Proposition 54K1170

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 19 juillet 1991 relative aux registres de la population, aux cartes d'identité, aux cartes d'étranger et aux documents de séjour et modifiant la loi du 8 août 1983 organisant un Registre national des personnes physiques.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

June 16, 2015

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

civil register civil status provision of documents extremism identity document terrorism

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V LE DéFI ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR PP

Voted to reject

VB

Abstained from voting

Groen Vooruit Ecolo PS | SP PVDA | PTB

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 15, 2015 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The rapporteurs are Nele Lijnen, Katja Gabriëls and Vanessa Matz, Koen Metsu and Kristien Van Vaerenbergh.

Ms. Linne refers to the written report.

I also refer to the written report.

The draft law amending the law of 15 December 1980 on the access to the territory, residence, establishment and removal of foreigners with a view to better taking into account threats to society and national security in applications for international protection, No 1197/1.

The Secretary of State for Asylum and Migration has presented a draft law aiming, in accordance with the government agreement, to adapt the asylum procedure so as to better take into account situations in which persons who enjoy a status of international protection in Belgium or have applied for such a status constitute a threat to society or national security. This project aims to respond to a very limited number of requests – fifteen – but which are causing extremely problematic situations.

The proposal provides for a literal or almost transposition of Directive 2011/95 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011. The bill extends the possibility of refusing or withdrawing refugee or subsidiary protection status to a person who constitutes a danger to society when he or she has been sentenced definitively for a ⁇ serious offence or when there are reasonable grounds to believe that he or she poses a threat to public security.

The proposed amendments in this regard will also allow for the refusal or withdrawal of the benefit of the status of international protection. This status may also be withdrawn or denied to persons who arrive in Belgium for the sole purpose of escaping prosecution for an offence punishable by a prison sentence.

The Secretary of State said:

1 of 1. pursue an objective of extending the possibilities of refusing, excluding or withdrawing the status of international protection in order to be able to intervene more quickly and effectively;

2 of 2. that the project is in accordance with the European and international rules in force;

3 of 3. The project provides for all the necessary guarantees for the interested parties. The decision-making and opinion powers of the General Commissioner for Refugees are amplified while it is a fully independent institution.

4 of 4. That the project provides for exceptions to CGRA’s professional secrecy, for example, upon request of information from the International Criminal Court;

5 of 5. Through the project, he sought a balance between the procedural guarantees for refugee candidates and the protection of society and national security.

The State Council opinion was delivered on 16 March 2015 and some changes were made following the comments accepted by the Secretary of State. However, the opinion was only partially followed.

The Internal Affairs Committee then initiated a deep debate on the questions of criteria for refusal or withdrawal of the status in connection with the protection of society and national security.

Sarah Smeyers mentioned that the project tightened the conditions for receiving the status of protection and that it would be possible to deprive persons who represent a danger. All aid should be given priority to those who really need it because the right to asylum is a fundamental right.

Ms. Nawal Ben Hamou noted that in troubled times, security concerns must be shared by all, but that we must be careful not to let ourselves be taken by fear and ensure that the measures taken are effective, targeted and proportionate. It criticizes the removal of the current ten-year period and the blurred and poorly defined aspect of the reasons that would legitimize the decisions of withdrawal or refusal. She considers that the State Council’s opinion was only partially followed by the Secretary of State and expresses concern about the provisions lifting the professional secrecy of the General Commissioner for Refugees.

by Mr. Denis Ducarme notes that the subject of the text is part of the right thread of the government agreement, that a coherent asylum policy must be human, but also firm. Through the government’s priorities in the fight against radicalism and terrorism, our country will be equipped with a set of instruments to better protect society and avoid granting international protection to persons posing a danger to national security.

Ms. Veerle Heeren also recalls that the project is within the right thread of the government agreement, but requests that the explanation of the reasons be more precise on the notion of ⁇ serious infringement as well as on the notion of danger to national security. His group welcomes the reaffirmation of the non-refoulement principle and the role of the CGRA.

Ms. Katja Gabriëls points out that the Open Vld group supports the project and considers that the role entrusted to the CGRA is essential. The application of the non-refoulement principle will result in foreigners no longer having a residence permit, but they will also not be able to be expelled. This represents a problem for which there is no solution, but we cannot continue to offer the benefit of protection to people of bad faith. The impact of the bill will be limited. It will also allow to take into account facts that do not constitute crimes in the strict sense.

by Mr. Benoit Hellings notes that the project will have the sole effect of removing statutes and the benefits associated with them, but that it will not be effective in terms of combating violence, since people will not be able to be expelled. In contrast, the title of the project can give the impression that refugees are often dangerous people. He asks for explanations regarding the reasonable reasons included in the draft and notes that the opinion requested to the CGRA is not binding and that in some cases the right to security will collide with fundamental rights, such as the right to family life.

Monica De Coninck also questions the notion of reasonable grounds and asks for guarantees of formal motivation of decisions for guaranteed legal certainty. It welcomes the obligation of the CGRA opinion, but regrets that it is not binding. The project risks creating a new category of foreigners who cannot be repatriated. What will be the fate of these people?

The CDH representative regrets the slowness with which the various anti-terrorism projects are filed while the measures had been announced in January.

The scope of the project is far from symbolic because if the number of people is limited to fifteen, it is fifteen people potentially dangerous. It criticizes the vague and relatively broad nature of certain concepts. Why not compare the reasons for exclusion on the reasons that justify the deprivation of citizenship? Otherwise, unlike the Directive, the proposal applies to ⁇ serious offences. Why was the directive not followed on this point, as the State Council pointed out? It cannot subscribe to the nature of the CGRA opinion which should always be consistent.

by Mr. Wouter De Vriendt has no principle objection to the expulsion of terrorists. The law already provided for this, but the bill goes quite far and extends the case of withdrawal of status or protection with not negligible consequences. The Secretary of State is looking for new legal instruments that allow foreigners to be arbitrarily expelled even when they have not necessarily committed punishable acts. The opinion of the State Council was followed only partially. What should be understood under the notions of reasonable grounds and ⁇ serious infringements? He is of the opinion that the bill results in degrading the right of asylum to a form of temporary protection that can be withdrawn at any time. What is the balance between the right to safety and the right to respect for family life? Shouldn’t there be a double punishment?

The Secretary of State responded to the questions and observations and the Commissioners responded.

Ms. Vanessa Matz submitted amendments to Articles 3, 4, 5 and 8 of the draft to limit especially serious crimes to the terrorist offences provided for in the Criminal Code, as well as to require that the decision made by the Minister be made on a consistent opinion of the CGRA. The articles were voted and the subsequent amendments rejected.

The bill was adopted by 11 votes for and 5 abstentions.

The usefulness of reading the report is missing from me. I would therefore like to refer to the written report.

The last rapporteur is Mrs Van Vaerenbergh.

I also refer to the written report.

I would like to remind you of the agreement made at the Conference of Presidents. Each group has 20 minutes. The smaller groups, notably PTB, FDF, Vlaams Belang and PP, have ten minutes. You can distribute those minutes as you wish.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the texts we are going to discuss are obviously important. They are the same for the current government, which has made the fight against terrorism and radicalization its battle horse. This is true for our democracy, but also for the previous government. Indeed, ladies and gentlemen of the government, you do not have the monopoly of this concern, there are several ways to meet it. I would even say that some, Mr. Reynders, show an ongoing concern.

First of all, let me remind you that it is a Socialist Minister of Justice who, since 2003, set the first milestones in the fight against terrorism and radicalization. How ? By creating the first law on terrorist crimes; by creating the Central Office for Threat Analysis (OCAM); by strengthening collaborations between intelligence services; by giving them a legal framework for methods of data search; by also establishing the European arrest warrant and several collaborations at European level.

He is a socialist prime minister, with it is true a Minister of Justice VLD, who set up the Plan R task force and who rejected this action on the local level. It was under the government of Elio Di Rupo that the Operational Platform for Combating Radicalism and Terrorism and the Syrian Task Force were created. It was still under the Di Rupo government that a strategy involving local authorities, the mayors, was developed and implemented. These are socialist participatory governments that act effectively in the Region and in the Community by working on the substantive files.

And it is both on the foundations that were laid at that time and the effort of which has been pursued by the current government that significant successes have been recorded.

What is the position of the Socialist Party in this regard? I have demonstrated that we are not falling back on security projects. But in this area as in others, ⁇ even more in this one, we demand that strict tags be laid. Effective strategies and laws are needed that balance the objective with respect for fundamental rights. Fighting terrorism and radicalism, of course, but not at the expense of the rule of law or the price of legal uncertainty over fundamental rights! Targeted, concrete and effective measures are needed. No dust in the eyes, with nets with mesh so wide that they do not ⁇ any of the goals pursued.

I would like to point out the timing. We were announced in January, under dramatic circumstances and with the support of all the groups, texts for mid-February. We regret that they are produced only six months later, in the urgency and on the eve of parliamentary holidays.

Mr. Demeyer, I don’t understand your ass. These measures should have been taken in the previous legislature with your prime minister, no one has forgotten it. It was the government of Di Rupo!

For thirty years!

We are actually lagging behind in comparison to a number of other countries as well as in relation to certain realities.

While you had responsibilities, you dare to come and tell us that it took six months to take measures that you should have initiated with your prime minister at least two or three years ago given the realities we have encountered with regard to the departure of Belgians to Syria. This is really a monster shit! You have come to complain about a few months of delay, while you have been the “bull” in relation to the anti-terrorist and anti-radical policies that we should have put in place much earlier!

I will continue.

No, it’s not insulting for the Lions. But I ⁇ ’t laugh at all of this because we’re talking about a serious, serious and important topic. Mr Dudley, I said two things. First, I have listed all the dozens of measures taken, both by Ms. Onkelinx and under the leadership of Mr. Di Rupo, with your participation and with a Minister of Justice VLD. I just regretted that the measures announced for February are now coming. If we had been told that six months would be needed for serious work, we could have followed you as well. I said nothing else.

Secondly, I would like to address my concern to this Assembly. We are sensitized by the highest magistrates in this country, both formally and informally. We are informally informed by the top police officers of this country about an intention displayed in your proposals. It is extremely dangerous for fundamental freedoms to incriminate intent without material evidence supporting this incrimination. We have asked about it and we have not received a satisfactory response. In a rule of law, people are not condemned on intention.

We have no fear, we trust our justice and that’s why we want the means of incrimination as well as defense to be clearly established and guaranteed. We also believe in the validity of international law. Therefore, we have doubts about taking away citizenship from a person who has always lived with us, to whom we must otherwise exercise our responsibilities. We are also very attentive to the opinions of the State Council. When he makes serious criticisms, we have to take them seriously. My colleagues, who will speak more specifically on each of your proposals soon, will have additional questions to ask in this regard.

We want to do serious parliamentary work, which requires effective measures. In order for a measure to be effective, you know that you need good texts, but you also need means. I have had the opportunity, several times, to ask you about this, and I have not always received reassuring answers. I know the budget context is difficult. We still had debates last week that showed that this context had worsened, but it is not the 200 million planned in the interdepartmental reserve, of which the Court of Auditors tells us that they will not be enough to pay the backback of SPF Justice, which reassure us.

We also have a unilateral decrease in the Belgian contribution to Interpol, which the UN Security Council reminds of the importance.

Finally, we still have this ongoing debate on the privatization of police tasks versus the staff to be ⁇ ined.

While the Belgian arrangement has shown its effectiveness and the effort is sustained, we have the prospect of underfunded justice whose actors tell us it will soon be sinistered. We will have sub-equipped and sub-crew police services. Mr. Minister, I hope that you will soon be able to remedy some of the shortcomings that you yourself have denounced.

You offer us a battery of measures, many of which are symbolic and which, in order to hold the budget carcass, do not cost. Do you believe in the effectiveness of all this? I do not know anything.

I will conclude with a great regret: the lack of action in the field of combating terrorism-related money laundering. It is an essential sector and it is known that if this measure is not spectacular, it will have significant results.

Ladies and gentlemen of the government, would it not be more effective to support our text that allows the freezing of assets of terrorist groups and thus addresses their operational capacity?

Pour l'ensemble de ces raisons, le PS ne pourra donc pas, d'une manière générale, voter et faveur de vos dispositions, certainly pas par laxisme. We think, on the contrary, that there would be measures more strong but different, more effective, more relevant, with a better souci and a better respect for fundamental rights. The terrorists, of all times, seek to undermine our democratic principles. Ne leur donnons pas raison et appuyons plutôt nos juges, appuyons plutôt nos policiers, and now pour ces services un financement à la hauteur de ce qu'il était! We work together to this goal that must assemble us! You remercie for your attention.

Mr. Speaker, in our neighboring countries, the Netherlands, France and the United Kingdom, governments have taken measures for a long time. There is also the United Nations resolution of 24 September 2014 calling for action against foreign terrorist fighters. We can only regret that the previous governments did not take the problem seriously, ⁇ not Mrs. Milquet when she was Minister of Interior.

After Charlie Hebdo and the events in Verviers, we are finally awakened in Belgium too. I think we were rightly shot up, because Charlie Hebdo is undoubtedly the 9/11 of press freedom and freedom of expression. This has consequences and will continue to have consequences.

Our Western model is the model of Enlightenment. That is to say, we believe in human reason, which emphasizes human reason and the inalienable and fundamental rights of man. This is the hard core of our model. It also means that our model should be inclusive, that everyone should feel at home, that everyone should have opportunities.

Of course, our model is not perfect. We all know that sometimes there is discrimination and social degradation. We must fight this, but we must be serious. No form of discrimination or social degradation can justify acts of terrorism.

Our social model also means that the citizen comes first into society, that the citizen and society primate on religion, that the rights arise within society and not above society. This means that we are first citizens and only then belong to a certain religion.

That one wants to strive for political change will ⁇ not contradict a party like mine. This can and should be possible in a democratic society, but according to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, it presupposes that two criteria are met. First, the means used must be democratic. Second, the social model that one follows must also be democratic.

It is clear that terrorism does not meet either of the two criteria. These are violent violations of human rights. The images of James Foley are burned on our retina. Later, many other horrible images were sent into the world. We have seen images of women being sold as sex slaves. We have seen images of gay people being thrown down from high buildings.

It is clear that these acts undermine our democratic values and destroy them in the long run. We must therefore be grateful that the police services succeeded in preventing attacks in Belgium. At the same time, we must be aware that zero risk does not exist. Even the best police offices in the world cannot stop God’s sickness.

The social model pursued by the violent jihadists is incompatible with the democratic rule of law. However, democracy is the only model that is consistent with human rights. Democracy is an absolute principle of which there are no exceptions. Democracy does not tolerate exceptions, or it is no longer a democracy. Therefore, in a long case-law, the European Court of Justice has developed the following principle: la démocratie a le droit de se défendre. Democracy has the right but also the duty to defend itself. The Court emphasizes that the defense of democracy must take place with respect for the principle of proportionality. In other words, we must find a balance between the need to defend democracy and the individual rights that jihadists also have. That is a fundamental difference between our Western society and the jihadist model. We also respect the individual rights of those who fight for democracy. The Prime Minister has called that in a speech in Parliament la fierté du démocrate, the pride of the democrat who openly engages in the struggle.

We must defend our democracy. We must be well aware that it is not a we-she story, that it is not a story of Muslims against others. It is a story of those who respect fundamental rights and those who reject them. It is a story of those who accept the Enlightenment and those who choose the darkness.

In my speech at the Joint Committee on Home Affairs, Defence and Justice at the end of last year, I said that the measures adopted must meet certain criteria. First, they must be effective and efficient. Second, they must be proportional. Third, there should be adequate procedural safeguards.

I will not look at all the bills here. Mr Smeyers will later discuss the bill submitted by State Secretary Francken. I will focus on the bill submitted by the Minister of the Interior on the withdrawal of the identity card.

The Council of State rightly points to an important case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, including the Bouman v. France judgment. That judgment stipulates that such measures, which limit the right to move freely, must be governed by law, pursue a legitimate aim and be proportionate.

I think no one can doubt that this bill pursues a legitimate goal, namely the fight against terrorism. It is about safeguarding national order, public security, and the rights and freedoms of others.

The State Council made a number of recommendations on legal quality requirements that were incorporated into the bill by reference to Articles 137 and 139 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

As regards proportionality, I note that there are procedural safeguards, namely an opinion from the OCAD, possibly in consultation with the Federal Prosecutor’s Office or the King’s Prosecutor. The interested party may submit comments within a specified time limit. The Minister may revoke his decision. The decision is also always limited in time, namely from 25 days to a maximum of three months, renewable once. The person concerned will also receive a certificate replacing the identity card. I am confident that these safeguards will meet proportionality.

Finally, I would also like to point out that this is nothing new. The government has been working on this for a while. The N-VA ministers are ⁇ working on this.

Defense Minister Steven Vandeput has ensured that there are effectively soldiers on the streets at the time it was necessary for our security. You know, it doesn’t matter to my group whether there are blue or kakis on the streets. We’re talking about safety, not just a color. Safety is primary and blue or kaki is less relevant.

The Minister of the Interior, Jan Jambon, also ensured that funds were allocated to tackle the problem of under-scale equipment. Thanks to Minister Jambon, the Special Forces will no longer have to go to Verviers in the future carrying weapons that have been devised in another country for eight years.

Lastly, State Secretary Theo Francken is also fully and actively engaged in this. You will undoubtedly have read in the press that he has taken the residence permit from a radical imam. You will read in the press this morning that there are a number of other files pending. This is an effective and effective fight against terrorism. So this is about much more than just those designs.

State Secretary Theo Francken has also revoked the residence permit of seven Syrian fighters. There are also a number of files under treatment. This makes them unable to return effectively.

Therefore, I congratulate the Government and, in particular, I congratulate the three aforementioned ministers for their effective approach to terrorism.

As I said to Mr. In the meantime, I would like to express my incomprehension.

