the committee. She referred to the discussion already held on this proposal last year, when a similar bill for the plenary session of the Chamber was adopted in the session of 28 April 2010. However, this bill was no longer dealt with by the Senate due to the dissolution of the Chambers. The present proposal therefore again proposes the same text for Parliament’s approval.

Mrs De Permentier also pointed out that our country was the first European country in which such a ban was approved. Meanwhile, a ban has already been imposed in France and legislative work is also being done in other European countries to impose such a ban. According to the speaker, it is necessary that everyone should be publicly identifiable. Withdrawal from them creates difficulties in the field of public safety. Mrs. De Permentier then points out the various municipal regulations that exist in this area to impose a ban, but which ensure legal inequality between the inhabitants of the different municipalities where there is a ban or not.

Finally, the speaker points out respect for cultural diversity. However, this diversity must go hand in hand with a model of better coexistence. The practice of the burka is combated by women in many countries. It also belongs to our country, according to the spokeswoman of the MR, to give them a signal of support in their fight.

Ms. Ponthier submitted a similar bill on behalf of her group and also referred to the discussion of the previous draft at the end of the previous legislature. The motives of the Flemish Interest are, according to the speaker, in the first instance directed against the increasing Islamization. In addition, the prohibition on such clothing should also promote public safety, so that identification of persons is possible at all times. Finally, the speaker points out the impossibility of verbal and non-verbal communication caused by such clothing. Furthermore, according to Ms. Ponthier, the legal system must meet the municipal demand for greater legal certainty.

Mrs Ponthier also points out the symbolic value hidden behind the wear of the burka. It represents the rejection of all Western norms and values and represents the restriction of the fundamental rights of man, and of women in particular.

According to Ms. Ponthier, this prohibition implies an emancipatory force for these women, but at the same time it improves public safety.

Ms Fonck also proposes her proposal, which was linked to this basic piece and pursues the same objective. His proposal is based on a concern for the coexistence of people. The speaker points to the relatively recent burka phenomenon in our society, which, however, is increasing in size. According to Ms. Fonck, it would be unreasonable to wait with measures until the use is embedded.

For the CDH group, wearing the all-covering veil means a drastic break with the fundamental principles of our society, as well as with coexistence, citizenship and social bonds. The visual recognition through the face and facial expression is fundamental in our society, which is hindered by wearing the all-covering veil.

According to Ms Fonck, the use of the all-covering veil also undermines human dignity and identity. It deprives the women in question of any form of humanity. It also symbolizes the denial of fundamental rights, such as the right to education, the right to dispose of one’s own body, the right to freely go and stand on the public road, and the right to one’s own and free expression.

Furthermore, Ms Fonck points out the security aspect. It refers, among other things, to the attacks on postal offices in France where the perpetrators made themselves unrecognizable with all-covering veils.

Finally, it should also be pointed out the legal problems, as well as the problems arising in the application of municipal regulations which impose a ban. According to the speaker, there is a need for clear legislation so that all citizens have the same legal status.

The CDH bill assumes freedom to go and stand, but one must be able to be recognized and identified at any time. No freedom is, according to his group, absolute. This legislation sets certain limits. However, CDH can also be found in the text submitted as a basic proposal.

During the general discussion, the various speakers of CD&V, PS, Open Vld, N-VA, MR, LDD and the Ecolo/Groen group point out the importance of this bill. Their argument for supporting this bill is always based on the same elements: threatening public security by the non-identification of persons with all-covering clothing, the need to provide for a legal regulation in addition to the possibility of municipal administrative sanction.

The principled reasons why the speakers oppose the burka or nikab are that they are a violation of human dignity and that they oppose equality and human treatment of women.

Ms. Almaci may also find herself in the objectives of the proposal, but fears its applicability and proposes first to seek the opinion of the State Council. As mentioned earlier, this request was rejected. Furthermore, Ms Almaci considers this to be insufficient. In particular, work should be done to better frame the victims of such practices. They fear that otherwise these victims will become victims twice.

Ms. Brems calls for hearings with human rights and women’s rights organizations. This request was also rejected. She disagrees with the assertion that several countries support such a ban. She refers to previous work that she has done as an academic on the subject. Ms. Brems further invokes the views of various organizations and bodies who consider that such a ban violates fundamental human rights and constitutional freedoms.

Mr Dedecker submits an amendment that provides for a new article 563bis of the Criminal Code. It explicitly prohibits all-covering Islamic clothing, especially burka or nikab, in places accessible to the public. This amendment is rejected.

Mr. Dedecker should also introduce a second amendment aiming to change the headline to “an explicit prohibition on wearing the burka or the nikab.”

The entire bill is unanimously adopted.

This is where the report goes.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, we are convinced with CD&V that a legal regulation that incorporates a general provision in the Criminal Law, in addition to the possibility to take municipal administrative action, is the best way to impose such a ban.

It is clear that there are several reasons why we find the practice of all-covering clothing in our country unacceptable.

Maintaining security is essential to us. It is not so much an objective danger that proceeds from wearing face-covering clothing, but rather a subjective sense of insecurity. After all, the face plays an important role in social contact between people. Anyone who deliberately evades this social interaction creates suspicion towards his fellow human beings. In addition, everyone on the public road must be identifiable at all times.

