Proposition 53K1956

Proposition de loi abrogeant la loi du 30 juillet 1981 tendant à réprimer certains actes inspirés par le racisme ou la xénophobie.

General information ¶

Authors

VB Gerolf Annemans, Peter Logghe, Bert Schoofs

Submission date

Dec. 14, 2011

Official page

Visit

Status

Rejected

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

anti-discriminatory measure foreign national equal treatment racism racial discrimination criminal law xenophobia

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 ¶

May 2, 2013 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I refer to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that my group leader cannot hold this discourse, but well, I also did the discussion in the committee.

I do not have to make my speech long. This is a principle issue. I have been sitting in this Parliament for 14 years and I have experienced that the law on racism was amended seven times and that the Constitution was amended once, with the sole intention of hitting the then Flemish Bloc, against whom a procedure was then initiated before the court. The Flemish Bloc was eventually condemned after many five and six on the basis of this law that was amended seven times and the Constitution that was amended once. In many countries, politicians would feel substituting shame if they were to examine what the racism law actually meant.

Since that law is purely against our party, we want to see that law abolished. Many people are beaten to the ears with complaints about racism. The anti-discrimination law was later adopted. It had just a little less intention to hit our party, if I can speak from experience, but this law has not always proved workable.

Let it be clear, the law on racism came in response to the fact that a right-wing identity party arose in Belgium, and ⁇ in Flanders. Procedures have been conducted in many countries, but nowhere has it been so bad as in this State.

As a politician, I can keep it short. I made my statement. One thing I haven’t mentioned yet: freedom of expression. It is sacred, I think. It is an absolute right, it is a fundamental freedom, but in this country it is difficult to honor and recognize that.

As I said, there have been procedures in neighboring countries as well. There are processes in France. Even in Germany, where, given the past, it may be a little more understandable, because there arise certain parties that adhere to an ideology that has been accused of us but that we have never adhered to, absolutely not. If our people who are elected here are people who want to do politics in a very honourable and very diligent way.

I would also like to remind you that we have never dealt with the European Court of Human Rights. That is ⁇ not our best friend, when one sees what laws it strikes through the throat of certain countries to put certain fundamental rights and freedoms on the slope.

We have never faced the European Court of Justice as such.

The European Court of Human Rights also says that shocking and provocative can be. Actually, I am here today. It may be shocking or provocative for you that I come here to advocate the abolition of the law on racism, but that is my good right, a right that most of you here do not recognize.

It is truly regrettable that the freedom of expression, by which I was elected, by which people were elected in that cake point of this hemisphere, is very often, many times, stumbled. We have not neglected to abuse this House, this Parliament, for this purpose. The Parliament itself, this speech body, was abused to attack freedom of expression, even if it is shocking or provocative.

Let that be said. I would like to add this too. I have said it in the committee and I will do it here too. Racism as a concept of saying that another human being is inferior to anyone who inhabits this planet is indeed laughable. This is immoral and unethical.

We as Flemish nationalists can say that it is contrary to human dignity or to our pure nationalist vision to proclaim racism, to say that one person on this planet is inferior to the other.

Whether it’s the Kayapo Indians, the Inuit, tribes in Africa or nations in Southeast Asia or on European territory, all these people are part of a people. We respect these peoples and the right of self-determination of those peoples.

In other words, a people is like a mother. I will say to my people that they are the best in the world, just as I say to my own mother that she is the best in the whole world. Anyone who belongs to the Inuit can do so, a Kurd can do so, a Turk can do so, a Berber can do so, everyone can do so. That is the equality of peoples. This also applies to the equality of people. It is also that which is not recognized in this Parliament.

Especially in Flanders, if I can address my Flemish colleagues for a moment, the complex that is often left here to say “your own people first”, it is actually shameful. Go around the world. Ask people all over the world, “Which people are you most proud of?” They say that it is their own people. Is this chauvinism? may be. One can even condemn it from a certain ideology, but in any case one can be proud to belong to a people.

Of all the peoples of this planet, indeed, a very large number are discriminated, but no nation is discriminated by its own, what is called, elite as here in Flanders.

That is why I want Flemish colleagues and politicians and Flemish journalists to speak today and say that we as Flemish Belangers are proud of our people. We are ⁇ the most proud of our own people. We are not ashamed to be proud of our own people, because we believe that our people are the best of the whole world. And we think we can say this, just like any other people on this planet. That is why we are condemned. That is why we demand the abolition of that politically correct law, the so-called anti-racism law, which does nothing but restrict freedom of opinion.

I can start here today as I did in the committee and talk about the principle of legality, constitutionalism and the like. I will not do this. I will not rub those technical and legal elements under your nose. There are lawyers who are smarter than me and have written papers about it. They can explain this much better than me.

However, I would like to highlight one point, namely the Centre for Equal Opportunities and for Combating Racism. Allow me to speak in my personal name. I have never made a complaint about discrimination or racism. Some in my party do this. I respect this, but I myself will never do it. The result of it is clear. When such a complaint is launched by someone of the Flemish Interest, it is usually not honored. However, the center is there like the chickens to deal with Flemish Belangers when a judgment was made again.

I will give a concrete example. Flemish MP Frans Wymeersch was convicted by the court of first instance in Dendermonde for so-called racism in a publication of the Flemish Interest. The center was there like the chickens to persecute French Wymeersch and to set up a bourgeois party. In the first instance, a conviction followed and the center received satisfaction. This was published with a lot of poeha on the website of the center.

Meanwhile, tomorrow we are exactly three months away from the judgment in appeal, but until last week the conviction was still on the website of the Centre for Equal Opportunities and for the Fight against Racism. Any correctness – legal, political or ideological – or just politeness towards the person of Frans Wymeersch has not been spent on the center, because the outdated sentence is still on the site. However, if someone is released from racism – especially if it is a Flemish Interested – then the center suddenly silences in all languages and then you are even too lazy to adjust the website.

That was the statement I wanted to make today. Anyone who votes against the rejection of this bill can go to sleep with a peace of mind because it leaves behind the strut bird policy of the politically correct establishment. I wonder who has the courage today.