Mr. Demeyer, you were committed from January to participate in a national union around measures essential for the security of all Belgians. What you have done for a number of weeks and here at this tribune right now is to show the division of forces that should necessarily be brought together in the face of what we have been living in Belgium for a little more than a year. I do not understand how one can try, on arguments that are not arguments, to distinguish ourselves from a policy that is today absolutely essential. It is not about going beyond the necessities. It’s about meeting goals that should have been for a long time. For a little more than a year, Islamist terrorism, believed to be reserved exclusively for others, has hit us in our hearts. The attack on the Jewish Museum was an act committed by a returner. This was the first act of this order in Belgium. Have we ignored a number of realities that were still in front of our eyes? Have we ignored a number of departure? A dozen, then a hundred Belgians went to fight in Syria or Iraq. At the time, the former Socialist Minister of Justice compared the phenomenon to the Spanish War, to the struggle against the Francoists.

Have we ignored, in the protests of 2009, the screams "Death to the Jews", the first jihadist flags that bloomed there in Brussels? We may have ignored them. The realities came back to us like a boomerang during the attack on the Jewish Museum and then in our closest neighbors, in Paris, with the Charlie Hebdo attacks, cowardly assassinations of journalists who dared to caricate a prophet. These are obviously acts that attack men and women but also our values, our freedoms, our right to exist as we wish, in a democratic, European society.

A few days after the Paris attacks, once again, we found that Islamists wanted to strike us on our territory, but our services were up to the height. Our services prevented a number of crimes, murders, assassinations of police officers. It is clear that the reaction of the Michel government, within the framework of the twelve measures that he presented extremely quickly to Parliament, would ⁇ have seen the whole assembly unite more closely around these important reforms, many of which were already written black on white in the government agreement and which naturally saw their train accelerate. Not enough for you, Mr. Demeyer! They may have accelerated a little too quickly in the Justice Committee this week, where the PS was not even present to vote on the "fight against radicalism and terrorism" component of the Minister of Justice. Neither is the CDH. I am surprised that in such an important debate as this, not all parliamentarians are able to attend the committee meeting to discuss measures that, in addition, are extremely important on the justice side.

These measures (depletion of nationality, withdrawal of passports and identity cards, repression of departure and problematic returns of Belgian fighters departing from theatres of jihadist operations) are ultimately common sense measures. They respond to the needs we have to be more offensive in the face of this threat and in the face of the return of a number of these threats. These are important decisions, like the one that saw the deployment of our military. You talked about means. You should know that the government has done the necessary to allow the payment of these military personnel by the Department of the Interior, until the end of the year if necessary.

At the beginning of the year, we had debates about the presence of soldiers on our streets. These debates seemed to us quite displaced in the face of the reality of the threat as we live it in our country. The presence of these soldiers, framed on the basis of a certain degree of threat in a certain number of places, seemed to us obviously necessary. As long as the information transmitted to the government demands the extension of military presence to protect a number of potential targets, the majority will support the measures taken by the government.

The update of the Foreign Fighters Circular will optimize the exchange of information and the follow-up measures for these foreign fighters and returnees. It will also simplify existing structures, systematize monitoring and ensure a better division of tasks between departments as well as between federal and local levels.

Mr Demeyer, you talked about the freezing of capital that could be used for terrorist operations. You know very well that this measure is among the twelve measures planned by the government. This is a circular of the Minister of Finance, which will optimize the procedure under the 2006 Royal Decree on the 1993 Act on the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing, in order, in particular, to have a list of terrorist names and entities as comprehensive as possible, in order to freeze their assets.

I am pleased that you followed me to this extent, and that you demand it. We announced it in the framework of the government agreement and it is an integral part of the government’s approach in this regard.

The Government will promote the use of shared secrecy, in particular between administrative and judicial services. It will also oversee the revision of Plan R, a guidance document for the various services to enable them to better understand the different facets of the terrorist threat.

The Minister of Justice has gradually implemented its plan to combat radicalism in prisons. The MR group has been demanding this measure since 2010. We knew, assisted by some foreign experiments, that one of the areas of radical contamination lies in prison.

In this context, the measures already implemented in some of our prisons will probably be able to prevent some prisoners, who did not arrive in prison animated by a radical will, from being contaminated by leaders, who will now be systematically isolated. Protecting our society is also protecting our prisoners. We have seen it, and we see it in different experiences that have taken place in other countries.

It is clear that the fight against radicalism also relies on several new means. It is in this sense that the majority and the government have sought to engage additional resources for the State Security. Among the €2 million allocated to the Internal SPF for new security spending, new funds are also being mobilised for the OCAM.

You talked about the under-equipment of some specialized services within the police. You have asked Mr Jambon about this. It is clear that the thirty million that are devoted, among other things, to various equipment will allow us to get out of the subequipment, so that our specialized services will be able to act more autonomously. You are not unaware that, during the interventions at Verviers, we had to resort to the help of the French services, who borrowed us the equipment. Obviously, the acquisition of equipment aims to guarantee our specialized services autonomy of action. I think you could have seen the list of what should be acquired. Let’s be honest, we had a delay.

Mr. Duchamp, you are talking about the equipment. It is obviously important that we can equip ourselves with equipment to follow these candidates for jihadism.

Several colleagues visited, a few weeks ago, the General Service of Intelligence and Security (SGRS) and the State Security. We have been told that many young people who leave or are candidates for jihadism communicate with each other through tools that young people around the world use: Viber, WhatsApp, Facebook. The security services explained to us that, from time to time, or even most of the time, they were out of the radar of these services, because they communicated through these means. In any case, I do not see in the twelve measures contained in the government draft, a take-over or, at least, a willingness to find solutions with the companies that manage these messages so that our security services, starting with the State Security – and not the OCM – can control and verify what these young candidates to jihadism are doing through the current means of communication.

I think that beyond the material means, it is also about giving yourself the technical means to counter radicalism – what you call your wishes. I insist on this question, because today it is Security that has played a major role. We must give back to Caesar what belongs to him. In the Verviers case, it was Sûreté who oversaw these few young people on the verge of radicalization and who alerted the federal police. This is not the OCAM.

The OCM is the area of information transfer. Today, we can see the advantages of this structure to become a Safety bis. For my group, this is very important: State Security, and not any other instance, must play a major role in monitoring people who pose a danger to our society.

You say that supplementary means are granted to a series of services. I am very surprised that you are talking about supplementary means. The adjustment provided 200 million, overall, for security and fight against terrorism. These 200 million do not even bring the counters to zero, Mr. Ducarme. They don’t put the count to zero on the savings your government made in 2015 in the budget of the OCCAM, State Security, Police Services and Justice. Therefore, it is not possible to speak of complementary means. Instead, say that these funds tend to correct a certain de-investment operated during the 2015 budget.

I have said it often and I know that it annoys you: making linear reductions on all departments is really a no-choice. This means a lack of priorities and no immunity of the Justice and Interior Services, as had been done in the previous legislature, allowing the employment of additional police officers. I am not afraid to say that you were part of this government that immunized the Justice and Interior Services. There was no euro reduction on these services during the previous parliamentary term. I just wonder why the government did not make the same decision to immunize these services. The 200 million is not enough to bring the counter to zero compared to the colossal savings made in the 2015 budget.

Mr. Hellings, I don’t know what the services you met with told you, but I can tell you that the government’s will today is to prioritize the means of communication used by a number of jihadists or people who could turn to violent radicalism.

We do this, of course, with the Minister of the Interior at the level of the Federal Police. We also want to do what could have been done much earlier. I recall, for example, that it was Prime Minister Di Rupo who had been responsible since 2012 for the establishment of the Cyber Security Centre. We have wasted a lot of time on this. We are also trying to catch it. And, there too, significant budgets in the last fiscal years have been allocated to the establishment of this center.

The importance of these networks should not be overestimated. I draw your attention to a number of surveys that give the right share to these modes of communication. What I mean is that you would be wrong to think that the communication and gathering of these individuals goes exclusively through the new media. I think that in some frameworks, in some reports that you will probably have read (or not), the share is devoted to the new media in the transmission of information between the radicals.

With regard to your comment on Security, we must of course pay tribute to the services that today fight radicalism. We all know that the role of the OCAM is to receive information and transmit all that information to the government, which, on that basis, will be able to assess the level of the threat. So I don’t know why you’re competing with companies that aren’t. I wonder what your expression is based on.

Mr. Ducarme, since the creation of the OCCAM as an instance for gathering this information and analyzing the threat – that’s his name – there has been an attempt that must be discouraged to make the OCCAM the third intelligence service. must be stopped. The expertise, knowledge and experience are at the level of the Security and Army Intelligence Service for the protection of our troops when they are abroad. For the rest, it works. Besides, Verviers is one of the most beautiful success stories of the State Security, with obviously the complementary work of our police officers who, they, act on the ground, when it comes to combating the threat and that it becomes effective. But it is the work of Security, first and foremost, that is framed by an extremely clear law, namely the law on particular methods of research and methods of data collection. This is what is interesting with parliamentary follow-up and other things.

Today, a Belga mail, which I will transfer to you for your information, announced that some in the State Security were tired of the increasing weight taken by the OCAM. The OCAM does its job and analyzes the threat but the real civil intelligence service in Belgium is the State Security and no one else!

Mr. Speaker, I was also intercepted by the article in the De Standaard newspaper which reveals that the OCAM had somewhat exceeded its missions. It is in this sense – and it now takes all its effect – that I have deposited an amendment on the project “identity card”, saying that it is not the OCCAM that should be charged with saying at a given moment “Attention, a threatening person plans to leave the territory”, but rather the State Security.

For me, the OCAM is responsible for the general analysis while the State Security is responsible for the monitoring of particular situations. Now, when we talk about the bill making it possible to temporarily withdraw the identity card, we are talking about individual situations. This is why we have submitted the amendment that we have also submitted in the session.

I think the Minister will tell you what I can tell you. The OCAM is and remains in its role that is to gather information. Everything that could be borrowed from him as other intentions would not correspond to the mission that is his, as desired by the government. The Minister will ⁇ tell you a word about this.

We have discussed your amendment in the committee. It is clear that we cannot join you.

This amendment concerned the necessary link to be established with local entities.

The [...]

Here arise non-relevant questions that tend to compete with the OCAM and the State Security. These are not the same services. The OCCAM is not intended to conduct investigations, but rather to gather information. The task entrusted to him in the framework of the project relating to the withdrawal of the identity card corresponds therefore to his vocation. It therefore seems to us justified that it is this body and not the Security of the State that is responsible for this mission.

Madame Matz, you are also "blown" in the plenary session as you were in the commission. Indeed, you dare to claim that we did not allocate sufficient resources to the Department of the Interior while they were reinforced as part of the budget adjustment. You are aware of the budget lines for strengthening the State Security and the OCAM. You cannot deny these aspects.

And when you know that under the previous Minister of the Interior, only 50 to 60 percent of the credits that had been allocated to police policies were actually used, I say to myself that you are still “blown” to hold such words. It is with respect that I say that you have a hole. In fact, one can question when one knows that the minister who was in charge of the Department of the Interior before Mr. Jambon did not use the means at his disposal to implement police policies and, in particular, to acquire additional equipment. In any case, I can only regret it.

I expect the Minister of Internal Affairs currently in office that he does not repeat the mistake made by his predecessor and that the resources made available to his department are used until the last euro cent, because they are needed and that the policies that he wants, including the acquisition of new equipment, must be conducted.

I did not intend to interrupt your speech, Mr. Ducarme, but the debate is fascinating. In fact, I hear here again the debate about who is responsible for what in terms of security policy, especially in terms of intelligence services.

What is the role of state security? What is the task of the OCAD? What is the task of the military security and of the federal and judicial police? This debate needs to be clarified urgently. These misstatements, in which everyone opens the umbrella and unisono points to the need for additional resources, are also encountered in the daily security policy.

Contrary to what you have said two or three times, Mr. Ducarme, it is not the last year that this country is facing terrorist threat and radicalism, which has been so for two and a half years. For two and a half years I have heard from security services that there is a problem of resources, technical resources and capacity. Today, in one of the drafts, an additional mandate for the OCAD is formulated, more specifically in the bill of Minister Jambon. It would be good for the debate and ⁇ for the security services that must watch over the safety of our citizens, to create clarity about that division of tasks and especially also about the 200 million additional resources.

Mr. Ministers, in terms of security policy, everyone is charged with those 200 million or a portion of them. One tries to convince the other that he needs it the most. This leads to a bad atmosphere and conflicts between security services, where they make each other black. For the security policy, it would be good if the federal government made clear about the amount of 200 million euros.

As regards the division of tasks, I have already spoken on 17 January, when the government announced its twelve measures. The most essential of those twelve measures are, in my opinion, the sixth, seventh and eighth, namely the Foreign Fighters Directive, the Plan on Radicalism and the Information Exchange Measure. There is need for upkeeping work and the points must be put on the i. Only then will we take big steps forward.

In the course of this debate, I would like to learn how far these three measures are going, and I also urge the government to provide clarity as soon as possible about the additional resources that our security services need.

I like the very theatrical way in which Mr. Ducharme acts when he is a little upset. It also shows some bad faith.

The Interior Minister acknowledged that he was considering things not in terms of new elements and recruitment because the budgets dedicated to the police no longer allow recruiting as before, under the previous government. He is working on internal reorganizations.

Mr. Ducarme, what is Caesar’s must be returned to Caesar and you will acknowledge with me that the previous government did not make a single euro of economy on the budgets Interior and Justice. I said nothing else.

He did not spend the money that was available!

Maybe you forget that elections took place in May and that a government then enters into ordinary affairs and can no longer engage the budgets it wants. Be of good faith too. Let’s try to be objective and don’t fall into slogans and big phrases!

These are not slogans.

It is simply about assuming a number of things. During the last legislature, you have made sure that Justice and the Interior are immune from any economy. You were there at the time, but you did not do the same this time. The savings made on these services are likely to be damaging, you said yourself, especially for local policies. The Minister of the Interior responded to a press question on the number of extra hours that police zones and federal police must provide due to the fight against terrorism. We know that this will not be enough, we just have to assume!

If it is to assume, if it is to be accountable, I want to assume the common responsibility that we have, even if it was behind your Minister of the Interior, to the point of informing all parliamentarians, so that they can see that on a number of budget lines including investments, only 50 to 60% of the allocated appropriations have been used. Why Why ? There is always a good explanation to give, since you want to be accountable. You deny, however, that this government has made an effort for more investment at the level of security, of the OCAM. You deny the additional investments that the Interior Minister has indicated. You deny the credits we have provided for the payment of the military. I could continue the list, but the president wants me to finish. I hear the comment of Mr. and good. I have great respect for your work on the ground.

In conclusion, I would like to quote some of the small controversies that have taken place here. In general, except for a few levels, the exchanges have been constructive, so I ask you once again. We talked about a number of measures. I would have wanted to go in more detail on the measures taken by the Minister of Justice regarding the ban on returns. I would have wanted to talk a little more about this famous thirteenth measure of Minister Francken consisting in no longer accepting as asylum seekers persons who pose a threat in the field of terrorism. These are common sense measures. There is no excess. There is a willingness to protect what we are, what the Belgians want to remain, what the Belgian Muslims also want to be by living in total serenity. In these measures, there is nothing excessive, there is nothing dangerous for our freedoms, for the respect of our freedoms, our values. These are just measures we need.

Ladies and gentlemen of the opposition, take your responsibilities, vote for them!

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers and colleagues, this is an important debate in which we discuss several draft projects together. I think it is also appropriate for a debate like this to commemorate all the victims of various extremist attacks, whether they fell in a museum in Brussels, in a grocery store in Paris, on a beach in Tunisia or in a mosque in Kuwait or anywhere in the world. We must not forget them. I also think that in a debate like this we should pay tribute to the security and police and the people of Justice who have already managed to prevent countless victims, in difficult and dangerous circumstances.

Today is a time of tension. The terrorist attacks indicate that the time has passed when all this was a far-of-mine bed show. We must accept that we must learn to live in a society of risks. There is no longer a risk-free society. Our government was aware of this from its entry in office. The governmental agreement teaches that too. In that government agreement, even before the attacks in Paris, the measures we discuss today were partially prepared. This is due to the disproportionate number of Syrian fighters in our country.

Complex issues do not tolerate simple answers. If one considers the government measures, they are indeed primarily aimed at repression. The problems teach that a global and integrated approach is in place, for each of us, of immigrant or indigenous origin, and for all governments, including the local and regional. To conduct a successful policy, it requires at least a foundation, a common base of values and civil virtues, which may not be enforceable, but which each of us must accept and which must be respected in society. On this foothold of values lies the freedom of religion. Religious freedom means not only rights, but also duties. One of those duties is that one also accepts, respects and even defends the freedom of religion of others. Only then, colleagues, can the life-visual diversity that characterizes Western Europe contain a wealth.

Today we are not talking about the matters which are within the competence of the Communities and which are at least related to the measures we are addressing today. Then I’m talking, for example, about the unskilled outflow into education, about jobs, about housing of immigrants. Then I’m talking about problem detection, assistance and youth assistance. I am talking about an open, inclusive society where cohesion and connections need to be strengthened.

Therefore, my group is happy that, for example, in the Flemish Parliament, across the boundaries of majority and opposition, a resolution was adopted containing a lot of measures related to inclusion, prevention and protection. I have no knowledge of a similar initiative at another regional level, but it can be avoided. I urge the French-speaking colleagues to do the same at their regional level. After all, I am absolutely convinced that a chain approach is necessary to ⁇ success with regard to the matter. If we only take strict, repressive measures, then we sweat with the crane open and the success is limited.

I would like to interrupt you for a moment, Mr. Verherstraeten, because you have an excess of right to advocate for an integrated approach. The different levels of competence must take their responsibilities.

You know as well as I do that a resolution is one thing, and budgets and concrete measures are something else. I am, therefore, one of those who look impatiently at how the 55 measures adopted in the Flemish Parliament are also substantiated in concrete and budgetary terms. There is a lack of integrated approach. I will later point out in the debate that there is also a lack of social succession, ⁇ of radicalized minors. There are many promises in the Flemish resolution, but at the moment there is nothing concrete.

That brings me to the general problem, namely that we are facing an incredibly difficult institutional clutter.

