Proposition 53K3483

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 10 mai 2007 tendant à lutter contre la discrimination entre les femmes et les hommes en vue de l'étendre à l'identité de genre et l'expression de genre.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

March 24, 2014

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

anti-discriminatory measure discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation gender equality human rights sexual minority

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 ¶

• Sophie De Wit (N-VA) voted to adopt.
• 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

Ms. Meire, the rapporteur, refers to her written report. Mrs De Wit would like to intervene, but not too long, because the minister is taken by time. by Mr. Schoofs has already made his speech for both projects.

The gender law is different from sexism, so I think it’s important to intervene. I don’t want to throw everything on a bunch.

The Gender Law was passed in 2007. It is a law to combat discrimination between women and men, not insignificant. A proactive policy had to be ensured. Mrs. Minister, you have been Minister for Equal Opportunities since 2008, but, again, that KB is still not there. I can imagine that this is also not acceptable, apart from the other.

The law also stipulated that an evaluation should be made after five years. We are now in 2014, but the law has not yet been evaluated.

What is being voted today is a change to that law, with a view to extending it to gender identity and gender expression. Just one article, nothing more. It states that a direct distinction made on the basis of gender identity or gender expression is equal to a direct distinction made on the basis of gender. It actually consists in extending the protection of the gender law to include transgenders, including transgenders, intersex, and other gender variants, at least that’s the intention.

This is a positive initiative, I would like to emphasize. It is an essential initiative. We welcome every effort to eliminate discrimination. Discrimination, on whatever grounds, is totally unacceptable.

We would like to approve this law in its entirety, but I do not think we are sending the right signal. The problem with this law, as with many laws in this House, is that it is not legal, despite the fact that it is just one article that is embedded in another story.

Through the Gender Act, you wish to provide a specific target group with a certain level of protection that is necessary and essential. In fact, there is now a gap. This law will not provide the intended protection. You make that vulnerable target group happy with a dead mouse. I explain why, because this is ⁇ unfortunate and it is a missed opportunity.

As legislators, it is our responsibility to deliver good legislation. This is not the case here. One must read this together with the adjustments that have been made through the sexism legislation and the gender law, and then one finds that it is no longer good and one finds a problem with the definition.

The principle of legality requires that one know in advance what criminal offences are or are not. Criminal offences need to be accurately described. This also requires legal certainty, because judges must decide whether or not to comply with the law.

Two new definitions are now being introduced, namely gender identity and gender expression. These definitions are explained in the Explanatory Memory. The Council of State considers the interpretation to be completely insufficient to effectively get a clear picture of the definitions and to be able to apply them. Nevertheless, I still think that it is our intention to make laws that will then be applied. Well, in that case, the legislation must be clear, and that is also what the Council of State demands.

You are referring to the Yogyakarta principles. The question is whether these principles have a binding effect. In addition, these principles only speak of gender identity and not gender expression. The State Council does not reject you, but only asks you to clarify those definitions a little more, so that we are sure that that law can be applied in practice. Therefore, the State Council asked to supplement your draft, no more than that. However, you have lifted up the proverbial middle finger. You think the law is clear enough. The Council of State only asked for a supplement, but you refused.

He said that the State Council had no comments. The draft law has one article and the State Council’s opinion has seven pages. There were indeed comments. I do not understand that the simple request to supplement the law is not honored. You could have amended that law in accordance with the principle of legality, making it applicable and enforceable — that should be the purpose of a law — but you did not.

Moreover, you also know that the gender law as such – a category that is equal to gender here – does not apply to the entire public and public space. Furthermore, gender discrimination applies only in some sectors, not in all. It mainly concerns labour-related sectors surrounding goods and services. Protection is therefore limited. The categories of gender identity and gender expression now added are therefore also subject to that limited protection, not to full protection.

The law does not apply to the entire public sector, nor does it apply to the entire private sector, that is, not to all areas, which I think it was intended. If you intended protection for all cases and in all domains, then with the current law it is not possible, thus you fail to ⁇ your goal and go beyond your goal. I have already cited this in the committee, but you have repeatedly stated that the State Council had no comments. I think it was enough with seven pages.

Mr. Speaker, you definitely want to pass this law. This is the end of the committee’s work. I understand you, but that doesn’t mean that the legislation should therefore compromise quality, because it needs to be done soon. The target group has nothing to do with bad legislation. If we want to protect someone, we have to do it well. The argument of the short reign and insufficient preparation time does not go on.

You have been Minister of Equal Opportunities since 2008. You have had enough time to prepare everything thoroughly, to evaluate the law, to draw out a proactive policy and to make a good law instead of doing some art and flying work.

The law has the merit, like the law on the punishment of sexism, to be there and to make matters discussable, but for us it is not enough, Mrs. Minister. It is not enough. There is not sufficient protection. The target group deserves much more, just like any weak group. I would like to make this clear on behalf of my group.

We will abstain, but there will also be a symbolic approval of this design, because we want to signal that we really want to support the target audience. We want to give no one the excuse that our group would not want to do so, but we believe that those involved should receive more support and protection than this design will provide them.

I do not think that the content of this draft reflects your intentions, colleagues of the majority, but it is what you will approve later. We are going for more protection than what is proposed here.

I am very pleased with the support of the N-VA for this bill.

And the other parties?

I am also pleased with the support of the other political parties.