Proposition 53K3297

Projet de loi tendant à lutter contre le sexisme dans l'espace public et modifiant la loi du 10 mai 2007 tendant à lutter contre la discrimination entre les femmes et les hommes afin de pénaliser l'acte de discrimination.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

Jan. 17, 2014

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

anti-discriminatory measure sexual discrimination gender equality

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

VB

Abstained from voting

N-VA LDD

Party dissidents ¶

• Peter Luykx (CD&V) 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 ¶

April 3, 2014 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Bercy Slegers, the rapporteur, refers to her written report.

Colleagues, this is the law that will have to punish sexism. You probably all remember the report “Femme de la rue”. Everyone then called – rightly, by the way – for measures against verbal and other sexist violence. I say very explicitly that this was right, because sexism is unacceptable – there is no discussion about it – just as the insult and contempt of the elderly, of the disabled, of the holebi and of so many other groups in our society is unacceptable. Let that be clear.

How do you deal with this, colleagues? This minister has her approach and she has come to Parliament with a new law, a new punishment, a new crime sexism. However, we already have a lot of legislation, a lot of legal means, a lot of penalties and incriminations. Per ⁇ we could modify them or apply something better. After all, there is the shoe. We have a lot of laws, but the follow-up of those laws does not happen as it should because of insufficient personnel and insufficient resources. It often happens now that no conviction follows in files such as stalking and assault, all serious facts. The succession, that’s where the shoe runs.

Since 2000, this Parliament has amended the Criminal Code at least 17 times when the project dealt with physical violence against persons. Did that have an effect? and no. The criminal law has only become more complex and increasingly difficult to apply.

Now again comes today a new law, a new incrimination, while the simple question arises whether one would not better ensure that the existing legislation becomes simpler and better applicable. That seems to me much more logical.

But well, the path of criminal law has been chosen. One can ask whether this must now necessarily be done through a criminal law. Wouldn’t it be better to take side-by-side measures? I think of sensitizing, supporting, making discussible and so on. The problem is not in the absence of legislation, the problem is in the prevailing culture. There is a need for a change of culture, there is simply a need for a change of mentality. That is actually. The Women’s Consultation Committee and many women’s organizations also say this very clearly. This law does not offer a solution, it is overwhelming and it does not even form a symbolic fist against the problem. That is strange. If a law comes into force to criminalize sexism, one would still think that women’s action groups stand calling and are happy and satisfied. What do these ladies all say? Please don’t go on, it’s overwhelming, it’s not even a symbolic fist. I think that is marked. If these action groups already say that, then it says a lot.

In short, I can say that there is no need for a law. We also discussed this in the committee. What is needed is policy. In order to ⁇ a change of mentality, policy is needed. It is a social problem. It is not up to the criminal court to resolve this.

Let’s talk about politics. We will talk about the Gender Act of 2007. In that law it was then stated that a KB with proactive policy should come up. The Minister of Equal Opportunities must ensure that. You have been that since 2008. However, the KB is still not there. I think this is quite cynical. The 2007 Act on Combating Discrimination between Men and Women called for a KB for proactive policy. However, the competent minister does not do so. I think this is quite cynical.

Forget about politics and awareness. Forget all this and let us choose a symbol law. That happens today.

I have a few questions about this symbol law.

What happens to other target groups, such as the elderly? Can we still speak ourselves contemptuously about this group? Can that still be? They do not have a separate law.

What happens to disabled people? I have a blind brother, Mrs. Minister. He is regularly arrested because of his disability. Of course, it is not written on his forehead; one does not always have it through. There is no special law that protects them. On what basis can he submit a complaint, in addition to the existing means? He has no protection.

What happens to holebi? We do everything we can for holebies, but they do not have a special law that allows the criminal judge to specifically address the contempt and humiliation of that target group. However, we do not do that. We are based on the man-woman story. It is in itself good that you deal with sexism. However, if you make it a crime, you should not divide it into cages.

However, you do even more, or I must say even less. After all, you are making a crime description, Mrs. Minister, which is ⁇ vague. How should they be applied? How can this crime be proved and judged? There is a very important constitutional criminal element in the proposal, in particular that it must have a degrading effect.

I look around, my colleagues. What is a humiliating effect? Is it the same for you as it is for me? I do not think. That is different for everyone. How can I prove that something was humiliating to me? Who will judge this? Will the judge do that, someone who does not know me? Will a prosecutor judge that to start the criminal prosecution? He does not know me either, but he must judge what was humiliating to me. I think this cannot.

We could have solved that by making it a complaint crime, like in the case of blasphemy and blasphemy. A person who feels harassed decides for himself and can file a complaint. However, you do not want that. I have proposed this as a possible solution. You did not want to get into that.