The federal government and the Minister of Security in particular should assume a coordinating task in relation to the Communities and the Regions. I am at least equally concerned about the lethargy in some Brussels municipalities. To this end – this is the institutional problem – the federal minister must enter into cooperative relationships with the Regions and Communities. I want to insist on speed in that area, because we are two and a half years ahead. I especially urge for clear commitments, because you have missed nothing by not noticing anything at the Flemish and Brussels level, that I fear.

We have a problem with the hierarchy of the source. You will remember that at some point I pleaded for a government commissioner, whom I even named by name, to solve the problem you refer to.

You have an excess of equality with your plea for an integrated approach, but at the moment we are on that level as well as nowhere, that’s my point.

I just said that I may have missed some things regarding the regional level, and then I was talking of course about the level of the Brussels Capital Region and the French Community. In the Flemish Parliament, in any case, we adopted a very precise resolution, I thought with the support of your group. There are certain measures in the pipeline. That there should be budgetary space for this, even in difficult times like this, speaks for itself, we agree on that.

I also understood that quite soon after the events in France inter-ministerial conferences were organized in which agreements were made on cooperation between the various governments. It seems to me the logic of things that they will be followed in the coming months and years, because cooperation between the various governments can be the only answer to that.

By the way, not only – this will sound like music in your ears as a mayor – cooperation must come between the regions and the federal level, but also with municipal governments and ⁇ with the municipal governments where the problem is specifically present. Your city is an example of this, colleague Bonte, like many different others.

I would also like to refer to something current; I am addressing the competent Secretary of State and the competent ministers.

I read that recently it was decided to appoint an imam to the country. Our group supports that, and I am glad that this has happened. There is no place for hate preachers in this country. Violence – including verbal violence – must be combated without compromise. I think this is a good decision. We must give the example that this is unacceptable for our society.

Colleagues, we realize that the various measures and various designs presented here today can pose a potential risk in a field of tension between security and privacy, between security and rights and freedoms. It is obvious that in applying this, our ministers must take care that the overwhelming majority of people, of any race, any status, any will belief, who agree with our society, are not constrained in their rights and freedoms. In these designs, freedom and privacy can be perfectly compatible with each other.

The measures presented here are absolutely necessary. They fit into a changed social context. We need armed governance. Most measures are, of course, exceptional measures that are necessary even in exceptional circumstances. I think of the withdrawal of the identity card in the event of serious indications that terrorist activities are planned elsewhere, the decline of nationality for more crimes, possibly even for a longer period, the tightening of asylum procedures in order to eventually withdraw certain rights or refuse to grant them. These are exceptional measures, but I think exceptional measures are appropriate in exceptional circumstances.

Ladies and gentlemen, I will come to two points.

I would like to address, among other things, the Minister of Internal Affairs.

One concern we share concerns the abundance of data and information we have in the context of terrorism and extremism. The Committee P has pointed out that at the moment no authority can accurately map that multitude of information. However, this is necessary in order to act very efficiently. I think we should be careful about this, as the Committee P, by the way, asked. In a future policy note, you should provide the necessary margin to take certain measures in this regard to increase centralization in the diversity of data. In this way, we can act accurately and quickly.

The measures presented today are not budgetally neutral. This requires resources for the departments of Home Affairs, Justice, Defence, and Asylum and Migration. These measures should not be at the expense of the ordinary, regular, current and future policies of the various departments. We have already demonstrated this in the last budget control. Our group’s request is to do so in the current and future budget discussions. If we want to develop security and make these measures feasible on the ground, the various departments in this area must have the necessary budgetary space so that this policy can also be conducted effectively and can yield results.

In any case, we wish you all success.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers, Colleagues, I do not have the slightest need to conduct a debate in terms of polemics, such as a majority against the opposition, whether this government did excellent and another government with a different composition and so on.

I think when it comes to security, terrorist threats and attacks, there is one major constant in politics. That constant is what I describe as steep flame policy.

In Telkenmale, where in the last ten or fifteen years something has happened in the world, all governments have gathered together, they have announced urgent measures and presented good intentions, and have convened European meetings. After 9/11 it was so, after Madrid, after London, after Verviers. Suddenly they saw the light shining and they were mounted out in good intentions. It has always been said that, indeed, information should circulate better.

Having the information is not the most important thing; it is especially important to share it with others, and in that we shoot too short. Are the police and intelligence services of our Member States always equally cooperative? We shoot too short in this, within Europe and also, for example, when it comes to cooperation with the Americans.

I have experience with a security department, and indeed, one should visit the Americans and see how they look at how to share the information, and with whom they are willing to share that information.

It is always after an attack that one seeks new insights.

A second constant, Mr. Speaker, is that we must watch over our principles.

Every time something happens, of course, there are meetings where one excels in good intentions, but where one also tends to use some force on the principles and pillars on which our rule of law is based by saying that we now need radical measures, that we will announce things that may not be able to withstand the review of the rule of law.

This is seen, for example, in the United States of America. Ask what people think today about the famous Patriot Act and what the “experiments” in Guantanamo have learned. Look also at the United Kingdom, where measures have been announced that could deprive people of their freedom for 24, 48 or 72 hours by saying: you are suspected of terrorism, so we lock you. These were measures of deprivation of liberty without any further review due to the judiciary.

This is a second constant for which I would like to warn today. Never make the mistake that terrorists really want us to do, in particular: making concessions on democratic values. We would give them the greatest pleasure if they found that we would crush or test our own system and our own democratic values – colleague Verherstraeten, you referred to.

Does that mean I’m in favor of naivety? No is . We must do what is necessary, but in everything we undertake, we must always make that balance and maintain that balance. There is a right to security, but there is also a right to privacy.

The politician must also dare to tell the public that there is no absolute right to security, and that in the fields of police, security and intelligence, one can’t set up or build a government in such a way that one can be sure that such things don’t give us a chance. We must do everything that is acceptable in a democratic rule of law to minimize the risk.

I think that Parliament should discuss this today and speak on it tomorrow.

I am surprised by your introduction. You will provide a broad overview of the steep flame policy all over the world. If something became clear, it is that the government took twelve measures the day after Verviers. They would be joined a few weeks later, in mid-February. However, today we are still debating some of those measures. I think this is a school example of a firefighting policy.

What surprises me even more in your introduction is that you rightly warn against throwing overboard some of our principles of the rule of law in crisis situations. I really wonder if you have read the draft of Minister Jambon in which only the executive power without judicial review is authorized to take away the identity cards of persons and to restrict their travel space.

We have long discussed a proposal that in the case of minors there is always a check through the prosecutor before withdrawing identity cards. The draft government stipulates that the OCAD forms an opinion and that the Minister of Home Affairs acts independently of the judicial review. This is the opposite of the plea you are holding here.

One of two things: either you mean what you say and then you need to urgently amend the draft, or you need to think about what you are just coming to say.

I liked the introduction of Mr. and Dewael. I will keep it and take it out during the debate we will have during the transposition of the new Directive on the retention of internet data.

Remember, Mr. Dewael, about a year and a half ago, this House voted as a single man, your party including, a law transposing a European directive that, meanwhile, was broken by the Court of Justice of the European Union, which ensured that the entire electronic data (telephone, internet and other) is stored by GSM and Internet operators. The meaning of your introduction, which I fully agree with, dealt with the question of the proportionality between the fundamental right to security and the fundamental right to privacy, among others.

Let’s be careful, however, because, alongside this issue of massive data collection that I just talked about, there is also an extremely powerful problem and conflict between two visions of security. The vision today defended by the State Security says that we try to control a series of problematic individuals, to listen to them, to verify their actions. This is how most European intelligence services, including the State Security in Belgium, operate today.

But there are velvetes, especially from the military intelligence service. Indeed, ten days ago, General Testelmans stated that fiber optic cables should be intercepted and what the US intelligence services are doing, the NSA first: widespread surveillance. It seems to me that you are denouncing this kind of practice, Mr. Dewael!

I draw your attention to the fact that there exists, today, in our state, in our intelligence services in relation to this widespread surveillance.

Mr. Bonte, according to you, it would be “measures taken by the administration, without any judicial review”.

Judicial review is obviously not excluded in the draft law. It is quite logical that a decision of the Minister of Internal Affairs can be appealed to the State Council. That is quite logical, it is damn in the Constitution. It is quite logical that one can also turn to the civil court. It is not because it is not expressly stated in the draft that a judicial examination takes place that that judicial examination cannot take place. This is obviously not excluded.

I would like to come to that, Mr. Speaker.

I find it good that one says in an introduction that one wants to cross the boundaries of the party-political majority and opposition, but then Mr. Bonte says immediately that it has now gone wrong and that it was different before.

I can testify, Mrs. Temmerman, that in the period 2001-2006 the phenomenon I have just described was always the same, in the sense that the government gathered, decreed measures and decided that urgent action should be taken. They also came together at the European level. I invite you to take a look at the list of measures taken after the attacks in Madrid and London. Then we will both find that many of the measures that were then announced and on the European level solemnly promised by all heads of state and government were then put into effect, because if the dust has gone down a little and the attention slaps a little, then of course it becomes a little more difficult.

Once solemnly promised things in the field of information exchange, which urged Member States to adjust matters in their legislation, but if one year or two later became, or that had already happened, then it turned out to be not so. Let me give you an arbitrary example. Following the attacks in London and Madrid, the French government said urgent action was needed. If one year or two years later one knew whether the measures that had been agreed in Europe had been implemented in the internal legal order, it turned out that was not the case.

I’ve just described a phenomenon, a certain steep flame policy. We are hunted by a public opinion that asks the government to declare some sort of absolute guarantee of security. Well, it would be nice to say that we can do whatever we want, but that we cannot guarantee an absolute right to security. Please do not make a play of it as if this government after Verviers had done this or that, while that previously happened differently. That is a constant. I say this quietly and distantly, without any polemical urge.

Ensuring the rights of citizens, ensuring that administrative authorities do not go too far, and ensuring that judicial controls are always provided, that is exactly what each of us should keep in mind when voting tomorrow.

You may find that these designs go too far in that. As far as I am concerned, I believe that all the measures taken here in the field of passports and identity cards, the review can be concluded. Everyone must make it for themselves.

I come to my second point.

Mr Dewael, you just referred to measures taken in Britain and in the United States, which you think — I agree with you — went too far. You referred, among other things, to the 72 hour detention period in Britain. I don’t know if you have read the bill of Minister Geens correctly. In fact, it proposes that a member of your party may extend the detention period to 72 hours before an investigative judge makes a decision.

I assume that you will oppose this measure, which may come into the second potpourri law?

It is of fundamental importance to be careful with such measures and in that regard I agree with you, but I warn you that they are in the justice plan.

I hope to receive your support in September.

Mr. Van Hecke, they are never included in the general terms as you have just described them.

You should also examine each measure in its specific context. Once again, when I speak of the United Kingdom, I am actually talking about an administrative measure. There is not even an investigative judge or any other judicial authority. When I talk about the Patriot Act, we have seen other excesses, which I wonder if it has contributed to the security in that country. This question cannot always be answered positively. Should some of these things be revised? I mean yes.

I come up with a number of structural measures that I think are fundamental in the fight against radicalism and terrorism, and in the fight against crime in general. These are the measures we took in 2006.

In that regard, I am speaking specifically about an organ that is pushed forward in the press as a possible target of criticism, in particular the OCAD.

I just said that the most important thing is not to have information, but to ensure that the information can circulate.

Apart from the majority and the opposition, I address in this regard more specifically to you, Mrs. Onkelinx. We have effective police and intelligence services in our country. Nevertheless, I must think of a sad episode in our country, the Dutroux period, during which the question arose whether one police service knew what the other was doing. At that time we wanted to have the certainty, or at least the maximum guarantee because certainty one has never, that the information available to a police service, at the local or federal level or at an intelligence service, was gathered at an information intersection where an analysis of the threat that could exist could be made. This latter makes it immediately clear that such an information intersection can never be an intelligence service in itself. It can never be an actor in the field, but a crossroads of information where only analyses should be done and we should only watch that the legal obligation to collect that information there is fulfilled.

Mr. Speaker, I have no tangible evidence to say that this is not the case, but I am not quite sure. I know a little about the culture of the police and intelligence services. Sometimes these are dumb boys and girls, who know what the law requires, but who wonder why they should share their good information with this or that gene. It is a continuous task. As attention diminishes because terrorism goes away from the mental mind, that old culture sometimes becomes stronger and one begins to play his own game again. The Parliament as a control body must constantly monitor this, but also the government through the custody it has over the police and intelligence services. We must be very alert to this. I would like to make it clear that the OCAD cannot be a player on the ground, but that its role is of fundamental importance.

Ms. Onkelinx, we have had all the effort of the world to make it clear to the foreign police and intelligence services what the OCAD exactly means, precisely because they assumed that information transmitted to Belgium immediately begins to circulate and ends up at the central information intersection. So their conclusion was not to give our country any more information, otherwise they would lose it or they would have to share it. So it was a very annoying task to make it clear abroad that this is the model that one should have everywhere. After all, what we had in Belgium at the time with OCAD could also exist in the European Union in case of enlargement. However, we are far from there.

Explain it to the French, the British and the Americans. Rather, they will have the reflex to prefer to share with us, the Belgians, as little as possible for the reasons I have just described.

A third element is the power or capacity of our intelligence and police services.

I need a few things from the heart. On the one hand, we are the country with the highest number of police officers per capita, on the other hand, after the events in Verviers, the Minister of the Interior must testify that some of those services, services that matter, such as the Federal Computer Crime Uniet and the DSU, are completely subordinate. The minister said that the material that these people have at their disposal is underweight and that they had to rent or borrow – I don’t know how that was organized – abroad. Per ⁇ this should be assessed in the light of the global police reform. In the core task debate, this should give you the opportunities you are advocating.

Some of the wrong police duties may well be noticed by others, for example, I think of stewards at cycling competitions and rock festivals. I also think of the post offices that could be better deployed to perform the duties of the Minister of Justice; the factors of the prosecutors. These are all tasks that the police are now wondering why they should do them.

Well, whoever says A should also say B: with the capacity that one can unleash there, it must be possible, even with a consistent budget and a consistent allocation, to invest more in the services one wants to strengthen, such as the Federal Computer Crime Unit and the ICT services. I am speaking for the security of the state. I see those people walking around with politicians who I assume are the subject of serious threats. Is that the primary task of the people of state security? Shouldn’t they rather be concerned with the analysis of security risks? Is the shadowing of politicians and foreign heads of state and government not the job of the police? Should state security continue to do so?

I think it is necessary to recalibrate all these services. The key issues debate in September and October should get its full right, Mr. Minister of the Interior.

Dear colleague, thank you for your very interesting intervention. I support everything you said about the reaction we have had every time, in the face of the events. At the time, we were both in the exhibited positions of the Interior and Justice. As you said, I think we were able to answer. Remember that at the time, there was no status of State Security Officers. We created statutes, we invested in State Security, we doubled staff, we created the Coordination Body for Threat Analysis (OCAM), we created and strengthened the first anti-terrorism laws.

It is certain that these measures need to be continuously improved, which is no problem for me. Where I disagree, it is when, while improving them, we endanger some of our fundamental principles. I give an example among others: intentional crime poses a real problem for me as a lawyer and as a Democrat.

I will return to what you say about the local police and the police in general. On the ground, we hear complaints about the lack of resources. You say that is what you hear, but that at the same time there are new needs. You talked about cybercrime, etc. You are entirely right. And you say that you should also, depending on the available means, try to work on police tasks. We’ve been saying this for a long time: how can we optimize these missions?

I intervene here because it has been a few weeks since my colleague Nawal Ben Hamou, in particular, demands a debate in the Interior Committee on this optimization. So I use this to insist, as you are here, Mr. Minister of the Interior, that this debate take place as soon as possible. On the ground, municipalists in particular, are confronted with interpellations from their services to which they do not know how to respond because, in order to be able to respond to them, it would require choices in the missions. I am convinced, ⁇ like you, Mr. Dewael, that one can discharge the police from administrative tasks so that it can orient itself towards what is absolutely indispensable, especially in the period we live, where radicalism and terrorism are the object of the greatest attention of all our services and interpelate all our fellow citizens.

My remarks aim to support the request of my colleague and to interpell the Minister of the Interior on this subject.

This is not just a question of our colleague’s request.

I would like to refer to what colleague Gabriël has been advocating a few weeks ago and is also doing this regularly in the committee. Mr Quickenborne spoke about this last week. Your deputy deputy, Mr Vandeput, responded to that at the time.

Ms. Onkelinx, let us not think that the fight against radicalism and terrorism is merely a matter of specialized services. In fact, any information, whoever gains it, is important. I have advocated for a good exchange of information because what a neighborhood officer finds in a particular neighborhood, proposes banally – the being in Ukkel, Schaarbeek, Borgerhout or Kortrijk – and there perceives as suspicious, must be taken equally seriously and forwarded to the federal square. This should be the subject of a good analysis. This is as important to me as the Security of the State, which is of course also the point of contact for mainly foreign intelligence services. All the information must be able to be combined.

My point is that we should not turn to two things. It was mentioned in the beginning, but if there are difficulties with the OCAD, we have to face them. The role of determining the threat, making the threat analysis, is a task for the OCAD. This can and should never be the subject of political arbitration. This must be done by those responsible for it. It is the task of politics to ensure that all those actors from the police, intelligence, military intelligence, customs and let’s mention, sit around the table and consult with each other. Politics should not replace the OCAD, for if politics should do the threat analysis, we have left for the adventure.

My second plea is still my credo in more Europe, also in this area. Look at the difficulties with passenger control. How long does this file last! We are not under control within the European Union. The Americans are asking us to take action, but in Europe we fail, not even in the European Parliament, to provide an answer. If it fails, it must be multilateral or bilateral. We cannot continue to wait. We will debate on Greece tomorrow, but if it can’t with 28, it must only be through enhanced cooperation and the parties or partners who want to move forward must also be able to do so and celebrate a form of enhanced cooperation. The passenger control is effectively one of the gaps that can break us out of acid sooner or later.