We believe that everyone has the right to have a certain belief and expression, but that expression must indeed fit within our norms and values, within our society and our laws. The wear of face-covering clothes clearly does not fit in this.

We would like to reiterate that this prohibition is not against a particular belief. The ban is general and prohibits any possible wear that makes identification and face-to-face contact impossible. It is directed against a certain range of people who oppose our way of coexistence, an open society where equality of every human being is central. That prohibition is therefore a very clear signal that we do not tolerate such practices in our society.

Every freedom has its limits, and it begins where one imposes limits on other people.

The obligation or free choice to wear a burka undermines the freedom of our entire society and the values we all stand for. We cannot accept this. We must not accept this.

CD&V will therefore approve this proposal.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, first and foremost, I would like to point out that the N-VA Group will very consistently again support the present proposal, just as during the previous legislature and in the committee, a few weeks ago.

I will keep my presentation brief, but I will add a few arguments that indicate why we find it a strong and good proposal.

Colleagues, there are several reasons why people want to cover their face. In order to put these reasons in their cultural context, we must divide culture in our society, on the one hand in private culture and on the other in public culture. Private culture refers to the personal sphere of life and expresses itself in eating habits, lifestyle and possibly clothing. Public culture comprises the whole of values and norms of our society.

I will explain this by an example.

When someone wants to install a bivakmuts in his living room at home, he can do so without problems. However, when that person enters the public culture with a buffalo on his head, he enters the living world of our society, where norms and values apply, around which we all coexist and around which we are all accustomed to live. If he enters our world of life with a bivakmuts on his head, then he disturbs this world of life. After all, our people, our society with its norms and values, indicate that they do not want to encounter such a thing on the streets. Everyone has their own reasons for this, but it is a fixed value anyway.

During the previous committee meeting I noticed that some members of the problem constantly want to make a religious debate. Let it be clear that this matter for us goes much further and is much broader than a burka ban. We are talking about a general ban and a general sanction, to keep our society, as we are accustomed to it, alive.

For the members who continue to hammer on the religious aspect, I have two comments. First, no one can accept that religious rules or regulations of any religion come above our laws.

Second, the colleagues who once dared to claim that we would target Muslims with this ban are also wrong. The opposite is true. It is a good law for the Muslim community that wants to integrate into our society. They will be happy with this law. The ladies who can now freely walk around in our society will breathe relieved. They will be involved in our society, they will no longer be viewed as extremists and will be freed from all the excesses and prejudices they sometimes face.

It is only a small group of Muslim extremists who have caused this and who will no longer be able to do so. It is not directed against the Muslim community. Let us be clear, extremists can cause bad things, including Catholics; not every Catholic is a member of Opus Dei.

I come to my decision. For the N-VA faction, this is a good, important law. It is good for the preservation of our society, our values and our standards.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the wear of the full veil is, for my group, one of the darkest expressions of the submission of women. It must be said without hesitation, the integral veil is not a religious symbol, it is the symbol of submission and reclusion of women.

No one remains indifferent to these images of women whose eyes can only be distinguished, no one remains indifferent to this symbol of inequality that it represents.

It has been a long time since this debate has been born in the public opinion of civil society and has moved into the political field. This bill has already been voted unanimously just a year ago, before the end of the previous legislature. And, in fact, this consensus was found in commission on the principle of the very prohibition of carrying the full veil in the public-accessible space.

Nevertheless, differences have arisen in the reflection on whether to legislate at the federal level, whether to have an inscription in the Criminal Code, or whether to leave to the communes the decision of municipal regulations. A consensus finally emerged, which satisfies us, and which means that the Socialist Party will support this ban on the wear of the full veil in the public space.

And this, at least in three aspects: first, respect for the rights of women in the public space, then live it together, and finally, public security.

Prohibiting the wearing of the full veil on public roads is first and foremost a question related to the rights of women, which must be repeatedly reaffirmed: women are free and equal to men. The integral veil is the symbol of the denial of this freedom and this equality. Prohibiting the wear of the burqa in public spaces is equivalent to reaffirming the freedom and equality of women.

We must reject those ideologies that are not linked to a religion and which attempt to impose in the public space a symbol of a man-woman relationship based on domination, pressure, and even threat, which is unacceptable. In this context, we can highlight the question of the dignity of persons.

Can one allow an individual to claim in the public space such a sign of enslavement that infringes upon his own dignity? For my group, it is clear that not. The PS refuses to hear that this proposal would undermine religious freedom. I repeat that, for us, the integral veil is not a symbol of religious freedom, but a symbol of submission.

To summarize, we must and can oppose a refusal to publicly express ideologies or systems of thought that deny the idea of progress, of civilization, of democracy, of gender equality. At a time when important debates are taking place to tend to equality between men and women, especially in terms of wages, this debate seems anachronous, a discussion of another time not to say a regression or a return to obscurantism.

A second motivation is the dimension of living together, which is essential to us.

Diversity ⁇ enriches our society, but the face discovered is the first element of dialogue, of respect for identity. A smile, a look, these are the first contacts between people! Can our equality-based society exclude this purpose of non-receiving from every human exchange, from every fulfilling social life that means wearing the full veil on the public road? For my group, it is clear that not!

