Proposition 53K1928

Projet de loi portant assentiment au Protocole n° 12 à la Convention de sauvegarde des droits de l'homme et des libertés fondamentales, fait à Rome le 4 novembre 2000.

General information ¶

Submitted by

The Senate

Submission date

Aug. 23, 2011

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

European Convention on Human Rights anti-discriminatory measure international agreement human rights

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Voted to reject

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 ¶

Jan. 12, 2012 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The rapporteur is Mr De Croo. He is not present. Reference is made to the written report.

Ratification of the Protocol No. Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights requires some additional commentary, in order to point out its importance.

The Council of Europe, which was established shortly after the Second World War, as you know, aims not only to ensure a closer cooperation between the European States, but also, ⁇ given the atrocities that occurred during the Second World War, to protect human rights.

In order to promote the protection of human rights in Europe, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms was concluded by the Council of Europe on 4 November 1950. The Convention deals with civil and political fundamental rights. The rights provided for in this Convention shall be granted to anyone who is within the jurisdiction of a Contracting Party. Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Since the 1960s, studies and proposals have been made in the Council of Europe in order to ⁇ extensive protection against discrimination. As there were ⁇ many signs of an increase in anti-Semitism, racism and intolerance in Europe, protection against racial discrimination has also gained more attention.

There was a summit in October 1993 which led to the adoption of a declaration and an action plan to combat xenophobia and to combat intolerance, anti-Semitism and racism. The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance was established. It is in this committee that the text of Protocol No. 12 was prepared and eventually developed.

On 1 April 2005, new non-discrimination provisions under the European Convention on Human Rights came into force. At that date, the Protocol No. Article 12 of the ECHR has legal force in several Member States of the Council of Europe.

Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights already recognised the fundamental right to remain free from discrimination. However, the prohibition of discrimination was not of a general nature but only applied to the rights and freedoms, primarily civil and political rights, mentioned in the ECHR. In order to remove this restriction, the Council of Europe agreed in 2000 on a general prohibition of discrimination, which is thus what is stipulated in Protocol No 12.

The Protocol imposes a negative obligation on Member States, namely the general prohibition of discrimination against individuals. It does not contain a positive obligation for Member States to take measures to prevent or combat all cases of discrimination against individuals.

The Protocol is limited to cases of discrimination in the public sphere, so pure private matters are not covered. This is, of course, intended to avoid confusion with the right of the individual to respect for his private life, family and family life and, for example, also his home, his correspondence and others.

Since its entry into force, it has become easier to bring discrimination cases to the European Court of Human Rights. This means that this Protocol does not have real direct effects on the internal Belgian legal order but potentially on the treatment of any cases against Belgium before the European Court of Justice.

Our group thus considers that it is a very important signal, namely that every, and indeed every, unjustified discrimination constitutes a violation of human rights. That is why our group has called on this Chamber to ratify this protocol through the resolution adopted on 20 July 2011, in which a large number of political groups participated. It has also been seen by the then Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr Vanackere, as a signal to continue working on the ratification process in ongoing matters. We are therefore grateful and delighted that we are able to complete this ratification today, within the limits of the resolution approved in this Chamber, namely by the end of February of this year.

Finally, I hope that the government and this Parliament will also ratify two other protocols as soon as possible. This has also been the subject of resolutions in this Chamber, adopted on 20 July 2011. The Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. To do so, the Minister of Foreign Affairs will have to receive a consent file from the Federal Public Service Justice. We will therefore ask the Minister of Justice to work on the consent file.

The second resolution concerned the ratification of the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. For this purpose, the Minister of Foreign Affairs must obtain a consent file from the Federal Public Service Employment. Therefore, we will also ask the Minister of Labour to work on this consent file so that we can also ratify these two other important human rights standards in our country, often many years after the entry into force of these protocols.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, this is another clock in the name of free speech, as long as it can. Vlaams Belang will vote against this bill for three relevant reasons.

First, such protocols that we must ratify here serve only the left-wing politically correct unity thought and consensus democracy. Here in Belgium there is already a broad anti-discrimination legislation in force and that is, I believe, more than sufficient. In the past, it has been used and even created to try to make a political direction mouth-death in the ordinary way. Now, we are putting another tooth for the future through European law.