That were a few points of attention. I have ⁇ talked too long. Mr. Van Quickenborne will zoom up on a number of very interesting practical examples, among them from Kortrijk. For my group, that was the focus.

We will be enthusiastically approving these government proposals tomorrow.

Thank you, Mr Dewael.

For information, Mr Van Quickenborne has four minutes left.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, we have already had an interesting debate and we have also been able to discuss the texts thoroughly and freely in the committee. We also have excellent records. These are very important for later application. We may have a very global debate on how to fight radicalization and violent radicalism, but at the same time we must analyze the legislative texts that are present very concretely and thoroughly and ensure that we legislate correctly.

I go back to January 2015 – many colleagues have already done that – when the government came up with a 12-point plan very quickly after the attack in Verviers. We had an interesting discussion then. I can’t get rid of the impression that this twelve-point plan had quickly collapsed when one came to the committee. There were some strange things in it. Fortunately, many corrections have already been made.

I repeat briefly what I said then, namely: whatever measure one takes, in a democratic rule of law one must always remain very critical. In this sense, I agree with what Patrick Dewael says, namely, that one should be careful of steep flame legislation. This seemed to be the case at that time.

The first question that one should always ask is whether our current arsenal of laws is not sufficient. Many politicians, ministers and governments feel in every incident the urge to make new legislation quickly, while there is often a lot of legislation available that is applicable and can be applied. This is the first question to be asked.

Secondly, if new legislation needs to be adopted, is it effective? Will it make society safer, will it deter perpetrators from committing such acts?

Are the measures proportionate? This has already been discussed, and it is very essential. Are privacy and fundamental principles of our rule of law sufficiently taken into account? This is also very important.

In this matter, however, the present draft is only the closing part. Federally, we decide on measures regarding justice, security and police, but the truth is that the closing point if it is already too late. In fact, we need to pay much more attention to what comes before, prevention. This is not our task, but primarily the task of the Communities and the Regions. It is therefore very important that they also do their work, because the better the prevention policy is in the future, the less repressive policy will be needed.

I am therefore pleased that you have also emphasized that, colleague Verherstraeten, but I would like to note that in the Flemish government agreement originally nothing was stated about prevention policy regarding radicalism. After that, there was indeed a committee that made a number of recommendations, which we also endorsed. That is a good package, but initially the Flemish government had not even noticed the problem when it was formed. Fortunately, this is corrected and I hope, like many others, that everything will be put into practice very soon.

In five months, a lot has changed. Let’s take a look at the above-mentioned draft, which is mainly about nationality. That was one of the important measures that were pushed forward in January. With a lot of poeha, the government announced that it would make the declaration of the expiration of nationality much stricter. It was also intended to extend them to people with dual citizenship, who were born in Belgium and by their birth had acquired Belgian citizenship. This is immediately warned, because it is not so obvious. It may sound nice, but in a democratic rule of law it could sometimes bring problems, ⁇ in the light of, for example, a judgment of the Constitutional Court of 2009.

I must conclude that the government has thoroughly investigated this and eventually dropped the track – quite rightly. Originally it was communication. It would not have been a good measure. I do not need to repeat that. It might have been counterproductive if such an extensive measure had been imposed. He probably ⁇ ’t have resisted.

However, I would like to take a closer look at the opinion of the State Council.

The State Council has analyzed the declaration of expiration very thoroughly and makes a number of fundamental comments about the system that is currently in the bill. After all, what remains? The only change that has actually occurred concerns the ten-year period. This is done in the case of terrorist crimes. Thus, three systems of declaration of expiration or loss of nationality are actually introduced.

The State Council says that this should be taken care of. On the one hand, in fact, there is the method “loss of nationality in serious failure to fulfil the obligations of Belgian citizenship”, on the other hand, there are articles 23/1 and 23/2. These should be better aligned with each other, because they are a little confused. The government has not taken any initiatives in this regard, it has not responded to that comment.

Another observation concerns the distinction introduced between, on the one hand, terrorist crimes in which a declaration of expiration of nationality can be made without the requirement of ten years and, on the other hand, a series of other crimes in which that requirement of ten years applies. In that regard, the Council of State has made it clear that one must explain why one makes this difference, rather because there are crimes with very high penalties, in which one can no longer lose the Belgian nationality after ten years, while in other crimes, with lower penalties, that additional punishment may still exist. I can only conclude that the Government has not taken this comment into account.

Regardless of the fundamental discussion on the opportunity of that measure, I think that this could sometimes give rise to legal consequences. The Constitutional Court will still be able to decide on this in the future and may find that the distinction made is unjustifiable. We will have to wait to see what the Constitutional Court will do in this area. I would like to emphasize this, because this is a fundamental observation of the Council of State which has not been taken into account.

I would like to return to the specific draft concerning the withdrawal of the identity card.

Here too, we have returned to the original model, Mr. Minister. In fact, I still remember well, at the first discussion in January, that it was urged to introduce a system in which an alternative card could be issued in cases of violations of public order and the like. We then warned to be careful. It is necessary to ensure that such a system does not act stigmatizing. If someone’s identity card was withdrawn and then it turns out that nothing is going on, then you have wrongly stigmatized someone. This comment has been taken into account. I would like to thank the government for taking into account many of those comments, because it has come up with a system that will not work stigmatizing. It will work with a document that is known and that many people also own, namely a document that you get when you apply for or have lost an identity card.

Then I want to talk about “violations of public order”.

It was very dangerous, Mr. Minister, to use this as a criterion. Something is very quickly a “violation of public order.” I think you may have already been confessed, in an earlier life, if you came out on the street. I am sure that many colleagues here have already been arrested by the police for violations of public order. If this was taken as a criterion for withdrawing the identity card, then half of this Parliament would have ever lost all their identity card.

I do not understand how this came into the twelve-point programme and no one realized that it was a danger, but it delights you, Mr. Minister, that you have adjusted this and that terrorist crimes are now explicitly referred to.

It is also important that it is clear how long the withdrawal can last. This was not originally determined. Now a clear answer has been given, a clear maximum duration has now been set.

What is also very important is that there is an effective vocational opportunity. We have discussed this for a long time. First, there was a track with some sort of legal confirmation. It was abandoned after fierce criticism from the State Council. Now the normal system is followed, that one can appeal the decision before the Council of State.

There are also some comments to be made. We have debated this for a long time.

First, the State Council is not the body with the most experience in assessing whether there really is a sufficient terrorist threat when certain people may be travelling abroad. But well .

Second, I would like to emphasize the delicacy of this procedure. It was immediately revealed that the law on formal motivation will not apply. It is said that one will have to appeal to the exception. In other words, someone whose identity card is revoked may not see in the decision what the explicit reasons and arguments are for it. They want to invoke the exceptional provision in the law.

This makes it very difficult to appeal. If someone wants to appeal but does not know the arguments, that person has a very difficult time defending himself. I would like to draw attention to this because here we are balancing the rights of defence on the edge. I refer to the whole case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice, which states that there must be a balance between the defence of the interests of the State, ensuring that sensitive information does not simply come out, on the one hand, and the defence of the person concerned, who must have sufficient elements to include his defence, on the other,

This is a very delicate point. The jurisprudence of the Council of State, and possibly of the Constitutional Court, will have to identify what can and what can not. In any case, a very delicate balance is introduced here. We must pay sufficient attention to this.

We can also ask many questions about the application. How will we determine which areas are concerned? You will not work with lists, I know, that is clear. However, there are many situations in which this question can arise. I repeat the example. Kurdish-Turkish youth from here depart to Kurdistan to fight with the Kurdish army against IS. In principle, this also falls within the scope of this legislation. Will one person be told that his struggle is legitimate, but the other that his struggle in that country or in that region, with that group, is not legitimate? This will be a very difficult consideration. Therefore, I believe that it is ⁇ important that the preparatory work and the dossier prepared by the OCAD, which will be the first to make the analysis, take place properly.

We all know that the operation of the OCAD is not always ideal. Then I refer not only to what was in the newspapers today, but also to earlier reports, which often expressed the criticism that people came on lists and sometimes very difficult to get rid of them.

I think we should pay a lot of attention to this. The delicacy of the work and the quality of the work must be there, because otherwise we are at risk of arbitrariness.

I would like to finish by returning to the considerations that we need to make. We must see the measure in its entirety and we must take into account the objectives and the balances. For us, these balances are not yet fully in place.

We have asked a lot of questions about the application and we still have a lot of questions about its applicability.

We will not approve these texts. We will abstain, but we want to continue to work together in a constructive way to ensure that the balance comes in, not only here, but also in the other parliaments.

I repeat that we find it very important that a lot of attention be paid to prevention. A lot of energy must be invested in this, as well as in cooperation with the federal government.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers, colleagues, I see that Mr. Dewael has left the hemisphere, but I would like to start with what he also stressed, in particular that we may never know a society with an absolute guarantee of security. There has once been a Minister of Home Affairs who said on this tribune that it is almost impossible to protect a society from individuals willing to give their lives to ruin another’s life. I fear this is true.

Let us all join together, and still with the inspiration that we, both majority and opposition, have a responsibility in doing so, to ensure that the risks of incidents and terrorism are minimized to the maximum.

I will not come back to the description of steep flame politics, I have already done it. To stay in Mr. Dewael’s imagery, let us assume that the dust has now gone down and that we can see what has all been realized.

I repeat what I have said in my presentation. The last thing we need is some kind of hostility, struggle, jealousy between security services. Renowned group leaders even come here to defend the OCAD and tell how much resources it needs to get. That will all be true, but, with my feet in the security issue, I hear a little too much naive and attracted to 200 million, criticism of the other and too little self-criticism.

The government must be aware that the first shipyard to be finalised – the government is working on it – is the Plan R, the Foreign Fighters Directive, the exchange of information. That is still an essential field and I hope that very soon there will be a form of pacification instead of competition between security services, so that everyone knows what resources they get and what the task is.

After the debate here and after reading an article on the subject in The Standard, one can ask whether the OCAD does indeed what it was created for. It seems to me that too often it invokes the lack of resources to blame for its own failure.

Mr. Minister, in response to the twelve measures of early January, my group said that Plan R, the Foreign Fighters Directive, is important, but that the strengthening of local police and local governments is equally important. It was repeated here that the issue requires an integrated approach. The OCAD and the Security of the State are nothing without the local police, without the man in the street, the district officer, of which Mr. Dewael spoke. These are key players in addressing this security risk.

We must today conclude that the government has not followed our suggestion and as a reason gives up the limited budgets. Of course, the budgets are limited, but I have listened very closely to Mr. Verherstraeten, security also means investments, choices. Mr. Verherstraeten, you have listed those choices and that will happen. In any case, the government will have to prove, by means of the allocated budgets, its willingness to carry out something in advance.

Allow me to add two words. I am concerned about the statement this morning by Minister of Budget Jamar that of the discharged 200 million euros 100 million may need to be used to pay outstanding bills of Justice. If that is true, I fear that our political system is not credible in relation to our security services, which rely on us.

This brings me to the previous drafts.

We had a constructive discussion in the committee. The question is whether the proposals are effective in the fight against the terrorist threat. I am not convinced of this because I have experienced what radicalism is. Whoever is convinced that he or she must assume responsibility for the establishment of a caliphate, or that martyrdom or murder in battle is the supreme good, as I have heard from the mouth of a minor, is not prevented by threatening to take away his or her nationality. He wants to be younger and, if necessary, die there. That is the power of radicalism.

By the way, I would like to express my appreciation for State Secretary Theo Francken, who makes it clear that an outraging and hateful discourse to young Muslims does not belong to our country. In that I give him a surplus of right, I think he makes the right decision in that regard.

In any case, how can one mimic such an approach with a bill aimed at stopping the radicalised imams by withdrawing the identity card or passport? In my opinion, on the other hand, it is a legitimate decision to keep them in the country on condition that they are followed by police and justice and on the social level. Unfortunately, this is not the case at the moment.

Sometimes I notice that people for whom the OCAD declares a high level of threat are released due to procedural errors and who then disappear suddenly in Brussels. Sometimes such persons appear in Vilvoorde, while our police are not aware of it, because Halle-Vilvoorde does not have a courthouse, Mr. Minister of Justice.

In other words, today we do not have the guarantee that everyone will be properly followed, neither the radicalized nor the returnees. That is the naked truth and it hurts us both. As long as we do not have that guarantee, it seems to me really dangerous to stop everyone murderous. Per ⁇ we should follow the example of Secretary of State Francken in certain cases and make sure we get rid of them. We may also need to make it clear to them that they do not belong in our society.

This brings me to the big challenge, which other colleagues have also mentioned, namely the cooperation agreements and protocols. Where are they? Where is the cooperation between the Flemish Community and the federal government to follow up, for example, Youth Protection young radicalised minors? That should be the logic itself. There is no guarantee in this regard, as there is currently no cooperation protocol. Or else, where is the cooperation agreement related to the recognition of mosques?

For the entry into force of this draft, cooperation agreements are needed, as the Minister has said. Only then can one who is convinced that one must die for the establishment of the caliphate and in doing so also use force be stopped at departure. I would like to point out to my colleagues that a recent analysis in the United States shows that more than half of terrorist attacks are committed by persons who have never left the country. This is about the homegrown terrorists. Recent history in Europe teaches us that this can also be the case in our country. You don’t have to go to Syria or Iraq to commit terrorist attacks here.

Simply stopping people without having the guarantee that they will be followed afterwards remains a problem. I think I understand from the discussions in the committee that the Minister will make the entry into force of the draft law dependent on the cooperation agreements. Mr. Minister, I realize how complex our country is, because there is no hierarchy between the different levels of policy, but I hope that you will be able to overtake the Brussels Capital Region in addition to the French and Flemish Community. Those agreements should contain clear commitments on follow-up and prevention.

I also want to lose this here, living and working on the edge of Brussels: our Flemish, European and Belgian capital has gained the reputation abroad to be a very dangerous and vulnerable area, a breeding pond for radicalism, from which a terrorist threat arises. Mr. Minister, I ask you to pay special attention to what is happening in the capital. If we in the Rand, in Vilvoorde, accurately try to track radicalised persons and returned Syrian fighters, then they have one refuge: Brussels. They literally say to the neighborhood agent that they are leaving for Brussels. Then we are very often losing them, not only us but also the Security of the State and the OCAD. This is very disturbing. I hope you try to take this problem seriously.

Colleagues, due to the doubt and the lack of the guarantee that it will be followed accurately, we will abstain at the vote.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to repeat the amendment we have submitted. In fact, I would like to make another attempt, colleagues, to convince you to join our proposal, which consists – I address myself explicitly to you, colleague Verherstraeten, because I have listened carefully to your plea for an integrated approach – that a mayor on an explicit request of parents of minors can very quickly withdraw identity papers, that in doing so the prosecutor is automatically informed and the youth protection authorities receive an order from the prosecutor within 24 hours.

This is an example of an integrated approach, in a field where we fail today, in the sense that, for some reason, the youth protection agencies work too slowly for minors radicalized who wish to leave. They struggle with a sort of cultural threshold to the group of the most vulnerable youth. This measure would respond to Mr Dewael’s plea for judicial review and would ensure that the responsible authorities, namely the youth judges, could autonomously impose measures against young people. Through this, colleagues, we would be able to protect minors who enter the calling of violent jihadism. Today, too many have already left and, unfortunately, Ginder has been wounded or killed.

I finished with five points.

First, Mr. Minister, as soon as possible, we need to get through with respect to the discharged credits of €200 million, so that there is clarity about what can and can not be and what the expectations are exactly. At the same time, try to define who has what task. That can undoubtedly be in a modified plan R and the Foreign Fighter Directive.

Secondly, there is already consensus on this point. The dust has gone down, but there is actually little progress noticeable. Strengthen local levels. Strengthen police zones such as Molenbeek and Vilvoorde, where radicalism is found. Put it in.

Everyone is convinced that local levels need to be strengthened. Ms. Milquet had already decided in the previous government that in the cities facing this misery, a radicalism officer should come in. More than that, it has not yet come to our regret. I think that local levels should be strengthened.

The third point is related to the second. A closing approach must also be achieved through cooperation agreements. Unfortunately, with a resolution alone, we do not reach it.

Fourth, I would like to once again pay special attention to the Brussels Capital Region, which appears to be a very easy place to stay shielded from everything that has to do with succession.

A fifth point has to do with the emotions I experience as a mayor when a minor dies as a result of short-term decisions. Take a closer look at the amendment we have submitted. I think it is essential.

Mr. Minister, there is a spirit of constructive cooperation, so I feel. This also means that there should be some openness in the majority to the proposals of the opposition. I have not really experienced that in the last few weeks unfortunately.

First of all, I would like to address Mr. Ducarme who, at the conclusion of his speech, called on the opposition to take responsibility.

I can tell you, Mr. Ducarme, that the CDH will take its responsibilities, as it has made known in committee during all discussions on terrorism. This is how my party will vote, in the plenary session, the bills of the government, as it did in a committee, even if it wants to issue a small reserve.

At the meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Committees on 15 January 2015, we had said that we would be on the side of the government whenever it would take measures to fight terrorism. It is therefore quite logical that we behave, today, in accordance with what we had announced.

On the 5th of January, Mr. Georges Dallemagne, I have submitted three bills that are also included in the government texts. However, we would have hoped that this question would be, as you mentioned, the object of a national union. Unfortunately, none of the very constructive amendments we submitted to improve the texts that were submitted to us – so it was not at all about challenging its objective, but rather to establish more effective procedures in view of the reality we are facing – was accepted by the current majority.

That is why our feeling of bitterness is great. However, this will not prevent us from voting on this bill because we share the objectives that are aimed at it.

There was no negative attitude in the amendments you submitted. You have been answered negatively on each of them. You would like to impose the link to the information procedure for what concerns the mayors rather than the link to the OCAM level. I explained the reason I was not in favour. On each of your amendments, we have had serene discussions. The idea in our head wasn’t to reject the amendments by principle, but because we had differences in views on their content.

I would like to reiterate this as there are not only the two amendments you mentioned. There are others, we will talk about them later. I have submitted them again because I think they are important.