Finally, it must be acknowledged that wearing the veil in the public space is likely to infringe on public order, because it allows to hide his face, but not only. The size of the clothes also allows to hide weapons. Although there are not many situations, we have witnessed this kind of extreme situation in our French neighbors. And simply, this type of clothing prevents identification. It can therefore be a source of anxiety in any place frequented by the public.

Regarding the terms of the ban, my group has always favored the establishment of municipal regulations to resolve this problem. Examples can be cited, both in Brussels and Molenbeek, where the system of municipal fines works well.

The proposal we are discussing today meets our concern. This is the reason why we approve it without reservation, because it provides, on the one hand, the general prohibition through the Criminal Code, but it allows, on the other hand, the municipalities, in the event that the prosecutors do not sanction, to practice these municipal regulations. We will therefore vote on this text without reservations.

However, we draw your attention to the need for a policy of explanation in this matter. The purpose of this law is not to stigmatize a particular community, because of its faith or beliefs. I repeat, this law does not concern the domain of religion and its practice. It concerns the expression of respect for women’s rights, public security and living together within society.

Dear colleagues, I will remind, on behalf of my group, that we will always oppose those who use democratic freedoms to turn them against democracy.

It has been a year since we discussed this bill, which we submitted at the beginning of last year.

In April 2010, two important things happened: the resignation of the government and the vote, unanimously minus two abstentions, of the ban on the wear of the burqa or niqab, of all clothes that partially or completely hide the face.

We come back with this proposal because it could not be lifted from expiration to continue its path to the Senate since we are still in a period of ordinary business. We found it useful, in order for this proposal to be followed by effects, that it restores the parliamentary path.

This proposal was submitted with my colleagues Corinne De Permentier, who defended it very well in committee, Denis Ducarme, Jacqueline Galant, Kattrin Jadin, Gwendolyn Rutten and Patrick Dewael. We are delighted that this text has served as a basis for debates in the Interior Committee and that we can discuss it in the plenary session today.

I will not hide that it may be necessary to respond to those who consider that the prohibition of particular clothing in the public space does not have an indisputable legal basis. These arguments are often heard about this proposal. These arguments were used in France during the vote on the burqa ban. The opinion of the French Council of State was appealing within the framework of the notion of defence of individual freedoms. I do not want to avoid this problem.

Of course, the ratio legis of the law we are proposing today is essentially about security. We have actually sought the most “unquestionable” reason to justify this bill and avoid subsequent questioning. We insisted on the need to provide for a proposal that prohibits to improve public security and ensure that this security is not endangered. This is a reality, but it cannot be the only justification for the proposal we are discussing now. Other arguments go beyond the security aspect.

It is true that I often take this example of the attitude a teacher or teacher must take in a school when he receives a mother in burqa who comes to look for a child in a recreational courtyard. How can this teacher or teacher have the assurance that the person who comes to look for the child is indeed the person who can do so legally?

This security and protection aspect cannot be denied. However, beyond this, there is an even more fundamental reason: the fact that we seem to be responsible, as parliamentarians, as legislative power, for the protection and preservation of the public space for what it represents as a space of freedom. This preservation of public space seems to me to be an essential duty. But the public space is in danger when the freedom exercised there threatens its very survival. There is no limitless freedom, we know it! Furthermore, the European Convention on Human Rights expressly provides that when it defends the freedom of worship or the freedom to go and come, there are possibilities of restriction to these freedoms; in fact, individual freedom always more or less at a certain moment clashes with the freedom of others.

I think that the very body of this proposal indicates the necessity of defending the principle of recognition, which is inseparable from law. If there is no longer mutual recognition or mutual recognition, there is no longer any basis for law. What does law do other than govern the relations between individuals? If these individuals no longer know how to recognize each other, if there is no longer a possible relationship between these individuals, there is no longer material to govern the relations between these people. Therefore, mutual recognition is an essential principle that founds the law; I would even say that it is prior to the law. Therefore, anything that undermines this possibility of mutual recognition must be combated.

Elisabeth Badinter very well took these elements into account when she came to present before the French National Assembly during the debate on the same proposal as the one we are discussing today. She said: "I want to emphasize how wearing the integral veil is contrary to the principle of fraternity.

Wearing the full veil means refusing absolutely to come into contact with others or, more precisely, refusing reciprocity or recognition. The woman dressed in this way arrogates the right to see me, but denies me the right to see her." she emphasized this symbolic violence that this non-reciprocity represents.

We want to defend the possibility of preserving a public space in which mutual and mutual recognition remains the foundation of interpersonal relations. Of course, some claim that we would go there against the freedom of worship or religion. This is obviously false! There is neither in the Quran, nor in the Sourates, nor in the Hadiths, nor in any text whatsoever any mention or reference to the full veil. There is, of course, an instrumentalization of this dressing custom that comes from Afghanistan and the Taliban, but there is no religious dimension in the wear of this garment, except in its devotion, in the drifts to which all opinions, all convictions, all religions can lend.

Today we are placing ourselves on a different ground than that of preserving or not preserving the freedom of worship. Of course, beyond the freedom of worship, there is the freedom of expression, the individual’s freedom to wear the clothes you want. There are limits and restrictions to this freedom. These must be dictated by the need to preserve the quality of the public space and the possibility, in this public space, to express themselves freely. But freedom of expression, beyond freedom of expression, necessarily passes through recognition and the face. Levinas has very well done to say, in his work Totality and Infinity, that it is through the face that brotherhood and humanity are expressed.