The second reason is the extension of competence which is once again granted to the European Court of Human Rights. The Court is becoming more and more a “gouvernement des juges”. Thus, it undermines the yet legitimate laws and policies of national parliaments and governments. The Court is in their place. That is unlawful.

I would like to remind you of the joint declaration of 47 Member States that complained to the European Court of Justice in April 2011. I would also point out the clear version of an eminent lawyer, Marc Bossuyt, whom we still know from the High Commissioner for Refugees and the Constitutional Court. So not the least.

Recently, Vlaams Belang has submitted a resolution in the Chamber – and which has been taken into consideration – which accuses the nefaste role and the self-determined action of the European Court of Human Rights, and which the European Court wishes to reiterate in this regard. We are ⁇ not alone on this point.

Last but not least, this Treaty opens a backdoor for the French speakers to turn another round on the minority treaty, for the benefit of the French speakers in the Flemish Rand around Brussels, and ⁇ throughout Flemish-Brabant, or who knows far beyond, throughout Flanders.

Let it be clear, the minority treaty cannot and should not serve this purpose. I call on the Flemish parties: give the Maingains, the Clerfayts and the Thiérys, and all French speakers in their political drive, not the opportunity to compare themselves with Bretons or Basks on the basis of the minority treaty. This is not the purpose of the minority treaty.

I call on all Flemish parties, including N-VA, to respect human rights for what they are, to let human rights maintain their sharpness and not make the strategy of the bone axle out of it, as is happening today again. Then we will wound what we want to protect and nurture, namely democracy and freedom of expression.

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. We look everyone right in the eyes and say strongly and out of full conviction no to this text.

Mr. Speaker, the last group we need to learn from when it comes to human rights is Mr. Schoofs’s group.

I would like to reject that: the last one of whom we should receive lessons in democracy is the group of Mr. Tuybens. His party at that time began to exclude us from the whole political class that continues to violate democracy and freedom of expression.

We are democratically elected, Mr. Tuybens. You too, and I respect you in that right, but you do not respect me in that right. Please don’t give me lessons!

The text that we want to ratify today is the 12th Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. In the meantime, there is also a thirteenth and fourteenth protocol that our country has already ratified. The 12th Protocol dates back to the year 2000. Whether we will effectively ratify it this year is not yet certain, because it is also in the Flemish Parliament for a while to collect dust.

It is not clear why it took so long before we could vote on this. It will ⁇ not be because here we all share the opinion of the previous speaker. This Protocol does not grant new rights to the people on Belgian territory; it only enhances the legal protection. It is about reaffirming equality before the law and the prohibition of discrimination. Under the European Convention on Human Rights, there was already a prohibition of discrimination, but that was limited to the exercise of the other rights contained in that convention. Now that is disconnected.

This means a large extension of the scope of the scope, which primarily affects the socio-economic field: discrimination in the workplace, discrimination in the housing market, and so on, of course, the areas where discrimination is most common. But in Belgium we do not need that protocol to be protected against discrimination in these and other areas: we have the same rule in the Constitution, we have an anti-discrimination legislation, we have the direct effect of other treaty provisions such as the United Nations human rights conventions that already contain the same rule and which citizens could already appeal to the Belgian courts.

What this protocol adds is to situate in the scenario in which someone who considers that he or she becomes a victim of discrimination does not get equal in the Belgian courts.

Once the Protocol for Belgium comes into force, those persons will be able to have an additional emergency line, namely the possibility to go to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which will then be able for all cases of discrimination.

For the Court, the Twelfth Protocol is an opportunity to add a dimension to its jurisprudence. Since the Court is only competent in civil and political rights, it has hardly been able to play its leading role in setting standards in cases where injustice involves disregarding economic and social rights. With the 12th Protocol, it will also be able to develop a number of standards in this area.

In summary, colleagues, we are building a European order of the rule of law today, and that is a very good thing.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, to imagine that the FDF would not intervene on such an important bill would be naive! It must be acknowledged that, equally, I could very well fit in the remarks of my colleagues of the sp.a and of Groen!