We talked a little more agitately than we do now about the policy of the previous government. I am surprised by some of the remarks made by Mr. See also. He said nothing had been done under the previous government. He added that he shouldn’t rely on Ms. Milquet. Per ⁇ it is also to forget the words of the Coordinator for the fight against terrorism at European level, Gilles de Kerchove, who recently met with the Prime Minister. For him, Belgium’s action at the European level had been highlighted and noted by a number of observers as pioneering. The Minister of Foreign Affairs smiles at his participation. This is not just the action of Joëlle Milquet but the previous government that quickly took a number of measures in the face of the departure to Syria. I have in mind a kernel note of 17 April 2013, which contains about 20 measures already taken and a dozen proposals on a whole range of issues.

Moreover, we had the opportunity to discuss it recently, the security budgets were largely immune. This led to the recruitment of police officers. I’ve heard colleagues say it’s not just a super-specialized service affair, it’s also a daily police affair. We have also had the opportunity to talk about it several times in the last few weeks.

I know that mr. Ducarme isn’t very happy when I say that, but that’s no problem. On January 15th, the intention was to move forward quickly. I remember that the deadline had been pushed to the end of February at the latest. All the texts submitted to our vote today should be available in the committee. We find that they finally arrived five months later, far too late for us. Of course, the 12 actions of the government are being implemented. We realize that the projects voted are part of this action. We look forward to many more actions that we look forward to. We have talked several times with the Minister of the Interior. I come to the famous circular on the people who return, with the distribution of tasks between the different departments. by mr. Dumbledore just talked about it. That circle existed. The Minister of the Interior wants to change it, it’s good, but it’s waiting.

Now on to the bills that have been submitted to us. I’ll start with the one on the removal of identity cards. We have had a long discussion on this topic. This was the subject of a bill that we had also submitted. of DDR. We have taken legal action to remove this identity card. Instead, the State Council recommended an administrative procedure. For the federal prosecutors, this is not a task of justice. The administrative path was followed. We are ready to go back to what we had imagined.

We, however, make three reservations – this is the subject of our amendments – on the OZAM, on the security of the State. The discussion is open about the responsibility of each and the reasons for these choices. Our approach favoured State Security in collecting information on individual situations. This was the first amendment.

The second amendment was aimed at reminding, as our colleague Mr. Bonte, all the importance of local authorities in the procedure aimed at fighting radicalism. We regret that in this withdrawal procedure, no greater role is given to local authorities. In our view, they are the first to be able to collate a whole series of information. We do not ask that they process these data themselves, but that they transmit them to the Minister of the Interior who will submit them for analysis to the body of their choice. We regret that we cannot give this importance to local authorities. This would not change much in the project except to materialize in a text the role that is already theirs in the facts. When a sports club, when parents want to report a young person who wants to leave, the first authority they turn to are the local authorities.

There is a third issue in this bill. It is about those who join a territory in war. This does not mean that they want to join a terrorist group. We had submitted an amendment to clarify that the person concerned is travelling to a territory to fight in a terrorist group.

We voted in favour of this text in the committee despite the rejection of our amendments and our group will support this project.

The bill has three objectives. First, the loss of nationality. It is probably the bill that has shed the most ink with some ignorance of what exists at present. I would like to remind you that discharge exists under certain conditions in our law. In the bill submitted by the Minister of Justice, these conditions do not change. It is not extended to generations. This was the justified fear of a number of protagonists. It does not extend the categories of persons targeted, it expands the scope of offences. In the deprivation of nationality now appear new terrorist crimes such as recruitment, propaganda, etc. This is in line with the objective we have pursued with Mr. George Dallemagne, submitting a text at the beginning of January. We had chosen a slightly stronger option than that of the government, which was to say that in some cases, there would be an automatic loss of nationality. The State Council warns us against automatic depreciation as we risk depriving certain people of their rights and freedoms. We follow the opinion of the State Council on this issue.

I repeat, we will vote on this text.

The second goal was to penalize people who went to fight abroad. We had also taken another legal path, that of activating the Mercenary Law. The legal path you have taken seems to be more secure, especially at the level of international humanitarian law.

We can only subscribe to the extension measure of telephone interceptions requested by the intelligence services.

We have no comments to make on the draft on the Consular Code which is the length of that on identity cards. It is in all respects of what we wanted for effective action. We have voted for this project in the committee and we will do the same tomorrow in the plenary session.

The issue is the withdrawal of refugee status. In this regard, we will abstain. Why Why ? I supported my decision in the committee. Mr. Duchamp, maybe we could have followed these amendments. Indeed, the concept of a ⁇ serious infringement is far too broad, even though it is included in a European directive. I proposed simply to specify "infractions referred to in Title I of the Criminal Code". Who is targeted? People who use refugee status to commit terrorist acts. Let us make the parallel with the deprivation of citizenship and target the terrorist offences provided for in the Criminal Code. That would be clear and clear. We would know what we are talking about and we would not give an impression of unclearness.

I listen attentively to Mrs. Matz and I hear her about the amendment that is today re-deposed, aiming to replace the word “infraction” with “particularly serious crime”.

No, if you remember, I had two amendments. A main title that was to replace "particularly serious infringement" with "infraction referred to in articles etc. of the Criminal Code, which are terrorist offences. This is said to target terrorist crimes, whether new or old. The same applies to the loss of nationality. As the lawyers would say, subsidiarily, in the event that my main amendment was rejected, there were in the directive, if you remember, the words "particularly serious crime".

I had asked why the notion of “particularly serious crime” was not retained and why the term “infraction” was chosen.

As for the main amendment, the one I re-presented, it asked for clarifications as to the meaning of the term ‘infraction’: is it intended to target persons who will fall under the cover of a terrorist offence? Why are they not clearly targeted by mentioning the articles of the Criminal Code that concern them?

I had observed, at that time, that the Criminal Code does not contain all these nuances of "particularly serious". This is even the first article of the Criminal Code: offences are categorized into crimes, offences and contraventions. For each, the definition is the punishment that is applicable to it, it is not the qualification of particular, excessively, extremely serious. I believe that the generic term offence should be retained by reference to the Criminal Code.

That is what I do. I have not submitted the amendment on a subsidiary basis. I reposted the one who speaks of an offence and who refers to criminal articles that relate to terrorism.

Yes, but without the character of ⁇ serious which does not exist in criminal law.

I would like to talk about an offence by clarifying the articles of the Criminal Code that target terrorist offences. This allows us to establish a limiting list and to know what we are talking about. A ⁇ serious offence, tomorrow, it can be burning a red light, especially if it has consequences. It was a clarification to limit the scope of application.

Ms. Matz, if I understand it correctly, then you uphold your amendment. Do you want to change the word crime into the word crime?

No, not at all.

and vice versa?

and no.

Do you not hold that?

No, not at all. I do not support this amendment.

I will explain it for the last time. I want the term “particularly serious offence” ...

Do you want the term “extremely serious crime” to be clarified as “crime”?

The "particularly serious offence" equals the offences referred to in Title I, Book III of the Criminal Code, which are terrorist offences.

If I am allowed to include the defence for a moment, it is dangerous to simply incorporate terms from criminal law into the terminology of foreign law. The two are best strictly separated.

It has already been said, in criminal law there is a clear distinction between “violation”, “woman company” and “crime”. This is taken over in the Foreigners Act as a collective name by “particularly serious crime”. It remains then the appreciation of the Commissioner-General for Refugees and Stateless to fill out that term and make the appreciation. There may be some confidence; the Commissariat-General is not a court in itself, let alone a criminal court. Therefore, it is not intended to incorporate those terms from criminal law into the Foreigners Act.

I understand well the broad character that is sought and which is aimed at leaving a range of application. But what I do not understand is that for a very important act such as the deprivation of citizenship, the cases in which this deprivation of citizenship can be applied are very clearly established and that we simply do not do the parallel with the removal of the temporary protection status or the refugee status. It was a parallelism that I proposed to make between the possible loss of citizenship in one circumstance or another and the possibility of withdrawing the refugee status in one circumstance or another. In any case, we will not be able to agree on this concept.

I would like to intervene.

Mr Smeyer, we have also discussed this in the committee. I understand the logic of Ms Matz in this. She complains that the term “particularly serious crime” is not in itself a legal term and that, in that sense, the assessment of the Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons is neither limited nor delimited. In other words, the Commissariat-General has ⁇ much room to judge what falls under “particularly serious crimes.”

So, if I understand it correctly, the proposal is to delineate that a little more into “crime,” which can go too far. We therefore abstained in the committee. We will do this again at the plenary session. I understand Ms. Matz’s logic in the sense that the expression “particularly serious crime” is too broad. This is one of the reasons why we will abstain from voting on the draft law.

Compared to these very broad concepts, it is always the time. At the same time, one must punish heavily those who get out of the frame, but one must not give the impression to others that it hangs on their nose. This is the purpose pursued by this amendment as well as the aim of obtaining a consistent opinion from the CGRA. If you have a CGRA-compliant opinion on all the procedures, including withdrawal, it is very good! But we regret that, for the most serious measure that is the removal, we cannot have this opinion consistent with the CGRA. This would seem quite logical to me. At the time of the removal, the Minister must of course take the opinion of the CGRA but is not bound by this opinion.

I understand the differences, the parallelisms, the very legal approaches to the matter. I would like to return to what this lack of rigour has led us to do in the past. We had to accept as asylum seekers in Belgium people who had been convicted for terrorist acts elsewhere! That is the reality! One can cut the hair in four but one must avoid seeing this type of scandal repeated, namely that people convicted for terrorist acts suddenly arrive in Belgium as refugees. We must ⁇ give some margin to the CGRA in relation to this and consider the reality, the minister told us in the commission. We are not blaming all asylum seekers, we are now talking about about fifteen cases, which is nevertheless nothing.

Madame Matz, you said it yourself, this is the basis of a European directive. A number of countries have preceded us in a strictly comparable approach.

The CDH’s attitude in this case has been constructive. You indicated that you would vote on the government’s plans in this area – and that’s a good thing. We are not going to argue again about the fact that you had submitted bills that were already envisaged in the government agreement while saying that you had done it before. Name of a pipe. It is sad, however, that you have such a positive approach, but that you bounce by abstaining from voting on what we just talked about, that is, giving yourself the opportunity to no longer welcome on our territory, as refugees, people who are in reality terrorists.

Mr. Ducarme, I said to you that we fully agree with the principle. The amendment I propose allows to sanction those who, under the coverage of the status offered by international protection, would come here to commit terrorist acts considering that they would not risk anything. I simply request that it no longer be a ⁇ serious offence, but a terrorist offence within the meaning of the Criminal Code, since it defines it – whether it is propaganda, recruitment, but also the commission of the act. So, we are not too far away, we share your goal. Only, we reject the term “particularly serious offence”. What does it mean? By the way, the Secretary of State listed situations where one could speak of ⁇ serious infringement. This list demonstrated by itself that it was not limiting. Therefore, we want to delimit the scope of this notion. As I said at the beginning of my speech, we share the goal.

We support the four bills that are submitted to our vote. Nevertheless, I will recall more generally that we regret the slowness with which the files have arrived in Parliament. Then, and I have already had the opportunity to say it, we regret the significant lack of budget for these ambitious policies: the extension of the listening, which will require new resources; the surveillance and withdrawal of identity cards, which will require the OCAM to perform additional tasks. It is important that budgets are provided. We cannot say everything and its opposite. I don’t think we can do more with less, even if others seem to be convinced.

I will make a third reserve. These measures are very important, but they must be part of a panel of equally important provisions at all levels of power.

We have repeatedly reminded the Minister of the Interior of the importance of coordination, especially with federal entities, but also with municipalities, on a number of policies. On this subject, we will be very attentive to what the government will propose for a better circulation of information, for an effective fight against illegal content on the internet and for a better consideration of all services that are brought to fight terrorism.

Too little, too late. It could be the summary of this debate. A year ago, and in fact it was much earlier, this country was collectively awakened after what happened in Verviers, the Jewish Museum and Charlie Hebdo. Before that, there were the 9/11 attacks, Madrid, London and relatives. It is flaming policy, as we are used to it following major social events, and terrorist attacks are one of them.

We will approve most of the proposed laws, although they are very far from the original twelve-point plan, which was defended here a year ago by Interior Minister Jambon.

I am disappointed by the debate, as there were all sorts of technical details in the framework of the legislative proposals concerned, but the essence of the problem was not addressed. This has various facets.

First, there is our foreign policy.

The gentlemen Bonte and De Wever and mayors of various cities are sitting with their hands in their hair for the sake of the Syrian fighters who, upon their return, prove to be the potential terrorists of the future. What has been our Syrian policy and, in expansion, our Middle Eastern policy over the past years and decades? Didier Reynders, our Minister of Foreign Affairs, should not put his hand in his own belly? Have we not created those Syrian fighters for a bit ourselves? Have we not made it very clear to all those young Muslims that the great enemy is Assad, that Assad must go away and that another regime should be replaced? Was it not the great leader of Open Vld, Mr. Verhofstadt, who said in the European Parliament and in the media that we should arm the opposition in Syria? Mr Van Quickenborne, as Mayor of Kortrijk, you will later communicate your local needs to this hemisphere as well. Verhofstadt spoke about the Free Syrian Army. This was quickly overthrown in al-Nusra. Now we are with ISIS. Who exactly wanted to arm Mr. Verhofstadt has never been quite clear.

You can’t expect immigrant Muslim youths, after you have called all together to light Assad out of the saddle and even supply weapons for that, that they assume that you then say that it is not exactly what it should be and that they must fight not with that club but with the other club. We have been in the hands of the United States in our foreign policy for many years.

Let’s look at what all happened in the Middle East. In Egypt, Moebarak had to leave, and we got the Muslim Brotherhood. With the Arab Spring, almost all countries in the Middle East had to remove the existing leaders to bring all kinds of radical clubs to power. In Iran, the Shah had to leave in order to bring the Ayatollahs to power. In Iraq, Saddam Hussein had to leave, another such dictator, to eventually bring ISIS to power. In Afghanistan we are now with the Taliban and in Syria, if Assad is definitively eliminated, you can choose between a very radical club and an even worse radical club. Let’s talk about what is happening in Africa. Isn’t that partly the cause of radicalization within Muslim circles, even here with us? Shouldn’t you put your hand in your own belly for a bit?

Second, there is the fact that for decades you have allowed the radical Muslim to take root here.

Nearly two kilometers from here is the central mosque in the Jubel Park. Was it not the Belgian government that allowed the Wahabists in Saudi Arabia to establish that mosque and establish their influence in our country through that mosque? Do we not allow the Diyanet, the Turkish Ministry of Religious Affairs of Mr. Erdogan, to ultimately control, finance and determine who the imams are and what they preach? Do we not allow jihadism from Pakistan and relatives – I know what I’m talking about in a city like Antwerp – because we don’t dare, can, want, can act? Then, with a lot of media noise, showing out one imam somewhere in Wallonia will really not make the difference.

This is well written in the newspaper, Mr. Francken. I know that, but if you know something about the problem, you can only laugh at it. Better one than none, I admit it, but there are a few hundred more on the list, if you ask me.

There is no free ride on the back of the tiger. It is not possible to pamper and allow the radical Islam here for decades, and to pretend that nothing is going on, and in some cases even to subsidize them, to then subsequently come to the conclusion that one is with radicals, that those radicals do what the radical Islam requires them, namely carry out the jihad and that they carry it where it should be carried out, in the Middle East, in Africa, but unfortunately also here. You owe it to yourself. You have made Islam a recognized religion here. You will need to subsidize Islam and recognize imams. Of course, you must also bear the consequences.

Your political and multicultural negationism – that’s natural – has made us face the current problems. I met Peter Calluy this afternoon. Peter Calluy has written an interesting book, you should definitely read it, all of you who are here today so engaging against jihadism. The book is called The Chronicle of an Announced Disaster. Peter Calluy was a social assistant who worked for the Boom municipality. Boom is the church true, if you do not know it – most do not know it –, Sharia4Belgium saw the light of life years ago, where the father of Abu Imran, our friend who is in prison, had a garage and where Abu Imran is radicalized.

Peter Calluy warned. What happened to Peter Calluy? He was fired by the socialist municipal administration of Boom, Mr. Bonte. What he said was not politically correct, it was an attack on multiculturalism. It was an insult to Islam, because there were no radicals and the people of Sharia4Belgium were carnival sots that no one took into account and that only played in the map of the Flemish Bloc or the Flemish Interest. Today, this debate proves that you were a little close to it. With your multicultural and political correctness, you have eventually created a monster that you can no longer control today.

The third reason that is fundamental in this debate, and that goes beyond the detailed amendments discussed here all the time, is the fact that you are simply afraid to acknowledge that the true nature of Islam is one of intolerance, intolerance and violence. I’m not saying that, that say countless studies that have already been published on this.

A survey by the German Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung of tens of thousands of Muslims in Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden shows that 66% of European Muslims consider Sharia more important than the laws of the country in which they live, and that 75% say that there is only one interpretation of the Quran that should serve all Muslims. Sixty percent of European Muslims say they should return to the roots of Islam and live according to Sharia. This is the fundamental problem of what you call radicalization.

As long as you do not dare to acknowledge that by tolerating, subsidizing, acknowledging Islam here, and what I all know, we end up wearing a snake on our thighs, we will have to continue to take these kinds of measures, we will continue to conduct these kinds of debates, and the attacks and radicalization will only increase.

In the end, the proposals are nothing more than a drop on a hot plate. What we really need may be a Patriot Act like in the United States, or ⁇ the proposals like those put into practice in the UK and elsewhere. Mr. Dewey has already walked. He does not seem to think the debate is important enough after his speech.

Mr. Speaker, I leave to the conclusion, for I do not want to annoy this Half-Day for too long with statements and truths that are shared in the meantime by a large part of the population but that have still not penetrated to the respected members of the People’s Congress, listing some proposals that have already been realized in the meantime or that will undoubtedly have to be realized in the future.