With this prohibition, we want to mark our conviction that it is important to preserve public order, public space and the possibility of recognizing ourselves in a society where the relationship between individuals remains a necessary foundation. Imagine for a moment that every person, in a given space, at a given time, would wear a garment that would make him unidentifiable and unrecognizable. The life stops!

I always say to those who oppose this prohibition: let them go to the end of the reasoning and think about the situation where suddenly no one would be recognizable. Life would be impossible. It would not last long without excessive violence. When considering these different arguments, we must vote this text without any hesitation because it represents an advance that allows to increase the quality of the public space, to promote the recognition of individuals.

The essential argument remains: what can be represented by the instrumentalization of a garment in relation to the fundamental, collective, essential rights and values that govern life in society. Among these values is the equality of man and woman. It seems to us that at some times, not always, the wear of such clothes translated, is the sign of the taking of possession, of the domination of man over woman. This should question us. Beyond our daily comfort in our country, some women in other countries struggle to death to defend their rights, to defend equality between men and women. We do not have the right to silence this, to pretend that it does not exist and, on the contrary, to lend ourselves to some complicity in these abuses and these attempts to submit and dominate women.

This is the third reason, beyond security, beyond mutual and mutual recognition, for which this law is important: to recognize as an essential and fundamental value the equality of man and woman.

Here are the three reasons why this proposal was submitted. These are also the three reasons why we will adopt this proposal which, I hope, will gather a very broad assent.

The debate over what is commonly called the burka ban is a fundamental debate. It depends on what kind of society we want. What is our view on man and human dignity, on the equality of man and woman? What are we standing for? How do we deal with diversity, globalization, migration and the differences in beliefs, beliefs and cultures?

Our group, which is obvious, stands for a liberal society. This is a society in freedom. Those who say freedom, of course, immediately say diversity. We must learn to deal with this diversity. We even need to create space for it. We will need to expand and expand our legislation, our regulations and our society over the coming years to give more space to that growing diversity. However, a society in freedom is also a society in which every human being counts, every human being is unique and every human being should be given opportunities to build his or her life, use his or her talents, develop and emancipate.

Just there, a burka or a nikab makes things difficult and impossible. They are actually an attack on human dignity. They touch the human being in its essence. In fact, the person who wears a burqa is completely disindividualized. Any human interaction is made impossible. Every communication and every functioning as a social being is destroyed. That is the essence of our human being. Also, every possibility of emancipation, of participation in the community is mortgaged. In that sense, a burka is not only an attack on the dignity of the woman concerned and not only its human being is compromised, in fact, a burka or a nikab attacks the dignity of all women and of all men. In this sense, a burka or a nikab is also the ultimate denial of coexistence, let alone multicultural or intercultural coexistence.

In recent weeks, some colleagues in the committee have turned out to be Islamologists or Muslim or Qur’an experts. I am not that. I do not belong to that community. I do not want to be aware of this in this debate either. Religious or philosophical regulations are not the framework in which my group wishes to evaluate this law. I have too much respect for the freedom of conviction, for the freedom of religion, to determine from this speech, what the Qur’an or any other sacred book would prescribe or not.

My framework is another framework. My framework is my liberal belief. Respect for the inviolability of each individual, the Enlightenment, the modernity. And from that context, from that perspective, I look at this problem. I find in Karl Popper, ⁇ our guru, in his book Open Society and his Enemies a very nice quote. He says, I quote, “Unlimited tolerance for intolerance or intolerance ultimately leads to the disappearance of tolerance.”

Colleagues, do we solve the problem of women, who, for the wrong reasons, are locked in a jail of a burka and a nikab by banning it? Are we emancipating these women? Do we give these women full opportunities in our society? I will answer you very honestly: No. This is absolutely insufficient. There is much more needed to emancipate people. Much more information, engagement and opportunities for emancipation are needed. Men must also be given opportunities to emancipate them and free them from prejudice and misconceptions. There is much more work needed.

When it only remains with this law, with this prohibition we have insufficiently included our responsibility. This law is a beginning and not an end point. It is the beginning of giving opportunities to women who today do not get these opportunities. I would like to call on behalf of my group to do more in this regard than just install this ban.

However, this prohibition is also necessary. It is drawing a line. It is to make clear what we stand for, what our society, modernity and the Enlightenment stand for. It is also a houvast offer. It is creating freedom. It is with open vision to say what we stand for.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. This clothing that isolates and oppresses poses problems of safety and conviviality of the public space. But it is above all the disgusting sign of the greatest oppression of which some women are still victims. This is absolutely clear and cannot be tolerated. Therefore, we will vote in favour of the prohibition of wearing the full veil on public roads.

It is possible that, for some women, this ban leads to an even greater inability to leave their home. It is therefore important that at the communal level and in the neighborhoods, contact actions are carried out with women who are known to be locked in their home by their husband or family if they do not wear this full veil. These contacts are necessary in order to avoid too much loneliness, too much restraint on family life.

These are specialized social services capable of intervening with tact and professionalism that will have to try these contacts with women and their families.

That said, it should be remembered that, fortunately, this issue concerns only a very small number of women in Belgium. Moreover, the images we receive daily of the Arab Spring, whether bloody or imprints of freedom and hope, really show us very few women in burqa, but rather people dressed almost like you and me.