Imagine, by way of speech, the following situation, colleagues. You are walking through the street tomorrow and you are already laughing at one of your best friends with a sexist-tone comment. If a passenger you do not know and do not know that the person concerned is your best friend has heard that, he may find it humiliating and file a complaint. Then start it.

It can now! We know in advance what all this will lead to. This will lead to seponations in the meat.

Some groups are forgotten and there is a vague description. If we then asked in the committee to give a few examples, then we have actually not reached further than that flute by construction workers can still just. A professor who says something to a female student in the sense of “studying is nothing for you, you just get kids,” should not again. These were the examples given. For these facts, a new incrimination is now being made. The teacher cannot say such things. Let there be no misunderstanding about this. But there are no other examples. This new law will not be much applied.

In addition, you were asked to provide examples of facts that cannot be addressed by existing legislation. You could not give examples. We have asked you often enough.

During the whole debate, you have actually missed one case, Mrs. Minister, and this is, however, essential in our criminal law, namely the principle of legality. No punishment without law, no crime without law. It must be a well-defined crime and the current incrimination is too vague. As a result, this law is not applicable and will only remain a symbol. Such a symbol is of course not wrong, but our Criminal Code does not serve for that. Parliament is not for this. You should have had a policy. However, you did not do that.

This law is not the solution. We are not alone with this opinion. Everyone has seen the newspaper comments from women’s action groups. This law is considered to be a bullshit and not even a symbolic fist. In addition, a number of parliamentarians from this hemisphere did not actually agree with this legislation. I quote Jenne The Potter: “What is now on the table does not meet our expectations. Among other things, on enforceability, control and the findings, many questions still arise.”

Mr. De Potter, I assume you are still sitting with your questions. The present draft law that you talked about is the draft law that you must approve later. There has not been any change in the jota. However, you are not alone, as Ms. Temmerman has also explicitly said that there needs to be a change in mentality. I agree with it. Ms. Temmerman also wondered whether a law, no matter how good it is intended, is the right instrument to do so. I go on. Ms. Brems said that this text will change little. Sexism is not combated primarily through a law or through criminal law. It is about a change of culture and this requires according to its milder, non-repressive methods. I totally agree with that, but she eventually admits that she will approve the draft.

And then Mrs. Van Cauter comes, now not present. She is the most punishable. She says that in any case we will not approve this as paparazzi. It is a basic right of every Belgian that a law is understandable, that people know what is allowed and what is not allowed. This law could sometimes be too fuzzy, according to Mrs. Van Cauter, which makes even making a compliment or flirting a construction worker punishable. She also says that she will not pass a law that contributes to an acidic society. I am sorry that she is not present here. I understand that I am the only speaker, besides Mr. Schoofs. I regret that the other members of the committee concerned have been silent, not only here, but also in the committee.

Those paparazzi, who would not simply approve it, have thus approved it without saying anything, without making a comment. In the newspapers, in the press, they have done it, but where it should be, in the Parliament, in the committee, in the House, great silence.

A member of parliament is unworthy. Where are the paparazzi here today? Where are they? Will they say nothing? What will they do? Just as they did in the committee, they will silently approve the text as paparazzi. That great silence today is marked.

We are all elected as Members of Parliament. We are legislators. We are expected to deliver good legislation. I think that is very important. We must solve problems, not create them, and ⁇ not approve symbol laws that will eventually leave the victims in the cold. One is humiliated, one submits a complaint and then the case is spotted. That will be the result. Is that the solution? I do not think. This is not a good law.

Mr. Minister, this draft has the merit that you put the problem on the map. You made it discutable. That is important. Now the policy is still, and that is much more essential.

For the rest, this law is a shot for the bow. Mrs. Van Cauter has said that she will not pass a law that contributes to an acidic society. She said it. The N-VA will do it.

Mr. Speaker, what I will present here on the floor on the bill on sexism applies mutatis mutandis also to the gender law. I will discuss both in one whole.

After a lot of curvature and baking criticism from everywhere, the majority has finally come to the day with a text in which one speaks about employment relationships. Even the Vrouwen Overleg Komitee – colleague De Wit said it already – had and has criticism of this draft.

We are tired of another law of symbols or signals. We are tired of another politically correct law that ultimately threatens to target freedom of expression. The general provision on discrimination, which often goes too far for us, is now fixed in various laws in all possible ways on target groups, which leads to a dangerous fragmentation, to proliferation and even to a banalization of criminal law. Those laws are in fact a raised finger from us politicians to the citizen, but believe me, that citizen is increasingly pushing his middle finger to such laws.