By the way, when we asked years ago to take away the nationality of this kind of radicals, there were quite a few politicians, who also have a seat in Parliament today, who then trained us for fascists, racists, intolerants, anti-democrats and what I know all. It is, by the way, one of the points of the seventy-point plan of the then Flemish Block that you will realize today, for which my congratulations. By the way, I must someday ask for copyright for all those proposals that are now being realized. One of the things one must do is have a declaration of loyalty by every Muslim resident here, or anyone who has the nationality of one of the countries of the Organization of Islamic Countries, to which all Islamic countries belong, to make clear that one rejects the Sharia. The same should be done when someone marries someone from those countries, the same should be done for officials.

In the end, not only must the nationality of jihad fighters and relatives be removed, but instead of a policy of de-tradition, of deradicalization and of the non-return of jihad fighters, a much more aggressive policy, an exit policy must be pursued. That means encouraging those who here profess to jihadism, those who profess to wahabism, those who profess to radical Islam, to leave the country. We must not try to evacuate them to leave the country, we must encourage them to step up, because they do not belong here. The deradicalization programs or de-trade programs as I can overlook and evaluate them will, with all respect, Mr. Minister of Interior, convince few young people not to take the step, but on the contrary.

We must, as is already the case in Germany, ban the jihadist symbols, dare to ban the symbols of ISIS and the jihad movement. I see Mr. Francken laughing: his copying machine is ready. Probably this bill will come into effect soon. We must take away the Belgian citizenship of every Belgian who volunteers to serve in a military force of an armed group anyway. These necessary proposals may not enable us to address radicalism within Islam in our country or eradicate it with root and branch. Unfortunately, this is already far too advanced. They have rooted and are among us with many tens of thousands, not to say hundreds of thousands, who support them.

It will not be so easy to set up a pile and perk there. But in order to ultimately shorten at least the terrorist top, those that have already evolved into supporting terrorism and committing violence, then these bills are absolutely necessary – we have submitted seven of them – to put a pillar and a peak on the washes and to hopefully be able to evacuate a part, even if it may be a modest part, of the terrorist attacks in our country.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers, I ascend to this tribune conscious of the need to seek in this debate the broadest consensus and with the will to overcome the majority-opposition divisions.

I would like to tell you once and for all. Ducarme, even if he is no longer there, that he should not seek to polemize more by continually invoking the laxism of some and the extreme rigour of others, the laxism of those who were in the government in which his party participated yesterday, and by pretending that the rigour in the fight against terrorism is the own of this majority. Of two things one: either the MR lacked singular lucidity when he voted laws he considers, today insufficient, or Mr. Ducarme himself demonstrated laxism by voting for them. It is still that it is not possible to hold speeches going beyond what is acceptable in order to try to value itself.

This debate deserves better than the ridiculous confrontation wanted by those who want to give themselves an advantage at the expense of others. The reunification of democratic political forces is indispensable here. I don’t come here with a negative look at the bills being reviewed but I continue to think that our criminal arsenal has gaps.

The FDF has filed a bill that is inspired, I acknowledge, by the Cazeneuve Act in France. It cannot be said that the French government is laxist, whatever its ideology, in the fight against terrorism. Nor can we say that the French tradition in this regard, regardless of the governments, is not to respect the authority of the state in the fight against terrorism. It must be acknowledged that, generally, the French have a shared republican sense in this matter.

While we have submitted a bill in this sense, I regret that we do not encounter a serious problem that is still unresolved in Belgian criminal law: the criminal incrimination for non-compliance with the prohibition of leaving the territory. Today, no criminal provision sanctions those who would not respect the prohibition of leaving the territory. And your bills, which we will support for some of them, do not yet meet this indispensable goal. I am not one of those who think, for example, that the expulsion of an imam is the right response to radicalization. No to No! The real answer is arrest, criminal trial, criminal conviction and imprisonment. This is the true response to those who, by their speeches and actions, incite to commit terrorist acts. Expulsion means bringing them back into the international circuit of terrorism. It is not my choice. A rule of law that is respected is a rule of law that severely punishes those who threaten our democracies. (The applause)

When you congratulate yourself on the expulsion of an imam, you have not really done the work you are entitled to expect from an authority that is respected. Therefore, I also advocate for the criminal incrimination of the prohibition of leaving the territory.

The weakness of your bills is that there is no clear prohibition of leaving the territory. This is the withdrawal of the residence documents abroad, the passport, the possible visa, the withdrawal of the identity card, but it is not explicitly the administrative measure of prohibition of exit from the territory.

In short, your bills are piss-going. We will support them because this is a default measure, but you will have to rework them. You will have to come back with a much clearer, stronger and meaningful measure that will resolve, once and for all, this essential legal debate. France has done it; you have not yet done it. Don’t come today to say that you would be more rigorous and that others would be laxist. There are still weaknesses in your text on the legal level.

In addition, you yourself realize that legal problems can arise. In the draft law on the withdrawal of the identity card, with the automatic consequences on the withdrawal of the passport in the Consular Code, you are obviously obliged to take the opinion of the Public Prosecutor. If the latter tells you: "Attention, the withdrawal of the identity card may have consequences on the validity of the criminal proceedings under consideration, regardless of the stage, information or already the instruction, in particular because there are procedural acts that must be notified and that therefore, the withdrawal of the identity card may invalidate the judicial proceedings", in this case, you raise the foot. You must do so because you just did not plan the administrative measure prohibiting you from leaving the territory. You would not have this problem of legal uncertainty if you had clearly envisaged the prohibition measure to leave the territory, because you would have dissociated the problem of holding the identity card from an indispensable administrative police measure.

You have had to work banking on a legal level, being aware of the consequences, namely that a withdrawal of identity card could undermine the entire judicial process. I believe that your work will have to be taken back on a more serious legal basis if you really want to ⁇ the goals we share. I would like to be very clear about this. I have no weakness, no willingness to let leave the Belgian territory of persons who are at risk of participating in the commission of terrorist acts abroad. But the real answer is to hold them here and have the will to keep those people under control.

By the way, intelligence experts tell you that removing any ID card can lead to a traceability problem. Certainly, instead of the identity card (as this measure is a step-by-step), you will give a provisional administrative document, an additional document to the identity card because it is necessary to keep a trace of the identity of people. This shows that you have imperfectly solved this essential problem.

Even if we’re going to vote on your bills because we don’t want to give you the advantage of treating us laxists, I just say that legally, you could have done much better, much more certain and act with greater efficiency.

As regards the withdrawal of the status of political refugee or of the status of subsidiary protection, I agree with Mrs Matz’s observations. That the CGRA has competence, it is better than a ministerial authority! I join you. But you haven’t solved all the problems.

The comments of mr. During this period, the proposed amendment of Ms. Matz was not very relevant. You know very well that, despite the withdrawal of this status, there are cases where the withdrawal cannot apply. In addition, it is also not in the interest of simply saying “We are expelled”. The interest is not to say to these people “Return to the theatre of operations” in countries in conflict with terrorist forces.” It has no interest in putting these people back in the “international circulation of terrorism.”

The amendments submitted by Ms. Matz saying "compliant opinion of the CGRA" just allowed to verify whether the rejection is necessary in some cases in relation to the threat.

I always come back with the same observation. It is not the deprivation of an identity card or a passport, or the deprivation of a status or the loss of a nationality that will bring the true answer, the definitive and bold response to the fight against terrorism. This is criminal incrimination. This is the condemnation by the courts. But there are still gaps here too. I was talking about the criminal incrimination for those who would not respect the prohibition to leave the territory. There is also the criminal incrimination for all those who spread, via the net, incitations to terrorism. You know that today there are shortcomings. Unfortunately, we do not have, in our legal arsenal, all the means to prohibit the retransmission by certain social networks of messages inciting to terrorism. This is also what we will need to work on. When the government tells us that today it is making a major advance, I say that it is a small step compared to the real challenges that await us. We are taking part in this debate to raise our collective security protection against terrorism together.

Mr. Speaker, the few minutes of speech that our group leader has saved for me, I will devote to the latest draft law amending the Foreigners Act. This amendment should enable recognised refugees, subsidiary protection persons and asylum seekers to lose their right of residence. In short, it must make our society safer.

The conditions for granting refugee status need to be tightened. At present, a person can only be denied the status of refugee, subsidiary protection or asylum seeker for war crimes, crimes against humanity or fraud. As previous speakers have repeated repeatedly, it is obvious that there is also a whole range of serious crimes that do not belong in our Western society, or in the society tout court. This bill makes this possible, among other things, when a person poses a danger to society or national security and when a person has been definitively convicted for a serious crime.

Strengthening the conditions of asylum is a transposition of the measures already included in the government agreement and framework, like all previous measures under this point 5, in the broad context of actions to combat, inter alia, terrorism.

Colleagues, in a correct and fair asylum policy it does not fit that it may be possible that even serious criminals can remain here once they have received the status of asylum seekers, of subsidiary protection or of refugee. Secretary of State Francken has already made a strong effort in the past few months to return criminal illegals, with success. This week, the residence of a radical imam was withdrawn, with success. In addition to radical imams and criminal illegals, there is also a group of migrants who may be able to obtain or have obtained the necessary residence documents, but not necessarily have good intentions.

If someone commits a serious crime or poses a danger to our security, to our society, then that person does not belong here and it should be possible to withdraw his residence status.

Madame Smeyers, I listened to you carefully.

I agree with you, committing a terrorist act is an extremely serious act, even one of the most serious in the Criminal Code and of what we can tolerate at the level of society.

However, I draw your attention to the following fact. Mehdi Nemmouche, who most likely perpetrated the Paris attack, was not a Belgian. This did not prevent him from committing the attack on the Jewish Museum in Brussels. What I want to tell you is that it is not by banishing terrorists or terrorist candidates from Belgian territory that you will ⁇ the goal that we, the Greens, want to ⁇ , namely the effectiveness in the fight. Banning a person, who is a radicalized imam, a person who endoctrines young people, a person who today has radicalized himself via the internet alone, will not bring the effectiveness that our fellow citizens are entitled to expect from the Belgian state. It is the monitoring by the State Security, the intelligence services, the police, which will make that, concretely, we will be able to arrest these people.

As Mr. said. In the meantime, banning a candidate for radicalization will not bring more security. This may give you a good conscience, because these jihadists, as a result, will no longer be part of our national community. Or maybe ! But this radical imam, if it is dangerous for the Belgians, which justifies its removal, it is dangerous also for the Dutch. We live in the era of Twitter, we live in the era of taking a bus like we buy chewing gum in the supermarket. Mehdi Nemmouche came by bus, he did not come by plane.

Today, you can tweet and exchange on WhatsApp in 30 seconds. And is it by removing candidates from terrorism that you will solve the security problem? I do not think. You are not achieving the goal of efficiency! You are a symbol, but not efficiency.

Mr. Speaker, I will spend some of my saved minutes answering this question.

We are responsible for our nationality legislation and, as the Secretary of State has said in the commission, the Netherlands and France for theirs. Of course, it is difficult for us to assume the responsibility of each nationality legislation. If we already assume our responsibility and other countries do, then we will go a bit further. Rather take those measures than assume that those who are a danger to us but have been deported are a danger elsewhere and that those countries should take action. That is ready and clear. Or should we also reform the Dutch nationality legislation from here on? It was about the refugee status, not the nationality.

Mrs. Smeyers, that is not the point.

Colleague Hellings said that if someone is expelled from the country, that person can also illegally enter the country and commit a terrorist act here. It does not mean that other countries need to adjust their legislation.

Colleagues Hellings and Maingain find it strange that if an imam incites violence, the government declares in the newspapers that they will expel that man from the country. After all, incitement to violence is a crime, so why does the government have the reflex to expel that man from the country and not the reflex – which it should have – to pick up that person, with all legal possibilities, so that he no longer poses a danger to our country, but also not to France and the Netherlands?

If I penetrate your reasoning, then he should not be picked up, because he can escape from prison. Maybe you should just let him walk.

I find it quite astonishing to hear what has just been said at the beginning of the banks of Ecolo and Groen.

They tell us that, anyway, it makes no use to make arrangements, because we live in a global village. Why remove the threat, since it will come back or will set itself elsewhere?

This reasoning pledges for the most complete political irresponsibility. (The Protests )

You can, of course, if you want, have your opinion on the subject. But to indicate that taking such provisions, which sanction the actors of terrorism, remove us, protect us,... to indicate that all this is useless, while also omitting everything related to international police cooperation, to the Schengen area, to the collaboration of services, to the exchange of information, is astonishing! It is amazing to hear you.

Globally, 60 million people are on the run. We have been facing the crisis of boat refugees in the Mediterranean Sea for more than two months. Mr. De Vriendt, we also talked about this yesterday in the committee following the rescue of the Syrian Christians in Aleppo. More and more people are fleeing violence due to conflict.

We can say with some certainty that in the coming years there will only be more refugees seeking help in Europe and therefore also in Belgium. It is therefore all the more important that we provide all material and financial assistance and protection for those who really need it. People who abuse our hospitality and endanger our own security are not included.

The right to asylum for persons covered by the Geneva Convention is a fundamental right. It is important that we as a society fulfill and continue to fulfill that duty. A policy that is uncompromising for refugees with bad intentions threatens to jeopardize that support for those we want and should support.

The present draft law is therefore not only aimed at making this country safer, but also to ensure that the public opinion does not turn against that asylum seeker and that refugee, while it is actually the malafide person who offends society for who thinks it is right and must flee his homeland due to circumstances beyond his will.

Therefore, this bill clearly frames for me and for the whole N-VA group in that long-awaited human and correct asylum policy that this government conducts, without socialists and with Theo Francken on Asylum and Migration.

The cancellation was already used in the previous legislature under State Secretary De Block and continues today. It is here and now that the urgently needed changes in asylum and migration are continuing.

We will fully support this bill.

Mrs Smeyers, I have a question for you.

Just then I came in because our group believes that people who commit a crime, such as calls for violence, should be arrested as much as possible, instead of communicating that they will be removed from the country. This bill requires removing the status of people or denying them access to the territory, when there are good grounds to believe that they pose a risk to national security. We can still find ourselves somewhat in that. In itself, this is a discretionary power for the security of the State.

But the bill also allows the refugee status to be removed if someone has committed a ⁇ serious crime. Then it is up to the Commissioner-General for Refugees and Stateless Persons to determine what exactly is a ⁇ serious crime.

Just then came a suggestion from a colleague, Stefaan Van Hecke, to better define the term “particularly serious crime”. It is not a legal term. Removing a refugee status from someone goes ⁇ far. It goes beyond anyone simply expelling the country. Removing a person’s status as a recognised refugee means that he can’t simply go to another European country. This bill allows this to happen after committing a “particularly serious crime”.

We discussed in the committee what the government understands here. Then the Secretary of State gave a few examples, not an exhaustive list. So, in other words, we give the Commissioner-General for Refugees and Stateless a very broad appreciation margin to determine exactly what that is.

You are a lawyer, if I am not mistaken, and therefore I ask what you mean by a ⁇ serious crime? Can you describe and complete this concept?

I am, of course, interpelled by what Mr. De Vriendt says. He apparently has problems with the concept of “particularly serious crime”.

In my view, he loses the eye that this net provides for increased legal protection. By introducing a new concept, not only referring to a serious crime, but also to a ⁇ serious crime, the obligation to justify the application of that concept does not diminish. Rather, it is getting bigger. If that justification does not adequately demonstrate that it is not only a serious crime, but a higher category, it will not pass judicial control. The use of that term therefore ensures that the legal protection is not lower, but higher, contrary to what you say.

Mr Vuye, what you say is not correct, because there is no formal motivation obligation inscribed in the law. This was a comment from the State Council.

Add the word “special”. A “serious crime” is not a legal term in itself. The term “extremely serious crime” is therefore not a stronger legal term. Both terms are equally multi-interpretable. This margin of appreciation is now given to the Commissariat-General.

We made a proposal. Why do we not take the provisions on the Belgian nationality from the Code? According to Article 23, Belgian nationality may be removed on the basis of a number of crimes and offences, which are listed in an exhaustive manner. Why do we not take this qualification over when it comes to reducing the refugee status? That is legally correct. The appreciation margin for the Commissariat-General is then much less extensive, which is a good thing for legal certainty.

Why don’t you accept our very concrete suggestion? This would also increase the impact of our legislation. The withdrawal of the Belgian citizenship could take place under the same conditions as the withdrawal of the refugee status: exhaustive, well defined.

Several legal techniques can be used. One can limit the appreciation margin by referring to specific crimes, but one can equally increase the motivation obligation.

You say that there is no motivation obligation, so that is not true. This is a general principle of law at the constitutional level. This is a rule in the rule of law.

Per ⁇ in socialist parties and socialist regimes this should not be motivated, but in a rule of law it must be motivated.

What do you know about a socialist rule of law?

My friend, I ⁇ ’t be too worried about that. Fortunately, it is not about the masses. I would also have some confidence in the Commissioner-General for Refugees and Stateless People. How often will it happen? They shall interpret the term “particularly serious crime” appropriately and efficiently.

I would like to point out that the term “grave crime” is already in law today. Ms. Matz has also expressed some criticism. At the initiative of the CDH, in the previous legislature it was talked about “exclusion of subsidiary protection due to a serious crime”. This is a ⁇ serious crime. This is, therefore, another narrowing of the concept and, in addition, all this is done on the indication of the Commissioner-General, an independent body. Politics will no longer talk about this.

A professional opportunity is also provided. This is a suspension appeal in full jurisdiction before the Council for Foreign Disputes. So do not imagine it as if all the democratic principles of our rule of law are thrown overboard here.

The unofficial proposal was made to take over the exhaustive list of withdrawals of citizenship. We have said that there is a clear distinction between criminal law and the Code of Nationality, on the one hand, and foreign law, on the other. I will not give you an example of this. I will not replace the Secretary of State or the Commissioner-General. We leave that margin of appreciation to them.

We will fully support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen, dear colleagues, as in the committee, we have today in the plenary session an extremely rich debate with a lot of interventions that have been able to advance the debate, unlike others that are more caricatural positions, which should be avoided. The citizen deserves better than that in terms of security. However, I have to point out that the debate has been good since the beginning of the session.