We will vote on this text, but our vote will not be unanimous. We would have really wished that the opinion of the State Council would be sought in order to ensure the proportionality of this general prohibition measure with regard to the fundamental freedoms as enshrined in Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

In the absence of this opinion, members of our group will feel in their soul and conscience that they will not be able to vote for this widespread ban, unlike the vast majority of us.

Mrs. Speaker, colleagues, no one will look strange when I say that the Flemish Interest is extremely pleased that here today a ban on the burka and the nikab is approved. As in many other cases, this proves the usefulness of a straight-line opposition party. Vlaams Belang was the trendsetter in this: our first proposal dates back to 1988. In 2004, the Vlaams Belang submitted a bill to incorporate in the Criminal Code a ban on the wear of face-covering clothing in public spaces and in public places. Other parties followed us, sometimes forced and a little against heug and meug.

I would like to refer here, like last year, when the proposal first appeared, to the sometimes rather hypocritical attitude of some parties such as Open Vld, which has now become a co-signator of the proposal, but whose minister Turtelboom responded last year to a question from colleague De Man that it did not seem appropriate to introduce a strict regulation, because the social debate on the matter is so diverse. It may be there, Mr. Somers.

Also the Ecolo/Groen!, which in the committee urged to postpone the discussion of this proposal in order to ask the State Council for an opinion on the matter and to organise hearings, finally approved the proposal. Of course, we all know why they want to postpone approval; a good understander only needs half a word.

Mrs Brems, your argument in the committee that the proposal would contribute to Islamophobia and that punishment would make the perpetrators of the victims, is, in our opinion, nonexistent. This is a denial of responsibility. The Muslim population in this country and elsewhere in the world needs a period of enlightenment instead of being held hostage by fundamentalist practices. And yes, they will mostly have to do it themselves, but we offer support where necessary.

Mrs. Speaker, colleagues, there are several reasons that can justify a prohibition on face-covering clothing, commonly referred to as the burka ban. One of them, and an important one, is the guarantee of public safety, one of the core tasks of government. Wearing a burka or nikab causes problems related to verbal and non-verbal communication, regarding identification, recognizability and even road safety. The guarantee of public safety is, of course, one of the core tasks of the government and therefore only if the prohibition is perfectly justified and the time to withdraw the decision to the municipal authorities and put it to the government, so now has come.

One of the most widely used counterarguments is the concept of religious freedom. However, it should be taken into account that the freedom of life-vision is not absolute – this has been said here several times – and that other provisions of the Constitution and universal legislation, such as the European Convention on Human Rights, must also be respected.

For example, the European Convention on Human Rights literally provides for the possibility to include in law restrictions on religious freedom when such restrictions can contribute to public security, the protection of public order, health, morality or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This was also stated in the recommendations of the Council of Europe.

The Flemish Interest very explicitly opposes the so-called religious arguments that justify the wear of a face-covering veil. Contrary to what some argue, a veil or a burka is not just a lap of fabric. Wearing such face-covering veils symbolizes the oppressed, passive, voiceless and invisible status of the woman. This is fundamentally contrary to the usual position of women.

Even though burka and nikab are not everywhere as numerous in our streets, they are proof of the growing radicalization and fundamentalism among the Muslim population in the Western world. Research also shows that three-quarters of Muslim women who wear a veil, burqa or nikab are forced to do so by their spouse or family. There is ⁇ social pressure. Women around the world struggle daily to get out of the burka’s yoke. We are confident that this proposal will help in their emancipation struggle.

Colleagues, summarizing, face-covering clothes or burkas and nikabs are a symbol of submission, of inequality between male and female, between believers and non-believers. They are the symbol of the we-to-side thinking and of the self-selected detachment. They are a provocation to the free West.

It is the proof of the failed integration and the manifest reluctance of some of the immigrants to adapt to our society, to our customs, to our norms and values.

The ban, which will undoubtedly be passed here today, will benefit the emancipation and assimilation of these women.

The hypocritical attitude of some parties in this matter will not prevent them from taking a courageous and necessary action. The proposal was already unanimously supported in the committee.

If soon a large majority of the House unanimously presses the green buttons, the burka ban will apply in this country thanks to the pioneering role of the Flemish Interest.

If the vote was unanimous in the committee, the debate was not neglected. We already held them a year ago. I’m saying this because some might think it’s a discussion in a pot-to-pot spoon. The least we can say is that this is not the case and that every parliamentary has been able to work, dialogue and debate this proposal.

I would like to emphasize what motivates my group to move forward towards this legislative change. There is an important question, which also arises by certain associations, which must be answered: will this provision limit the exercise of fundamental freedoms? The exercise of fundamental freedoms is an important thing, whether it is freedom to go and come, whether it is freedom of expression, whether it is freedom of religion, etc.

It is important to remember that the freedom to go and come on the public road is a fundamental principle. You know, the CDH had chosen, for this reason, another legal path, that of a specific law that reaffirmed this fundamental freedom while restricting it and imposing that any person who is or moves on the public road can be recognized or identified.

If freedoms are fundamental, no freedom is absolute, simply because it is important not to harm the rights and freedoms of others. The lawmaker must therefore ensure the reconciliation of the different freedoms. The exercise is not necessarily easy, but that’s what we’ve been trying to do. It is the responsibility of the legislator to ensure the preservation of certain values and certain social imperatives.

