Proposition 53K2985

Projet de loi modifiant le Code d'instruction criminelle et la loi du 22 mars 1999 relative à la procédure d'identification par analyse ADN en matière pénale, en vue de créer une banque de données ADN "Personnes disparues".

General information ¶

Submitted by

The Senate

Submission date

May 24, 2012

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

DNA death database genetics relationship

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 ¶

Nov. 21, 2013 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I refer to this in my written report.

Mr. Speaker, this law aims to establish a DNA database for missing persons, with the necessary safeguards for privacy, which is important. This law also enters into the philosophy of the new DNA law. Until then no problem.

This is a bill of Senator Faes, already approved in the Senate and re-adopted in the House after amendment by the government, though in consultation with Senator Faes, which is highly appreciated. If it is good, we say it too. There was a constructive attitude and that can only be appreciated.

This proposal was supported by majority and minority, which shows that this is an important proposal with a significant contribution.

Why is this database of missing persons so important? Everybody will still remember the disappearance of Liam Vanden Branden in 1996, then just two years. In 2012 in Germany suddenly appeared a forest boy, who was thought to be the little Liam. They had to take DNA from the parents again to see if it could be their son. These people have been afraid for days but have to wait with hope for the outcome.

Such painful moments of hope, anxiety and fear can now be avoided. Thanks to this database, one can now in all discretion check whether or not it is a missing person. One should no longer disturb the family, who is afraid and anxious.

That is the importance of this bill. It is good that this is finally there.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, of course, we are in favor of expanding DNA testing to find missing persons. That is out of doubt.

This week, however, there was another discussion in the media, which I would like to talk about. It was about DNA research and everything that the future will bring. That is actually what it is about. Remarkable is the ruling of the Attorney General at the Court of Appeal of Antwerp, Mr. Liégeois, in connection with the collection of DNA from babies, i.e. from birth. I think it’s a brave ruling, but it’s also an important signal that proves how desperate those who have to sue crimes in our society are.

Nor do I share the hysteria that prevails in some, including at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which is jokingly popped by some in this Parliament.

Neither do I comply with the free bigbrother argument that is cited everywhere when it comes to compulsory collection of baby DNA. Let it be clear that I will relegate the collection of DNA material in babies.

Mrs. Secretary of State, if we stop for a moment with everything that is collected, consciously or unconsciously, intentionally or unintentionally, intentionally or accidentally – I mean filmed, recorded, recorded through all possible media in this society, by individuals or bodies, often far more unreliable than governments or national authorities – then we should not go out. Let it be clear. And even if we don’t come out anymore, everything we throw out on the internet is collected. Big brother, I think, does not consist in tracking, recording or storing everything that happens in this world – whether it happens electronically, which is very important, or otherwise – but in using and misusing it. There is Big Brother!

I join those who warn big brother in what is being used and abused. We must be careful for that. Guarantees and controls are needed. I believe that the law of 1992 currently provides sufficient safeguards and controls. We do not know what will happen in the future, ⁇ this law is still too limited and will need to be expanded. We will have to be careful about what will happen in the future, so that everything that determines who we are, who we are and what we possess is not simply thrown everywhere to be used and abused.

I therefore agree with those who continue to do so, as colleague Dewael this week still in the Committee for Justice in a question to Minister Turtelboom. This argument is correct, which is relevant. But in the judgment of Attorney General Liégeois, do not throw the child away with the bath water.

Maybe someday everything, who and what we are, will be summarized in bits, poured in certain formats and collected. Even those who warn about it will need to be aware that all that data is being stored. Let this be clear: someday, Attorney General Liégeois will get right and he will get his point.

Those who in the Justice Committee this week made great rebellion over the European Court of Human Rights will someday be pressed with the nose on the facts. Their successors here in Parliament will be pressed with the nose on the facts.

That the collection of DNA must at some point lead to its coverage or protection, which thus makes it impossible to be attached to the fact that one has committed a crime, to the fact that one can be prosecuted, is a utopia of those who think that everything can be protected and covered off. Covering off a crime because the DNA cannot be examined is unethical in itself. In fifteen to thirty years we will be here. I understand those who today say that everything is not possible, but they must bear in mind that it will be possible in the future.

I am grateful to Attorney General Liégeois for his statement that someday ⁇ all DNA needs to be collected. There is nothing unethical about it, there is no problem with it. By collecting DNA, medical science with nanotechnology can even save lives in the future. So we must dare to look a little further, we must indeed dare to accept the progress.

I want to break a lan today. Therefore, today I want to defend Attorney General Liégeois not politically – he must do it himself – but legally. Juridically, it will one day be a fact that all DNA is collected. When at a time when we can heal thanks to genetics, that is, based on DNA, we say that all that information should not be used to fight crime, to pick off criminals from fate, then we go wrong.

That is why we must now look forward, as well as you, colleague Dewael, who asked a question on this subject last week. It would be unethical if we were not allowed to use the DNA material to tackle criminals.

We know that it is practically unworkable today and that the costs are unbearable. We know that there is no proportionality today. Mr. Dewael, a former member of the Party for Freedom and Progress, looks to the future. Look at what we will ever be able to ⁇ . When criminals have committed a crime and they have glued a chewing gum under a couch or in a car, we will be able to catch them based on their DNA.

Then we must look forward. This is what is being mistaken today. This is where the whole politically correct establishment today goes wrong and that is what I want to point out. This is the message that Prosecutor Liégeois wanted to convey.

Let us count the over-year hippies, who today from Helsinki to Maastricht to Lisbon, from Brussels to Luxembourg to Strasbourg, in a European Court of Justice, proclaim their truths and even acquire powers that they do not have, such as the short case on asylum seekers, and say that we want to move forward.

We don’t want the police to count from one to seven billion before they can catch a criminal. We want effective methods to combat crime.

Therefore, the present draft law is a good draft because it helps to find missing persons. Therefore, in the future, it will also be a good bill that stipulates that criminals can be arrested thanks to the fact that their DNA was once registered, even at their birth. There is nothing wrong with it.

We must dare to give up that piece of freedom. There are much worse, nefaster and more perfidious bodies than the current governments – and I call the current Belgian government – which already use material on the internet and which we must count today.

I hope that in the future we will be able to count them all and that we will be able to pick up criminals based on their DNA. Society will get better.

I am breaking a lance today for those who say we will need to use DNA material in the future to catch up criminals. Anyone who agrees with this is a man of the future, not of the past.

I think this is a very important bill. In doing so, we are extending the DNA legislation to include DNA research in criminal cases with the aim of establishing a database of “Lost Persons”. This is a logical and responsible step.

However, I do not share the opinion of those who advocate extending the legislation to everyone. In my view, there must always be a natural and good balance between privacy and security.