For my part, I will deal with the withdrawal of ID cards and then share my feelings about the status of this security policy with regard to the budgets and budget adjustment planned for 2015.

Although the debate in the committee was rich, it was not yet able to reassure the Socialist group about the project for the withdrawal of identity cards. For the PS, as my colleague Willy Demeyer pointed out in his speech, a series of tags are clearly lacking in this text.

The first point is the effectiveness of this measure. In the face of the terrorist, the measure is ineffective. To claim that removing the identity card would prevent a jihadist candidate from leaving the territory is illusory.

I would like to open a paragraph by referring to Mr. Maingain and other colleagues from the Ecolo-Groen opposition group. This is a point we need to work on in parliament. Throwing the foreigner out or sending the hot potato back to the Netherlands or another country will not solve our terrorist problems. When facts are established concerning an individual, whether Belgian or foreign, we must be able to incriminate and convict him before our courts and courts. This has to happen first and foremost at home. We probably need to promote this kind of reasoning in all European countries. The issue we have discussed today deserves to be addressed again.

In particular, I would like to address Mr. Jambon, I would like to emphasize that we do not feel a real global approach in the approach you take.

You have repeatedly pointed out that the prevention and fight against radicalism and terrorism requires action ranging from the local level to that of Europe, through that of federated entities. I agree with my colleague Hans Bonte, of the group sp.a, but I disagree with Mr. Served by Verherstraeten. I believe that the responsibility to create a positive momentum and to federate action in the fight against radicalism and terrorism lies with the federal state.

Work should be carried out as soon as possible to develop a measure enabling the conclusion of a cooperation agreement between the federal state and the federal entities with regard to monitoring measures. I agree with mr. We need to accompany young people. This point is important in the resolution adopted by the Flemish Parliament. We need concrete measures. I invite the Minister of the Interior. Jambon, to contact the federated entities to sign this cooperation agreement. I’ll talk about prevention in a moment. This is, in my view as the mayor, the top priority in the fight against extremism.

How can we not stress the lack of association of mayors to these measures? They are in the front line and are often sought by families in the mess. This deprives them of essential support.

I agree with some other colleagues on the applicability of the texts. Practical issues relating to national security could be added. There is reasonable concern that the application of these texts would jeopardize current instructions at the level of the federal prosecutor’s office. Far from improving our national security, we could therefore weaken it. There may be situations that could make it difficult.

Finally, there is above all the fact – and this is not a legal detail – that the measure would be applied on the basis of an intention and not an infringement. It is not even a start of execution, but an intention. What badges are offered here? None or almost. A appeal would be provided before the State Council, but it would be non-suspensive, as with any other administrative measure.

Mr. Kir, the extension of the intentional offence, supported by the extension of the particular methods of investigation, will give the magistrates the opportunity to look as objectively as possible at an intention to commit an act of a terrorist character.

You tell us that this would pose a risk to our freedoms. Taking into account the elements in its possession, a magistrate could isolate a terrorist intent and could thus have the opportunity to intervene and end that intent.

If the magistrate is in possession of elements allowing him to estimate that it is two fingers away to see a terrorist act committed, your approach would be to let go. In your view, you should not arrest the person who intends to commit a violent act of a terrorist nature.

Thank you, Mr. Dudley, for the interpretation of my words. If you wish, I will explain the substance of my thought a second time.

I pointed out that in order to avoid having people who commit or intend to commit terrorist acts, they must be criminalised on Belgian territory. Such a measure could be effective and would allow us to protect ourselves in Belgium.

By removing the ID card, what kind of problems do you solve? You are creating new ones at the administrative level, employment and in a range of fields. In fact, the problem is not resolved. If the facts are ⁇ by the state services, why not bring the person concerned before a court? This is the easiest way for us to protect ourselves and our inhabitants, the whole of Europe and the countries that are coveted by some to sow disorder there.

I did not say that we should not act. We need to act differently and more effectively.

I would also like to say, dear colleagues, that this so poorly framed text, which opens the door in other circumstances to potentially arbitrary measures – it is known that a whole series of documents could not be brought to the knowledge of the interested party – does not obtain the consent of either the State Council or the College of Prosecutors General, who doubt that the OCAM is able to play the role assigned to it with the means available to it.

Mr. Kir, can I ask you to conclude? There are two other speakers from the PS.

Mr. Speaker, I will try. For four hours, I didn’t interrupt anyone.

Ladies and gentlemen, dear colleagues, I would like to conclude on the issue of financing our policies by insisting on one aspect that is very dear to me as a mayor. I think that many of you in charge of this function, are, like me, very attached to the issue of prevention.

Sorry to say things as they are. You are reducing the resources of the politics of the big cities. The politics of the big cities are the peacekeepers who are in our neighborhoods, Mrs. Schepmans. Without them, how can we identify certain situations? How will we get information from the base?

by Mr. Dewael once said — and he was a thousand times right — that it is collective work. There is a need for coordination and synergy between all actors. But, Mr. Ducarme, when you withdraw funds to the frontline actors through the politics of the big cities, what do you do? You weaken our protection system for our inhabitants and our neighborhoods.

I looked at the budget figures, all the numbers. What was done? In the 2015 police budget, 176 million were withdrawn. In the budget adjustment, 38 are added. There are still 138 million. And at the level of justice, to name only this department, there is a shortage of 115 million.

I come to my conclusion.

You may have 12 good measures. We support some of your measures, not all of them, of course. But in order to have the resources of its policy, it is necessary to issue budgetary resources. It is a smoke screen. You are very good at this, especially Mr. But in reality, let no one be wrong. Each time you take out resources for security. This is what you did in 2015, and during the adjusted budget, you did not give back the funds that existed with the Di Rupo government.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, gentlemen ministers, I would like to talk about the fourth bill, by Secretary of State Francken.

I think the bill will come to this Parliament at the right time. We are facing an increasing number of asylum applications, in particular due to the situation in the Middle East. If we want to maintain and maintain strong support among the population in the area of asylum and migration, then it is necessary that we develop strong mechanisms to ensure that action is taken against those who flagrantly abuse our hospitality.

In this regard, there was a clear dispute with Secretary of State Maggie De Block, and with the socialists in the government. I am pleased to see that Secretary of State Francken continues to build on a strict and fair migration policy. The draft law proposed by the Secretary of State is an important and necessary step in effective action against refugees and asylum seekers who accuse themselves of very serious offences, who participate in terrorist activities or who fraud.

However, the legislative initiatives in this area take into account European and international legal standards and the protection of the legal order. In the current legislation there are also guarantees. Furthermore, I dare testify that giving decision-making power to an independent institution such as the Commissioner-General for Refugees and Stateless Strengthens those safeguards.

Ladies and gentlemen, I read in a certain press that this legislation is rather symbolic in nature and would not change much in this regard. That is why I wanted to take the word. I am here not only as a Chamber Member, but also as the mayor of a central city, Kortrijk. We welcome this bill, because in recent years we have been facing individuals against whom we cannot act today, against whom we are unlikely. These are people who have a refugee status, a B card, who are known to the State Security for serious violations or for links with terrorist groups and who have a criminal record to counter you. This is about numerous pages of criminal offences known to the police.

The frustration that lives with the police is that today there is no action against this kind of individuals. Those are people who were recognized in the past, but the legislation is so strict that it is impossible to collect evidence to go against them.

The provisions of this legislation may be taken against persons who have been convicted, who are aware of ⁇ serious facts or who participate in terrorist activities and fraud.

Colleague Van Quickenborne, I do not know if you were in the chamber, but I have expressed my full support and appreciation for the decision of Secretary of State Francken. Through this draft law, one tries to do what we all feel like, namely to be able to send back persons whom one has no grip on and who have a refugee status. I actually agree with that.

What I then tried to make clear is that it is not just those with refugee status who cause frustration. There are also returned Syrian fighters who are hardly followed, or also radicalised persons who are followed inaccurately and who disappear in Brussels. In short, there are a lot of things.

Those who are active in the field will know the frustrations of police and security services. Therefore, I am ⁇ surprised that at the same time here is supported a bill that can prevent such persons, who are convinced that they must establish a caliphate by force and that they must pursue their own martyrdom, but without guarantee of succession. I share the opinion of previous speakers that such people should be imprisoned and prosecuted judicial, police and social.

You talk about radicalised persons in a refugee status, but you do just the opposite for radicalised people who do not have refugee status, but are murderously stopped without the guarantee of succession. It is precisely that guarantee of succession that we should have, but that we unfortunately do not have.

Therefore, I look very nuanced at the draft that Minister Jambon defends in Parliament. I hope that we will very quickly reach a cooperation agreement that guarantees a closing, clamping succession. Today, in all honesty, we cannot do that.

Mr Bonte, first and foremost, thank you for your support for the design. It is, however, an important finding, colleagues, that at least one opposition party will soon approve the bill. I have heard other sounds from the Greens. The design is a good step forward, and I am glad that you support it. You also have experience in the field in the city centre of Vilvoorde. I see you as an ally in this battle.

Your question is about another group that also creates problems in our society. I look forward to the answers of the Minister of Interior and the Secretary of State for Asylum and Migration on the policy towards the radicalized returnees. There is a policy. Of course, there must be cooperation, including with the Communities, to solve the problem. However, I think that it requires an effort as important as the present bill.

So it is not because we approve this bill that we would suddenly leave untouched all other efforts. On the contrary, we must fight on both fronts and I am glad that we find you as an ally in these, Mr. Bonte. We will see if your group follows you.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am around because my speech time is limited.

The bill is a real step forward for city centers. It will ensure that security in our inner cities can be restored by allowing us to take action against those who flagrantly abuse our hospitality. The law finally gives our institutions the power to act against it.

Therefore, my group will with great conviction approve the bill and the related draft.

Mr. Speaker, I will focus my speech on the continuation of what my colleagues Van Hecke and De Vriendt have already said on the loss of Belgian citizenship.

The bill envisages extending the possibility of depriving citizens of Belgian nationality and covers two aspects. On the one hand, it is planned to allow discharge for all terrorism-related offences while the current text only allows discharge for the most serious offences and, on the other hand, the ten-year period is removed. It will now be permitted to deprive anyone of the Belgian citizenship if he has acquired it for more than ten years. This latter point is criticized by colleagues from the opposition but also by the State Council, which allows an appeal for cancellation to be filed before the Constitutional Court. Why Why ? As envisaged here, the default measure introduces a distinction between two types of Belgians: those who are likely to be subject to a default, that is, those who have become Belgians and other people who may be hit by a default and who are Belgians by birth. The Constitutional Court validated this distinction between these two types of Belgians in 2009. In France, where this debate also took place, the Constitutional Council also endorsed this statement. He created a reasonable distinction between French people of origin and people who became French. However, the French Constitutional Council stressed, in a 2015 ruling, that this difference between the acquisition of French citizenship and the departure “cann’t be extended without bringing a disproportionate prejudice to the equality between those who acquired French citizenship and those to whom French citizenship was attributed at birth.”

However, this government’s plan goes much further. It removes the period of ten years, so that a depreciation measure can even be taken in respect of persons who would have acquired Belgian citizenship twenty, thirty or forty years ago. So, as the Constitutional Council in France has decided, the abolition of this deadline makes the measure a disproportionate infringement on equality between, let us take here the example of the Belgians, of birth and the persons who have become.

"It is permissible to think of such measures given the importance of fighting terrorism."This is the main argument that has been developed by the colleagues of the majority. But providing for a differentiated treatment between certain categories of Belgians is neither reasonable nor proportionate and this is what the Constitutional Court may say one day.

This infringement is all the more severe since the default as provided for by the new Belgian law is not only aimed at foreigners who became Belgians after a period of more or less long stay in Belgium, it is also aimed at persons who were born on Belgian territory, who have still resided there and who, at the age of 18, have made the choice to become Belgians under the Code of Belgian Citizenship.

I must repeat to my colleagues here that many of our Belgian fellow citizens of Moroccan origin are binational, but not by choice. Today, Belgian citizens of Moroccan origin must remain Moroccan because Morocco refuses to take away their Moroccan citizenship. Belgian citizens of Moroccan origin who want to be only Belgians cannot be. This is also the case for the Belgo-Turkish. Thus, those Belgian citizens of Moroccan origin who have dual citizenship against their will find themselves de facto in the same situation as a person who became Belgian at birth. She was born in Belgium and has always lived there.

Madame Smeyers, these people are part of our community. As regards them, I would therefore say that the abolition of the ten-year deadline makes discharge a measure that could appear, in the eyes of the Constitutional Court, as discriminatory.

Mr Vuye, you tweeted about the ruling of the Constitutional Court that validated the distinction between two types of Belgians. I will read the rule. In 2009, the Constitutional Court had well validated the distinction between these two categories of Belgians on the grounds, I cite it, that “it is permitted that the possibility of discharge be excluded only for the Belgians to whom the Belgian nationality has been automatically attributed due to the ⁇ strong ties that unite them with the national community and can, on the other hand, be applied to the Belgians who acquired nationality after 18 years and who cannot justify such close and old ties with Belgium.”

However, persons born on the Belgian territory and who obtain Belgian citizenship at the age of 18 because they want to do so also report ⁇ strong ties since they are Belgians and have always lived in Belgium. Applying to these persons the measure of unlimited discharge in time is therefore, for more reason, a measure which appears to us to be discriminatory and unjustified.

There is now in the criminal arsenal, which we do not need to change, the depletion of civil and political rights. If a person commits an act as serious as a terrorist act, or is about to commit it, he may be deprived of his civil and political rights, whether he is Belgian, of Belgian origin and born in Belgium, or of foreign origin and born in Belgium, or even foreign and become Belgian. And we want to stay there, to allow to condemn someone, it is true in a related way, but equally also, for acts of terrorism.

That’s why we have the biggest doubts about this project and that’s why we will abstain.

I realized that I only had a few minutes. I will try to be brief. It is true that mr. With Ducarme leaving, I should not be interrupted even if, in my opinion, I could have been, since, Mr. Minister of Justice, I will look at the offence of intent that we have long talked about during the discussions in the committee.

I will not resume the whole debate, but allow me, given this very precise problem, to remind you of the opinion of the State Council, to which, despite the discussions in committees, despite the questions posed, we still do not have real answers!

I told you, ⁇ in a somewhat rough way, that legislation needs to be put in place to fight terrorism. You are trying to do so, of course, but we must also try to have applicable laws, which are not critical and which, above all, allow us to remain within the framework of legal certainty so that, tomorrow, they are effective and that we are far beyond the symbol, in order to reassure the population. It is in this perspective that we try to work, just like lawyers, in courts and courts, but also at the level of lawyers and prosecutors.

However, we already have a whole series of violations in this area. This is what the Council of State has pointed out. Nevertheless, you have already made improvements to your text based on his comments, and I am grateful for that.

However, the fundamental problem remains. We could already, without this legislative amendment, depending on the text as it is planned, have convictions as part of the attempt. The choice is another. In the case that concerns us, it is the person who will leave our territory or come there for the commission of a terrorist offence, referred to in the different articles and with the exception of the offences that already exist. The problem arose from “if we are not within the framework of the intentional crime,” says the State Council.

In doing so, the latter asked you to provide clarifications in the context of the statement of reasons and during the debates.

I have asked you questions about practical cases to which I think it is important to get answers. For example, a person takes a bus to Spain and then crosses the Strait of Gibraltar by boat to visit his family in Morocco. On the way, she decides to stop in Barcelona to buy an airplane ticket in order to travel to the Middle East. In this case, where is the beginning of the commission of the infringement? Following the State Council, there is a problem here in terms of legality. Why Why ? Because, as you know, a person must know clearly, by reading the Criminal Code and in view of the interpretations that have been made of it, what acts are prosecuted and what omissions engage his responsibility.

What is the act pursued if one refers to the example I have just given? Does the desire to go abroad exist when the interested party decides to take the bus to Brussels or when he decides to take the plane to Barcelona? This aspect is very important in the context of criminal enforcement. This is a matter of concern in relation to what is called intentional crime.

Beyond this – and I believe I can say that the State Council is also clear about this – we do not see very well what it is. There may be an explanation, but if that is the case, it must be clearly given before this assembly. This is not about “isolated wolves” that is mentioned in the exhibition of the motifs. As I said before, I don’t believe it. In my opinion, there is no isolation. If this is the case, please give us some examples.

Through this offence, do you not intend to "trap" people for whom it is ⁇ difficult to find evidence allowing their conviction?

If that is what it is about, I think you should say it clearly today. At least, things will be simpler and you’ll know what to expect, rather than turning around the pot to finally say to yourself, “I’m creating an offence that will allow me to get condemnation.”

I think this is relatively clear. You can have good and legitimate intentions. One can have the will to condemn the guilty and try to seat a sentence for the alleged guilty. We also try to prevent risks to the satisfaction and protection of our population. It is also important that there are no non-says and that things are said clearly. Otherwise, you would really be in the intentional crime and in a “symbol” law – while you can expect something else – and this only to satisfy a public opinion.

I will be very brief to explain to you the reasons why my group abstained from the bill amending the 1980 Foreigners Act, in order to better take into account the threats to national security. I will directly highlight the reasons why this project is misguided and therefore, ineffective in addition to being unfair.

First, there is a mere practical question. Your project envisages that the Secretary of State transmits to the CGRA the elements that would eventually justify a withdrawal of subsidiary protection or refugee status. We are talking here about national security and therefore ⁇ documents partially classified by the State Security. The transmission of this information could therefore be problematic or even jeopardize ongoing judicial proceedings. Here, it is still unknown whether the person concerned by the measure in the context of an appeal, for example, would have access to this information.

The second question. Nothing in the committee debates made it possible to clarify what you meant by “particularly serious offences.” I know that several colleagues have come back on this. These offences do not constitute crimes in our criminal code. If these are simply acts punishable by a prison sentence, let us recall that minor offences are punishable by a prison sentence. Will we take away refugee status for apple thieves? This is completely disproportionate.

Finally, you delete from the law the need for a CGRA-compliant opinion on several points of the procedure, in particular in the case of expulsion. This is not acceptable. This service is nevertheless better armed than a ministerial cabinet to judge the compliance with international law of a removal measure.