In order for a society to exist, it must first and foremost be possible to create a social link. And what makes living together, of course, is the fact of being able to identify with each other. In this sense, the wear of the full veil, but also the wear of any other accessory that would completely hide the face, means, in some way, an end of non-receiving to any human exchange. This is contrary to the way we conceive of living together in Belgium.

There may be other arguments: that of public security. I spoke about this in a committee; that of the dehumanization of women. In fact, wearing the burqa is often the most visible manifestation of other violent violations of human rights, whether it is the right to education, the right to freedom of expression, the right to dispose of the body.

For these women, everything remains to be done. Let us not believe that this bill and this law that will most ⁇ be passed soon will free some of these women from the yoke they may suffer. In this regard, a support, accompanying, educational work is important. We need to continue and intensify again and again.

On the legal level, one can of course discuss at will the framework and the legal path that would be most appropriate. This framework, and the discussion around this framework, is not simple. A year ago, we had already reworked the proposal by introducing a series of amendments; I think the current framework is appropriate. Certainly, only the law can bring restrictions to the freedom of movement in a democratic society. It must be reaffirmed with force.

I also reaffirm here that, in such fundamental principles, there is a principle of equality before the law for all persons residing in Belgium. The recent judgment of the Etterbeek Police Court, if I am not mistaken, also demonstrates, if necessary, that municipal regulations cannot validly resolve such a problem. This is especially true when you see that in the Brussels Region, there is everything and its opposite. Some municipalities completely prohibit it, others prohibit it at certain times and others even allow it. It was important to have an equal law for all.

We have long exchanged the various arguments. We have to go forward. This is the role and responsibility of politicians. We must assume these responsibilities. Every person on the public road must be able to be recognized and identified. It is a fundamental question about how we conceive our living together and our model of society.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and belief. That is a fundamental right. However, we have already said it in other debates: no right is absolute. When in our streets people walk around in all-covering clothes because of their beliefs, the interaction between people becomes more difficult and the coexistence becomes much more difficult. The appearance of such clothes is therefore not something innocent.

As Greens, we stand for a society where open communication and interaction are the norm, a diverse society where people do not live side by side but with each other.

Although in fact it is only a handful of people, it is important for us to indicate that we are not advocates of such a way of life. After all, it changes not only our street image but also the atmosphere in those streets. We do not want to evolve into such a society, we agree on that. It is important to give a clear signal. The question is how we can ensure that these phenomena disappear.

That means that those who want to act through legislation must answer two things.

In the case of a free choice, we must ask ourselves what causes women to wear such a piece of clothing and thus isolate themselves from our society. Where does this alienation come from?

In the case of coercion, we must ask ourselves how this bill can help women who are oppressed to get out of that coercion.

The bill that is presented today punishes those who wear such a piece of clothing. Colleagues, although we agree in principle with the need to combat these phenomena, the Greens wonder whether there is no paradox in the present law. For although everyone here indicates – including us – to want to act from an emancipatory reflex, the letter of the law appears to be one that punishes the bearer of it. In case of coercion, then the one who is under pressure will be fined again. This is strange, this is counterproductive.

Colleagues, in precarious discussions like this, we must be 100% sure of our piece. We must be sure of the intended goals. It is in this context that we asked for hearings in the committee, and an opinion from the State Council. We deeply regret that this important question has been wiped out of the table so slightly and so quickly.

I think we should think about this serious side effect.

For while every green person dreams of a society without such clothing, we also dream of a society without oppression for women and punishing women who have already been oppressed. The question is how this goal is best achieved.

On how we best ⁇ that goal, opinions differ within the population, among human rights organizations and civil society, and also within the Green Group.

The proposal presented today can therefore only be a first signal that other initiatives need to follow urgently. From the reality of those two hundred women who today wear the nikab in our country, we must dare to draw back and forward the broader context of the position of women. It should be our goal today not only to act symbolically and with loud words towards that group alone, but to systematically and continuously direct our attention to women in our society who are victims of oppression and abuse. Next to those two hundred women, there is a terrifying high figure of one in four women falling down the stairs, an euphemism for a group that has to undergo a range in all layers of society ranging from severe abuse to psychological pressure. Therefore, we need to act, much more urgently than we are aware today.

We must address today and tomorrow with equal unanimity the priorities of living, working and education for the vulnerable groups in our society in the various parliaments, the subordination and discrimination that is still a reality for minority groups, women, holebies and immigrants, and thus assume our responsibility to ensure that people – not a few hundred, but hundreds of thousands – are not alienated or excluded from our society.

I hope that all those on the right side who want to proceed without the advice of the State Council will so quickly and promptly support the measures on practical tests, proportional representation, equal opportunities and diversity submitted by our group and that they do not delay or delay the matter in this regard, because the statistics in that field have been speaking more than booklets for decades.

Madam the President, dear colleagues, through this law, which prohibits the wear of any clothes that completely or primarily hide the face, there is a bigger issue than the words used to qualify this proposal.

In fact, it is about bringing a legal solution to the problem of wearing the burqa or niqab within the Belgian society. It would ⁇ have been more appropriate to title this proposal more clearly by avoiding hypocrisy, but that is not the main thing.

