Proposition 53K0412

Proposition de résolution visant à lutter contre les mutilations génitales féminines.

General information ¶

Authors

MR Corinne De Permentier, Denis Ducarme, Olivier Maingain, Damien Thiéry

Submission date

Oct. 19, 2010

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

resolution of parliament women's rights sexual mutilation

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

March 3, 2011 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I refer to this in my written report.

Mr. Speaker, my dear colleagues, I come to defend before you the proposal for resolution No. 412 on the fight against female genital mutilation. This text presented by the MR group was voted unanimously in the Committee on Foreign Relations. The reason for this is simple: the proposal submitted to you in the plenary session is universal, both by the values it carries and by the rejection of what it condemns.

The values transmitted are as follows: physical integrity, child protection, gender equality and health protection, of course. It rejects the following behaviors: medieval practices, unnecessary suffering confined to torture, rejection of the woman’s personality and patriarchal domination.

To be more precise, female genital mutilation undermines a number of principles to which we are all committed: the physical integrity of human beings to which the practices denounced in this proposal for a resolution constitute a major offence; gender equality – this practice only affects women and is intended to deprive them of sexual pleasure –; the rejection of medieval practices – female genital mutilation is the legacy of a religious conception that no longer corresponds to modern morals and behaviors and whose physical and psychological consequences are condemned by the entire medical world.

These horrible practices performed by certain persons should not be considered acceptable on the grounds that they are the result of a cultural difference to the point that they are exempt from any criticism. Likewise, it is important that these disgusting behaviors cannot be subject to reasonable accommodation. In this country, individuals have rights, the first of which is the protection of their physical integrity. No cultural or religious values may come to prejudice it.

Furthermore, in the perspective of our country’s diplomatic action and its Development Cooperation, it is necessary not to sink into Angelism. Respect for the cultural and philosophical values of others cannot conceal the fact that a human being remains a human being, that the suffering that a girl suffers due to genital mutilation is universal, and that we cannot close our eyes to practices exercised in other countries under the pretext that difference must be tolerated.

Tolerance involves the need to respect everything that is different to us. However, in this case, this difference does not exist. Female genital mutilation is a horrifying practice in terms of human suffering and regardless of the cultural, national or ethnic origin of the girl who is subject to it.

In addition, the complications that this leads to the health of young girls jeopardize their future, with human, social and economic development dependent on an improvement in the condition of women. To advocate for the suppression of genital mutilation wherever it is practiced is also a matter of economic development.

I therefore request, dear colleagues, your support for the vote, which will be held in the plenary session on this proposal for a resolution.

Mr. Speaker, the genital mutilation of girls is a very harmful practice that is very difficult to eradicate. After decades of campaigns and a lot of legal prohibitions, this still exists. The Ecolo-Groen! group supports, of course, the promotion of the campaign against this. We have also recently submitted a resolution on this issue, which should facilitate detection and awareness in our own country.

In the resolution that presents, there is an element that we would like to see deleted. This is an amendment that I will briefly explain. It is about adding an opinion delict consisting of criminalizing pleas for genital mutilation. There are a number of opinion delicts in our legal system, each of which held an extensive debate in Parliament on the desirability of its introduction in the light of freedom of expression. That has not happened around this provision at all.

It cannot be the intention of adding to every crime an additional opinion delict that criminalizes advocacy for that crime. You can do it sometimes, you must do it sometimes, namely when a major social phenomenon occurs, when these pleasures are largely prevented and when one cannot combat the practice or the crime itself without addressing such pleasures as well. However, there is no evidence that this, when it comes to genital mutilation of women and girls, would be the case. Therefore, we propose to remove this provision.

On the other hand, we express our support for this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, the amendment of Mrs. Brems really hits me at the chest. Or should I say at this moment that I feel like a woman on the cross? By depicting everything as an opinion delict, the entire resolution is actually outcast. One cannot defend ideals or ideas and then refuse to take action in them. The rejection of Article 2, as Ms. Brems intends, makes the entire resolution a loose declaration of intent. The adoption of the legal provision that criminalizes advocacy for genital mutilation of women or girls is an essential part of this resolution.

The N-VA will therefore vote against this amendment.

Mrs Demol, I congratulate you on your first intervention in this assembly. (Applause of Applause)

The practice of female genital mutilation is actually a very recent phenomenon in our society. This was spread here along with the influx of Islamic communities from the African continent. Instead of adjusting to society here, they have brought the cultures and traditions from their own country here. These traditions, however, do not fit in any Western view of human dignity, gender equality, and so on.

A few years ago there was consternation arising from figures published by the GAMS, an association of African women engaged in the fight against genital mutilation and the reception of victims.

Our criminal law already contains a provision that prohibits the practice of female genital mutilation. I have several times questioned the Ministers of Justice, Stefaan De Clerck and Jo Vandeurzen, about the succession of that article in the Criminal Code, but at that time they did not have a single figure on prosecution for the exercise of this practice. I am afraid that there is not much done on the legal level yet, but only in terms of reception and assistance.

It is a horrible and humiliating practice. I find it good that now, in addition to the Criminal Code and the campaign of Minister Milquet, also through a resolution from our Parliament, a strong signal is sent to those communities that such practices are unacceptable.

In the context of this, I find the amendment of Mrs. Brems actually misplaced. It is not about an opinion at all. They are incentives to inhuman behavior, of which women, especially young women, teenagers, young girls, are the victims. It is actually futile to try to combat the practice of genital mutilation if we do not at the same time make it clear to the men, to the religious leaders in those communities, that they must cease to demand that genital mutilation be carried out in order to make women part of their community. It just needs to be banned. One of the most important ways to do this is not just the ban, but the ban on its propagation by the leaders of the communities where the practice takes place.

Therefore, we vote against the amendment, but we strongly support the resolution.

I think the last two speakers are right. I do not understand why the second paragraph should be deleted. My group will not support this amendment.

I have a small formal comment. We ask – the House asks – the government to adopt a legal provision. We can do it ourselves, of course! If tomorrow we all together, across all the political groups, submit a bill that introduces a special article in the Criminal Code, then it is there. Parliament does not need to ask the government to submit a bill, if we are able to do so ourselves. This is just a technical comment.

In terms of content, we can absolutely support all points, from 1 to 10, of this resolution.

I would like to thank my colleagues for what I just heard. I agree with their analysis. The discussion took place in a very peaceful atmosphere. The amendment in question has been rejected and we will not resume the discussion now.

I think it is essential that this is included in our proposal for resolution. I wish that we can raise awareness of people who, within certain African, Muslim or other families, practice this kind of mutilation. We must be able to provide ourselves with a means of pressure, because, often, these people are impoverished and incited to do so by people who have authority over them, because of religion or for other reasons. For me, this has its whole basis, as my colleagues have just stated.

Mr. Speaker, for the sake of clarity, this is not about “incentives to”, which is stated in the resolution. It is about “apology”. If one wants to eliminate a practice such as genital mutilation, one must especially be able to stimulate cultural debates within the group concerned. There will be those there who, unfortunately, say from time to time that they feel that something is right. One must especially stimulate the opposing arguments against it and thus initiate that cultural change, so that one is efficiently engaged and has impact. It is, of course, only a resolution, which does not introduce a criminal provision.

As a professor of law, I have trouble when one talks about opinion delicts, that one does not at least make the balance with free expression.

Mr. Speaker, for our group, the amendment creates confusion and opens a debate that weakens the resolution. In our view, the resolution is sufficient for itself: the amendment is superfluous. We will vote against.