Projet de loi adaptant la loi du 15 février 1993 créant un Centre pour l'Egalité des chances et la lutte contre le racisme en vue de le transformer en un Centre fédéral pour l'analyse des flux migratoires, la protection des droits fondamentaux des étrangers et la lutte contre la traite des êtres humains.
General information ¶
- Submitted by
- PS | SP the Di Rupo government
- Submission date
- June 4, 2013
- Official page
- Visit
- Status
- Adopted
- Requirement
- Simple
- Subjects
- foreign national equal treatment trafficking in human beings migration racism
Voting ¶
- Voted to adopt
- Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR
- Voted to reject
- VB
Party dissidents ¶
- Alexandra Colen (VB) 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 ¶
July 16, 2013 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)
Full source
President André Flahaut ⚙
Mrs Marie-Martine Schyns, rapporteur, refers to the written report.
There are two registered: Mrs. Dumery, who is not there at the moment, and Mrs. Pas.
Barbara Pas VB ⚙
Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, we are discussing today a bill that makes one unnecessary center two unnecessary centers. So there is another center, a typical Belgian solution that once again symbolizes the split of the country.
We will have a new inter-federal center, with the task of fighting discrimination and racism. In addition, we will have a federal center, with the tasks of analyzing migration flows, protecting the fundamental rights of foreigners and fighting human trafficking.
Mrs. Minister, you have already admitted in the committee that “protecting the fundamental rights of foreigners” is a very broad description of the task, but that you do not want to get into it for the sake of all sorts of balances.
The predecessor, the current institution CGKR, has not brought the integration of immigrants any step closer. The Centre was initially established to combat the Flemish Bloc. I would like to briefly describe where it comes from.
The CGKR also had a precursor, the Royal Commissioner for Migration Policy, which was established in 1989. The reason for its creation was the fact that the Vlaams Blok at the 1988 municipal council elections suddenly achieved a fair success.
That Royal Commissariat disappeared after four years. It was established only for a limited period of time. The Flemish Block did not disappear at all, quite the opposite. Thus, the law of 15 February 1993 provided for a substitute for that Royal Commissariat, the Centre for Equal Opportunities and for Anti-Racism.
The least we can say about the past years in which that Centre has worked is that its operation is contrary to the democratic principles. As a government agency, the CGKR has never taken an objective or reticent stance, but on the contrary.
The Centre for Equal Opportunities and for the Combating of Racism has mixed with the regularity of the clock in the political debate. That was definitely not the official intention.
I will give a few examples that prove this.
A first example is the reason for creation. The Centre has regularly fought the position names of the Flemish Bloc. This has been openly acknowledged by the Centre. Apparently, a government service may fight a part of the public opinion, fight a political party that is democratically represented in Parliament.
A second concrete example is that the CGKR at the time lobbied for the controversial voting right for non-European foreigners. This is also a direct interference in political policy.
A third, more recent, example is that the CGKR opposed the stricter conditions concerning family reunification.
These examples show that the CGKR is purely engaged in politics, while that should not be at all. It is up to Parliament to conduct such debates.
In addition, the CGKR can become a civil party in racist processes and can also file a complaint against alleged acts of racism. In other words, the CGKR can emerge into a kind of public prosecution of well-thinking in order to detect real or alleged dissidence against political well-thinking and to squeeze in the germ. In recent years, we have been able to establish the pure arbitrariness of whether or not the CGKR was a civil party. There was no clear vision there. Willfulness was at the forefront.
The biggest obstacle for the split into two centers has not yet been answered: who pays what? The distribution key has yet to be defined. Everything needs to be negotiated and thrown into a cooperation agreement.
Just as the Director of the CGKR was previously appointed by a royal decree, so will be the case for the members of the board of directors of the new centers. There is no guarantee that these dumb political nominees will suddenly act objectively.
We have struggled with the current CGKR since the establishment. Therefore, it will not surprise you that we will not support the transformation of one superfluous center into two superfluous centers.
I am not surprised at all that the traditional parties support that money-sweeping illness, but I am surprised by the colleagues of the N-VA, because they have demonstrated that wisdom apparently does not come with the years.
Colleagues of the N-VA, when you were still in the opposition a few years ago, you were still in favor of abolishing this Center. I quote your current chairman on the Center, a quote from 2010 or 2011: “Abolition because it is totally meaningless and because the Center constitutes a permanent threat to the right to free expression.” I can’t understand why you suddenly change your mind.
Flanders are not waiting for a Flemish CGKR. Flanders do not need a politically correct thought police.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude with the words of President Truman: “In a free country we punish men for the crimes they commit, never for the opinions they hold.” We will vote against this bill.