You know, I am in favor of a total secularization of the state, as well as a perfect equality between men and women. It is therefore with an uncovered joy – this is rare in this parliament – that I welcome this bill that I will support at the vote.

But let me take advantage of this discussion to justify my position and that of my party since I was unable to do so during the previous legislature. Without a doubt, and this position is widely supported by the Belgian population, the burqa poses a problem and is characterized by four findings; I quickly develop them.

First, the burqa is a real insult to the values of the Belgian state. Indeed, in our society, religious beliefs have always worked well with respect for their neighbor. A majority of Belgians agree that religion must belong to the private and intimate sphere of each of us.

Prohibiting burqa or niqab, therefore, is to fight, with firmness, against a nauseous radical Islamism that completely distorts the message of Islam. Indeed, the burqa is not part of any Muslim dress code; Islamist integrists have simply diverted it to serve their cause. The vast majority of Muslims are opposed to burqa and niqab.

For my part, I am a supporter of a progressive, integrated Islam that accepts the rules of Belgian society and respects our values. I, on the other hand, with all my strength oppose religious radicalism, which seeks to impose, against and against everything, precepts of another age or barbaric traditions. As the saying goes, “In Rome, do like the Romans.” The quote attributed to St. Ambrose continues as follows: “Wherever you are, respect local usage if you do not want to be scandalous to anyone.”

The second finding is that the burqa is an insult to the female condition. The woman to whom the burqa or niqab is forcibly inflicted is almost inaccessible and thus de facto excluded from society. His civilian existence is completely denied.

The insult is also not to listen, but well, we get used to it!

When one is locked behind walls, even if they are fabricated, that our rights are denied and that one has no chance of getting out of them one day, this is simply called to be in prison, a perpetual prison whose prisoners are the husbands or the integrist imams. By prohibiting the wear of the burqa or niqab, it is a true act of liberation that we put forward.

I would like to read in this sense a statement from Fadela Amara, president of “Ni putes ni soumises” and former secretary of state in France. She said: “The purpose of wearing burqa or niqab is to stifle fundamental freedoms as well as to seize the oppression of women, their enslavement and their humiliation. The burqa represented not only a piece of fabric but the political manipulation of a religion that reduces women into slavery and goes against the principle of equality between men and women."

It is therefore necessary to bring down the masks (this is the case to say), not under the cover of a good conscience or a philosophical-sentimentalist discourse, but rather to make triumph the essential values of our society which are equality between men and women and the secularization of public space.

The third finding we can formulate is that the burqa represents a threat to public order. To hide his identity in this way, of course, poses practical problems beyond ethical or moral considerations. As mentioned by Mr. Bacquelaine in his intervention, would you let a person in burqa look for children at the exit of school without knowing what is their real identity and whether the children go well with their mother. This is only an obvious example, as one can imagine that such clothing is used by malicious people to commit theft or acts of violence. Basically, within the public space, each of us must be identifiable, not only by respect but also for obvious issues of security and public order.

Finally, last note, the burqa is a barrier to integration, a refusal to share with the other and a denial of citizenship. In fact, communication, integration and sharing necessarily go through an identification of the person with whom one wants to get in contact. Without it, any contact is impossible.

The burqa depersonalizes the woman and takes away her humanity by making her marginal. It’s like someone told him, “With this dress, you’re no longer identifiable, you’re no longer anyone, you don’t have your place in the civil space.”

You will have understood that this proposal must be welcomed favorably in order to triumph the values that are common to us.

It has not often happened to us, in this parliament, to have the opportunity to discuss this kind of topic which is often confiscated by the well-thinking left. Today, I have a clear feeling.

The [...]

For once, I agree with the PS, which is exceptional!

It is still that today, I have the clear feeling that we are making women “grilled” their rights and their freedom.

Henri Jeanson once said, “We have only one freedom, that of fighting for freedom.” This is what we are doing today, dear colleagues.

It remains to be hoped that there will be no dissolution of the Chambers before this proposal is finally adopted. I also hope that in the near future we will be able to vote on a law aiming at the prohibition of wearing the veil or any ostentatory religious sign in schools, in companies and public administrations as well as in all bodies of the state, in particular in the various parliaments. This is, in any case, the position that I will defend on behalf of my party, hoping that a broad support can be manifested in this matter.

I would like to thank you, even if the attention was not really present.

Mrs. Speaker, colleagues, the proposal we will vote on today will ensure that from now on we can be fined if we sit on the beach in our bikini wearing a large fashionable sunglasses and a large falling sunshine or cap. We will also be able to be fined if on our bike we pass the Brussels file with a dust mask to challenge the exhaust gases. Or if in the winter we pull our hats to just above our eyes and our shack to our nose. If our children are scout leaders, they will no longer be allowed to dress up with pearls, makeup and clown noses at a city game, because from now on, on penalty of fine, everyone will have to be recognizable at all times in the fully public space of the Belgian territory.

Such extensive limitation of individual freedom is not often encountered, colleagues, but it is of course not you to do that tens of thousands of sunglasses and shells. It is, of course, about the estimated two hundred Muslim women who wear a face-covering veil in our country, or rather, who wore such a veil, because almost everywhere where such a veil has been signaled has been a local police ban in force for a while to prohibit it.

It is not about us and our children. Imagine yourself . It is, of course, about them, the other, the very visible, very different.