On the other hand, I really have difficulty accepting the remarks that have been held here by my colleague from Vlaams Belang. This never only comforts me in the idea that the Vlaams Belang is probably not a party with which one can expect to make Belgium take advantage of this momentum of democracy that it needs to allow everyone to express themselves. Fortunately, there are some interventions from Europe.

I would like to continue in Dutch. Colleague of the Flemish Interest, I do not claim that I am perfectly bilingual. The fact that someone is more or less bilingual does not mean that one is respected in Flemish-Brabant or Flanders. I have to confirm that sadly enough. I find this unfortunate and antidemocratic. I cannot comment on your view of things.

Personally, I am delighted with the achievement of this project because it ultimately concretizes a dossier for which one of my colleagues, Éric Libert, had already intervened at his time. There is a great deal of time! The entry into force of this Protocol No. 12, which will follow the ratification of this text since, obviously, nothing is opposed to it in our internal legal order, will, in my opinion, constitute an important conquest in the field of protection of human rights and minorities in particular in our country. Belgium can be proud of it!

This Protocol is a mixed treaty that needed the approval of all our parliamentary assemblies in order to be ratified. This is now done because our assembly was the last to make this act.

Protocol No. 12 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms aims to promote equality for all through the collective guarantee of a general prohibition of discrimination. The current provisions of this Convention are of limited scope because they prohibit discrimination only when it applies to any of the rights recognized by the Convention. Protocol No. 12 removes this limitation and guarantees that no one may be subject to any form of discrimination by any public authority and for any reason.

Protocol No. 12 entered into force on 1 April 2005 in the 18 countries that have already ratified it. I think of our neighbors, the Netherlands and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.

Although our country already has a law implementing the principle of non-discrimination in a very advanced way, the ratification of this Protocol seems to us essential since the principle of non-discrimination now falls under the supervision of the European Court of Human Rights. This is probably where things can change. The general rule of the prohibition of discrimination contained in this Protocol could thus be invoked, for example, and not unlikely to my colleague of the N-VA, to defend the rights of minorities in Belgium by allowing in particular to combat linguistic discrimination in teaching or in many other fields.

This ratification would provide the necessary leverage to sanction practices such as those exercised by the municipal authorities of Grimbergen, which incited citizens to denounce any person who spoke in the public space in a language other than Dutch. I repeat that this can be sanctioned in the long run, which seems to us fundamental given the democratic vision that Belgium wants to give to other European countries.

The Flemish authorities of other municipalities of the periphery adopt behaviors more or less similar to those advocated by the authorities of Grimbergen. I think more specifically of Overijse and Hoeilaart, where it is known that bilingual signs were suspended by municipal authorities simply because an inscription, even English-speaking, appeared there. It can be understood that, knowing that initiatives like these have never been sanctioned by the Flemish government, this bill will bring things back in place.

In parallel with this ratification, it is important for the Government to promptly implement Article 29 of the Act of 10 May 2007 on combating certain forms of discrimination by designating or quickly establishing an independent and impartial body competent for discrimination on the basis of language.

Finally, the federal government and those of federal entities should also continue their respective efforts in the fight against discrimination in education, in the fields of employment and housing, as well as against racism, especially in political discourse, as has been the case lately.

I dare believe that Protocol No. 12 will be a positive legal instrument to assert among the citizens of our country the right to equality and non-discrimination and the right to respect for all minorities, whatever they are.

I would like to comment on what the colleague said.

Without any irony, I can say that I am pleased with his presentation. After all, he immediately provided proof of what I just said in the speech about the danger that threatens Flanders.

The protocol will indeed be used and abused by the FDF and its broad supporters to step in Flanders the territoriality principle with feet, to step in the language boundary with feet and to step in the rights of the Flemish, who are slowly being minimized in their own municipalities.

Every right-wing Flaming has understood the message today. There are plenty of reasons to vote against this, thanks to the FDF.

Mr. Speaker, I will have to react to what my colleague from Vlaams Belang has said.

He apparently represents an undemocratic party. Everyone knows that.

I will be clear: from what you just said, we can clearly see that you have no respect for the French speakers of our country. This is a real catastrophe!