Remember the television appearance of Jeff Hoeyberghs a few years ago with two sp.a. MPs? He then said “Hé madammekes” and added some other grossness. The likelihood that this man will now be convicted for such a judgment on television has become more real. I don't think we're waiting for someone to be condemned for being uncommon or unmanipulated, and someone's humiliation or disgrace to the head, but the likelihood that he will be condemned for it is increased with this law.

In goddess, colleagues, we have a much bigger problem in our society from the youngest twenty to thirty years. The chances are extremely small that an imam, who preaches in his mosque things that are not female-friendly and violate the freedom of the woman and the equality of man and woman, will be condemned. Otherwise, the problem would have been given a name. I am here today to give this problem a name. Take a look at the Moroccan Mosque in Beringen, a failed building in which seventy people occasionally gather to hold a prayer service. On the front door there is a very large inscription “Entry Brothers” and underneath it is between hooks, very small inscription: “Entry Sisters on the back.” That is sexism. You should deal with that. This is the problem that our society is struggling with.

We are dealing here with a religion in our society, and not just a religion but a social system, a social vision, Islam, which uses the degradation of women as a force, worships, propagates and even imposes. That is what should be discussed here today.

Where are they now, the liberals? Where are they, the Socialists, with their discourses about equality between men and women? The Greens, where are they? Where are the Christian Democrats, who do not dare or wish to embrace liberalism as a doctrine in their own educational networks? We are now talking again about the transfer of the schools in Beringen. The doctrine of liberalism will no longer be taught after so many years. It will vanish when Catholic education takes over schools, but Islamic education, on the contrary, will be taught to Islamic children.

Finally, Flemish national colleagues, where are you? You had the opportunity this week to approve the ban on main clothes in Community Education. You may have thought about it, but you did not dare. In fact, your bourgeois minister is also advocating Islamization by recognizing and subsidizing mosques.

Then I forget Ms. Lieten, who, along with CD&V and N-VA, has approved the Muslim Television and Radio broadcaster in the Flemish government. That is the real problem we should have talked about today, but that is, of course, being cleared up.

This should be a major discussion of standards and values in Parliament. I am not just talking about Islam. You have to look at our own culture. I’m not at all precious, but I have had to explain to my children from an early age that certain things on television are in fact inconsistent with the values of human sexuality as we can experience them. I’m not talking about a pair of naked breasts at 23:00 in the evening, really not. I am not here to hang out the hypocrite. But we still have to put our hands in our bosom, maybe literally, forgive me for the game of words. We should also object to the banalization and commercialization of sexuality in our own society. I don’t hear about that today either.

That is the big debate! These are the values and standards that we should be talking about. But that’s cleanly wiped under the mat, by everyone here in the hemisphere, except for our faction.

Those who approve this law here today, in fact, do this to distract attention. I dare to accuse you of this: this is a pure distraction from the attention of the real problems. The real problems we struggle with in this society, you dare not even name. That is why you vote on such – excuse me the word – float laws.

I will not repeat what has been said in the committee. This project is a real advance for women. It corresponds to a need that has been expressed and requested by all women’s associations and yet again re-expressed by this film on the problems of incvilities and street sexism. As well underlined by the State Council, which did not make any comments on this subject, this text is very precise and does not allow, contrary to what has been said, any excessive definition.

That definition is at the heart of the draft law and I think it is important to clarify its essential components. We speak of “any gesture or act which, in the circumstances referred to in Article 444 of the Criminal Code” — very limited — “apparently intended” — somewhat stricter — “to express contempt for a person because of his gender, or to regard him, for the same reason, as inferior or to reduce him to his sexual dimension” — also strictly — “and” – this is cumulative – “that results in a serious impairment of the dignity of that person.”

As with other definitions, such as racism, public interest and the best interest of the child, we must of course give confidence to the judges in our country.

Mrs. Minister, you always refer to the State Council, but you forget to say that the State Council has given an opinion on a completely different draft, in which the word sexism does not even include. You have to stay a little correct.

Second, the infringement of dignity is just about the humiliating effect, which I said is different for everyone. You say that we must have confidence in the judges to judge that. Well, I would also have confidence in the judges, but I know that assaults are often not prosecuted because something is too vague, and the same goes for stalking. So I know that the problem is there. Therefore, you must not blame me for being very suspicious when it is necessary to judge what is humiliating for me, or for someone else.

Mrs. Minister, again, we are not against the approach to sexism, on the contrary. That must disappear, that must be out of society, but it is a social problem and that can not be solved by an article in the Criminal Code, but through policy. Your social vision must change, the social choices must be different. And that is just a social problem. This must be addressed, not by a symbolic law but by effective policy. You have completely missed that as Minister of Equal Opportunities.