Colleagues, you resolutely oppose the views of both national and international human rights guards, namely Amnesty International – you have all received the letter –, Human Rights Watch, the League for Human Rights, the Human Rights Commissioner of the Council of Europe and a unanimous resolution of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

It is claimed that this ban is intended to counter the oppression of women. Well, I’ve been a female rights activist all my adult life and I tell you that the idea that one can liberate women by prohibiting them things has been rejected for decades. We hear this only when it comes to so-called non-Western women. Apparently, we find it difficult to consider such women as autonomous individuals.

The applicants automatically assume that women who wear a face veil are forced to do so. Nevertheless, all empirical studies show that a significant group does this by free choice and that, which surprised me too, their spouses often refuse to face it. For such women, the hypothesis of female oppression does not come up.

The sight of women choosing to go on the streets blindly disturbs us, at least most people, but that is not a sufficiently serious ground to raise such an extensive restriction of their fundamental freedoms.

If we prohibit everything that disturbs us to other people through the criminal law, it will no longer take us all to stay inside.

Mrs. Brems, can I ask you a question, just to be able to follow the debate?

Explain the point of view of Ecolo-Groen!, from Green! Or by Mrs. Brems? Or should we play the game “which of the three” to know who is speaking on behalf of your group? We already have three members of Ecolo-Green! have heard.

Mr. Deleuze was very clear, but ⁇ you did not listen properly.

He interpreted the position of the majority and said that there are some people with a different opinion. We are a party with free speech. That also exists. There are people with different opinions, like me. Are you already against free speech?

I would like to talk about the most important thing, namely that women are obliged to wear a face veil when they want to go outside. When it comes to this, I think it shows most clearly how problematic this bill is. What will we do with this law with respect to these women who are victims of serious, horrible acts, acts that in themselves constitute violence against women? We will punish them. From these women, who are victims in the facts, we will make legal perpetrators. The French bourgeois law does the same, but at least it also punishes those who compel another to seal themselves. The Belgian law does not even do that and therefore does not even stop the appearance of really wanting to do something for these women.

If, as a result of this law, the women in question no longer come out, yet a reasonably probable hypothesis, then the purpose of the law has been achieved. I think that is degoutant. Where else in criminal law are victims made perpetrators?

This law does not only nothing about the rights of women to advance you, but has bovendien the potential for the situation of women to worsen you. That is why I will oppose. (The Rumor)

A little silence please.

This debate seems to be a problem for some colleagues. I suggest them to change jobs!

This has already happened last year, but we can start again!

Are you speaking or presiding?

I just wanted to tell you this. You have the word.

Mr. Speaker, like all here present, I find it regrettable that people are evolving in the public space with an integral veil. I consider it legitimate that the State defines certain places, certain circumstances where the covering of the face is prohibited for security reasons but I also believe that the text proposed for voting poses multiple problems.

The legal certainty of it seems to me ⁇ fragile, and the committee’s refusal to consult the Council of State, as with any bill, seems to me ⁇ regrettable for a text that affects the balance between fundamental freedoms.

The expressed concern for women’s rights seems to me to be incompatible with a text that defines clothing bans and proposes fines and prison sentences. If all forms of extremism, including religious extremism, are to be combated, the climate of debate, especially stigmatizing towards some Muslims, seems to me unsuitable for the construction of a living together balanced around human rights. This regrettable climate has led to refusing to hear Amnesty International, the League of Human Rights, the Vrouwen Overleg Komitee, the very interesting French arguments of the State Council as well as all those of a Caroline Fourest or representatives of French secularism gathered in the National Federation of Free Thought or even those of French police unions on the uselessness, then on the inapplicability of the law.

For these various reasons, I will abstain from the proposed text.

Ladies and gentlemen, I will briefly explain. After 12 speakers, there is very little to add. Nevertheless, I would like to add a few things that may be somewhat contradictory.

Unlike Ms. Brems, I can say that the burka ban is a liberation. It is a release from the prison of textile. Let’s be honest, such garments are in principle the body garment of freedom.

The burka limits public security, integration and emancipation. It also limits the opportunities on the labour market of its carriers. It is depersonalization and dehumanization of the individual.

There is no religious argument, neither for the nikab nor for the burka. If we look at the history of this matter, we can very well see that the obligation to wear the burka only came into existence in Afghanistan in 1919. Its introduction had little to do with religious beliefs. She had everything to do with a jealous king who decided the women.

The second, important element I would like to point out here is the title of the present bill. On this point, I can give Ms. Brems the right. If we see the bill as a ban on clothes that hide the face, such a huge flag lies over a huge load.

There is hypocrisy about the fact that this is about the ban of the burka and the nikab and not about hiding the face. As my colleague has stated, I will not talk about the big sunshine, the big sunglasses, and some sunscreen on top. For example, I will talk about a worker on the street with a dust mask on, or about a motorcyclist who also wears a shell.

Why do we show our identity shame again and are afraid to call things as they are? There is a burka ban and a nicab ban. We need to change the title of the current bill. Let us not speak in general terms and leave the case open, which will require processes and jurisprudence to work out the uncertainty.

Therefore, I maintain the two amendments I have submitted to the committee. In the aforementioned amendments, I clearly ask to change the title of the present bill into what it should actually be. It is, as I have also heard in the previous twelve speeches, about wearing the burka and the nikab.