We could continue for a long time to enumerate the shortcomings of this text, including at the level of the international obligations of Belgium, but those stated are sufficient to show that you are still putting here a text whose application will be the most problematic. They are also enough to tell you why we will not vote for it.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, first and foremost, I would like to thank you all on behalf of the Government for the worthy, interesting and rich debate that we could have held on a problem that connects us rather than separates us. In many debates, we have managed together to overcome the double gap between opposition and majority.

Mr. Van Hecke subsequently gave on the floor a number of examples of amendments to the bills after initial intentions of the government and subsequent debates in Parliament. I acknowledge that not all the suggestions of the opposition have been taken over, but on both sides we have shown that the problematics bind us in the determination to address it. Although there are, of course, differences in the modalities between the groups, together we have succeeded in making it a rich and worthy debate, for which I would like to thank you.

It is obvious that what prevails here today, but there are a few measures. Until now, there have been twelve measures, but I would like to point out that Mr Francken’s draft law did not belong to the initial twelve measures. So today we can talk about the thirteen measures, which are completely overlooked.

Regarding the internal affairs and the ID card bill, I will not repeat all the points we discussed in the committee, but I will provide some answers to the comments of this afternoon.

by Mr. Demeyer is no longer there, but other speakers have talked like him about the police sub-equipment. It is true. When I became Interior Minister, I visited the various antennas of the federal police. I found a serious under-equipment absolutely incredible. I invite you to visit our special forces in Etterbeek and listen to them. You will then be convinced that, in the past, we have made a lot too much savings in this sector.

That is why the government decided, during the budget control, to add a significant amount to improve the equipment and increase the staff of the police special forces, whether it is counter-terrorism cells, the Computer Crime Unit, etc. We are resolving the problem. I realize that between the moment when the decision is made to release the budget and the moment when new weapons and new equipment can be delivered to the police, a lot of time can pass. But things went on their way.

There has been a lot of talk here about the role of the OCAD and the State Security. However, I think it is very clear.

Whether this happens in practice, we talked about it yesterday in the Accompanying Committee of Committee P and Committee I. This will still need to be worked on. However, the role distribution is very clear, the OCAD law is very clear about it. The OCAD conducts analyses based on information it can obtain from seven support services. The State Security and the ADIV, the Defense Intelligence Service, are two of those seven support services. They provide information and on the basis of that information the OCAD prepares its analyses.

It is evident – I must contribute to Mr. Dewael – that each of the seven support services and the OCAD, of course, also, bears a huge responsibility to make all the information actually flow to the OCAD, so that the analyses can be done on the basis of all available information and not on the basis of a portion of it.

That is why, Madame Matz, the OCAM is much better placed than the State Security to carry out the analyses prior to the removal of an identity card. If the State Security has its own information channels, the OCAM has much more. Alongside State Security, there are Defense, Customs, Federal Police, Local Police, the seven support services. Normally, the OCAM has much more information and is able to perform a much more accurate analysis than the State Security alone.

That is why we have assigned the responsibility for the analysis to the OCAD.

Some colleagues have asked today whether the OCAD is adequately equipped for this. Colleagues, the OCAD is already doing such analyses today. The support services, the government, and even mayors can ask the OCAD to do an analysis of a situation, to say if something is going on or not. This is happening today. In fact, this is not a major extension of the tasks of the OCAD. It is obvious that we will follow that. In case of excessive workload, we will address and resolve this problem.

Several colleagues question the state of progress of the circular on the twelve, now thirteen measures. Tomorrow there will be a meeting between the SPF Justice and the SPF Internal, during which the text will be finalised before submitted for our signature. So we will very soon launch this circular promised for a while already.

Mr. Bonte, you quoted a very important point when you asked whether we should keep all the murders in the country. We also had this discussion in the committee. I said then that OCAD should also take that into account in its analysis. For I can imagine situations in which we all say together that if a certain person wants to go, one can let him go better. We would rather be lost than wealthy.

What do we mean here with the withdrawal of the identity card? First of all, it concerns young people. I have enough faith in our society to find that we must be able to get young people who are radicalizing – to use an old-fashioned term – back on the right path. That must be our ambition, in the rule of law and in the civilization that we say we are. Mr. Bonte, you are 500% right that this can only succeed if you work with those people in those first three months, which can be extended to another six months. It is not enough to withdraw the identity card and then rest on its laurels and say that a firm measure has been taken. Then I totally agree with you that that will lead to stronger radicalization than what we all aim for together. You are 100% right that the measure can only be successful if it is accompanied by accompanying measures. I have also been involved in this committee.

We also need communities for that. I am completely on your wavelength. I have said that in parallel with the drafting of the implementing decisions to put the law into practice, I will endeavour to enter into cooperation agreements with the Communities. I hope that will succeed. If we fail to do so and no accompanying measures are taken, then I think it is better not to withdraw the identity card. I think we are on the same wavelength at that level. However, the division of powers is somewhat different here. I totally agree with you on that matter.

Mr Verherstraeten has expressed a concern that concerns both the Minister of Justice – he may come back to it soon – and me. It is not only about bringing together the abundance of available data, but also about doing something with it. I once had a lesson from Professor Eyskens – not unknown to you – who said that the great challenge of the 21st century would be to transform the multitude of data into information. I think that is a concrete example. There are massive amounts of data available at the national and international levels. It’s the challenge every day to gather that data together and turn it into information that we can do something about. I share your concern and we are working to make it possible and unlock it completely, at least for those who have the right to have that information. You understand that this is sensitive.

Mr. Speaker, I think I discussed most of the comments, which were not discussed in the committee. I suppose that colleague Geens now would like to supplement.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all the speakers for their support for the amendment of the Consular Code regarding the withdrawal of passports. The amendment was approved with one abstention in the committee.

Since then, we have reviewed the provisions on existing provisions on the withdrawal of identity cards on certain aspects. I don’t think there have been any new comments about this section withdrawal and refusal of passport.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the thanks already expressed by colleagues Jambon and Reynders for this very worthy and constructive debate.

As for the incrimination, the following.

I have noted several issues regarding incriminations and the technical nature of criminal law, which are obviously complex, but at the same time, I think we are doing too much.

On the one hand, Mr. Maingain said there was no criminal sanction for the prohibition of leaving the territory. Just the fact that leaving the territory for terrorism abroad will be punishable from now on is an advance on the subject. I do not see which penalty would be better to explain that a certain profile cannot leave the territory.

On the other hand, I heard this phrase in relation to the imam who was expelled by mr. Francken today: “We don’t have the necessary incriminations.” It is not true. We have been incriminating for a while, it is not new and it makes punishable those who incite hatred and terrorism. I do not know where this comment comes from.

Regarding the intentional crime, I will not read you a lengthy text in English, but I still want to read you what the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2178 says in its paragraph 6:

Decides that all States shall ensure that their domestic laws and regulations establish serious criminal offences sufficient to provide the ability to prosecute and to penalize in a manner duly reflecting the seriousness of the offence their nationals who travel or attempt to travel to a State other than their States of residence or nationality, and other individuals who travel or attempt to travel from their territories to a State other than their States, for the purpose of the commission, planning or preparation of terrorist acts.

What we have done, Mr. Massin, goes less far than this U.S. resolution that even makes punishable the one who goes out to prepare a terrorist act, while we have not made punishable the preparatory acts. Of course, there can always be a dispute in criminal law. It is clear! But the means of evidence are there to be used. I have already told you in the commission, I believe, but I’m not sure, that when someone announces on social networks that he is going to kill or decapitate people, that at the same time we find that he has ordered an airplane ticket and that maybe the Minister of the Interior has removed his identity card, yet in this case, I believe that we are in the presence of a flagrant crime!

Mr. Hellings and Mrs. Matz, you have asked questions regarding security and investment. Let me tell you clearly that the government has decided to invest 40 million immediately in security and security, in terms of equipment. For example, in terms of security and special units, it was decided to invest in systems called Bella and Hector. These are not cows but systems that allow the identification, by technical means, of phone numbers connected to GSM cards.

You also know that Justice received 37 million during budget control for additional personnel investments. The State Security received a much larger share than its share, in total disproportion to prison officers and the judiciary. Indeed, we did our best to do immediately what was needed to deal with the under-equipment and the lack of staff at the State Security.

With regard to cooperation, Mr. Dewael, you are right; we are all firefighters and that is of all times. If there had not been two financial crises, we would not know the European banking union today, and if terrorism had not occurred, we might not have these thirteen measures today — even if they were included in the government agreement that we negotiated together. But ⁇ at the end of the year.

With regard to cooperation, I would like to say the following. I held a presentation at the European Council on Thursday last week, colleague Jambon was also present there, in order to implore the national security services of the other Member States to cooperate as the police cooperate. After all, state security does not work together unless the other is completely reliable. If the police in Europe did the same, we would not be far away today.

So you are right, we continue your quest, we repeat what you said and we fight for it, also between the Belgian security services, by all means available to us. More Europe and more cooperation.

by Mr. Ducarme has already responded with the loyalty that characterizes him – he did what was necessary, and I sincerely thank him for that. It is true that the circular on the freezing of the assets of fighters and terrorists was the subject of an opinion of the prosecutors general. Together with my colleagues in Finance, Interior and Foreign Affairs, I will make every effort to distribute it to the FATF (Financial Action Group) in the autumn.

A number of general questions were asked. It is the same debate as in the committee. No problem, we will do it again.

First, as regards the competence of the CGVS, as underlined, inter alia, by Mr Van Quickenborne and Mrs Smeyers, the recognized refugee status can only be revoked by the Commissioner-General for Refugees and Stateless Persons. Only he, an independent body, will be able to do that. It is very important to note this. The Court of Appeal, the Council for Foreign Disputes, is and remains, of course, the Court of Appeal for Foreign Affairs. This is done very often. Nothing stands in the way of appealing. As mentioned, it is a suspending appeal, so one does not lose the recognized refugee status until the appeal judge finally makes judgment.

Second, as to the observation that it is a few people and that it is a symbolic act, I do not agree at all.

At present, 15 Syrian fighters have been recognized as refugees. Some of them are in Syria. If we adopt this legislation tomorrow and it is published in the Belgian Official Gazette, then I still have nothing to do but to send the Commissioner-General a letter as soon as possible to ask whether he can withdraw the refugee status of person X, Y or Z, who is at that time in Syria and who is recognized as a refugee with a status of residence in Belgium.

Assuming that the facts are sufficiently heavy and the Commissioner-General decides to withdraw it, this means that the Foreign Affairs Service can proceed to withdraw the residence permit and that the person no longer enters the Schengen area. There is nothing symbolic about it. That is very concrete. There are currently six people from Chechnya. This is not a virtual discussion. I am very pleased with the presentation of the gentlemen Van Quickenborne and Bonte. This is very concrete. This is about people who are currently in Syria.

Give us this tool... If the Commissioner-General, in full independence, decides to proceed to withdraw their refugee status, it means very concretely that, if we can do everything right, those people can no longer enter Europe. Of course, one will have to take into account the gravity of some facts. However, these facts are repeated every day with those Syrian fighters. I don’t have to draw, anyone can read the press.

This is not about Belgians, Dutch or French, but they are recognized as refugees. As long as their recognition is valid, they can re-enter every day. If they are inside, we can still proceed to withdraw their refugee status. The Commissioner-General can still decide this, but the difference is that they are already here. They are no longer recognized as refugees. I can then withdraw their right of residence, but then they are still on European territory. One could then decide to send them back, but then we are talking about the forced return of Chechens to Chechnya. I assume that they will not return voluntarily. Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights is always in question. No one may be returned to a country where there is a threat of torture, serious ill-treatment or death.

Therefore, it is much better to try to ensure that these people, who are in Syria, do not enter Europe. While they are in Europe, one can still act, but it will be less effective anyway because one cannot send them away. We also conducted this debate in the committee.

The problem of a non-repatriable is known throughout Europe. It is also a very old problem.

I will give an example. At the time of the genocide in Rwanda, a number of people fled to Europe. They have applied for asylum here. But now it turns out that those people themselves were genocides, war criminals. These people, of course, did not receive protection because they themselves were genocides. This would have been too crazy. But we cannot, by the absolute nature of that Article 3, send them back to Rwanda. These people are currently on European territory. They are here now. This is not new, it has been so for decades.

I said in the committee that I would like to hear if someone in this Chamber knows the solution for this. You can break your head for a long time. The Foreigners Act also contains an article stipulating that the persons concerned may be sent to a third country. Our country has tried this once, but it has not succeeded. This has caused a lot of diplomatic problems. There is no third country that accepts such people. Even if one would give them, by way of speech, a pocket of money, no one does that, because no one gets that sold in his parliament.

The assertion that this is symbolic is therefore absolutely incorrect. I can even tell you that it is very concrete about a number of cases, which I will start immediately as soon as the law comes into force after approval in the Chamber and publication in the Belgian Staatsblad.

It is not just a threat to national security. It is also very clear about refugees or candidate refugees who have been definitively convicted for a ⁇ serious crime.

Honestly, I do not understand the following.

Madame Matz, you say that the notion of ⁇ serious infringement is not clear. Nevertheless, the CDH, the PS, as well as the other parties, voted a law adapting the 1980 law on foreigners saying, to article 55/4, that if someone has received subsidiary protection or the request, it can be refused to him or withdrawn from him in case of a serious offence. This is not even in the case of a ⁇ serious infringement. This is what we are proposing today.

So you should explain to me where your criticism comes from, because I honestly don’t understand it. That Green who criticizes, I understand, because they did not approve it at the time; I sought it. The CDH, the PS and all the other parties criticizing — Mrs. De Coninck finally agreed in the committee and thus abandoned the criticism — have in this Parliament approved the possibility of refusing the subsidiary protection status on the basis of Article 55.4 of the current Foreigners Act. There are two types of protection: the refugee status, which is internationally slightly higher, and the status of subsidiary protection, which also provides a very strong international protection and which fortunately was introduced in our country a few years ago.

Article 55.4 of the Foreigners Act provides that on the basis of a serious offence, une infraction grave, subsidiary protection may be refused or withdrawn. You ask me what that is. You ask me to clarify what I mean. Why did you not do it then? Why should we now debate something that you yourself introduced a few years ago? I do not understand that. Maybe I will hear it soon.

In addition, we add a particular serious offence. In fact, we offer even more security by making it even stronger. I would also like to say that this literally comes from the European Directive. That is probably also the reason why it was introduced by you at the time. This is stated in the European Directive which has been transposed.

I understand the concerns of certain parties, which, I think, is shared by everyone, including myself. Will the government withdraw the refugee status of someone who drives through the red light a few times, just to say something? A crime, une infraction, is of course a container concept. I understand that, but the withdrawal of subsidiary protection, possibly on the basis of a serious crime, has never occurred. That process has been included in the Foreign Rights Act for years, but has never been applied since the Commissioner-General does not. If one appeals to the Council for Foreign Disputes, the judges, of course, will not say that one can simply lose refugee status and other internationally ⁇ strong protection status for a number of violations of the traffic law. Of course, such a thing does not happen.

It is, of course, about murderers or persons who have committed other very serious acts. Otherwise, it will not be accepted by the Commissioner-General at all, let alone by the Council for Foreign Disputes, which — I hope you know this — ⁇ closely monitors everything related to European directives, international law, Article 3 and all other articles of the ECHR. Of course that happens and that is good too. We are such a rule of law. I am looking at those comments.

As for the amendments, we will repeat this discussion later, if necessary. As regards the opinion, you say that only an opinion of the Commissioner-General is needed. It is not a binding advice. It should not even be binding. For all clarity, it is not about withdrawing or not granting refugee status. For example, someone whose refugee status has been withdrawn or not granted and who wishes to repatriate the Foreign Affairs Service. What do you do in such a situation? There has been a long, intense and good discussion ahead, but we have chosen not to make it binding.

There are several reasons for this. I explain myself more closely.

The situation in some countries may change. Repatriations are sometimes possible today and not tomorrow. I refer very specifically to Guinea. At present, there are no forced removals to Guinea, which does not mean that repatriation to Guinea would not be possible if Guinea were declared Ebola-free. So the situation can change. I also think of Chechnya. There are currently no repatriations to Nepal, but that may change. If that state, after the earthquake, literally and figuratively regains a bit of the rule of law, then it could be that we repatriate again. There are influencing factors.

In that sense, I would also like to say that Article 3 is absolute. We will never send anyone back if the review under Article 3 is not passed. The best example is the current situation, also introduced by the CDH, the PS and co. At the moment, there is no advice from the CGVS. Article 1F of the UN Convention on Refugees stipulates that war criminals are excluded from asylum or refugee status.

I will give a concrete example. An Afghan man arrived and applied for asylum. The interview revealed that he is the big boss of the Taliban in a certain province, that he has been involved in the system and actually has a lot on his conscience. Article 1F is invoked — rightly, and everyone may agree, because that man was a general in the Taliban army — and the man is not accepted. He is illegal in the country. Assuming that we want to send him back to Kabul, there is currently no need for advice from the Commissioner-General for Refugees and Stateless People. Now we are implementing that. So we introduce an additional advice, an additional protection, so that we ⁇ ⁇ ’t do nonsense. Of course we will not send him back to Kabul. Article 3 is absolute. Even the general, who may have a lot on his vineyard, we will not send back. What will happen to him if that becomes known? That man will not live long anymore.

So that does not happen. The previous government did not, former Minister Wathelet did not, and the ministers before him did not. We are not crazy! We do not do that!

We now offer an additional guarantee. We are introducing an option for advice that does not yet exist to ensure that there is sufficient legal certainty that Article 3 is not being violated and that we will not return anyone to a country where his or her life is threatened. Therefore, we are building even more guarantees in the Foreigners Act. We want more legal certainty for everyone.

We want to pursue a ⁇ effective policy, but we are also very close to those who want to abuse our hospitality. We act against them, they no longer get asylum and no protection status. If they are in Syria, we’ll pull them all in and they won’t get into Europe. It is about that. That is not symbolic at all. That is the essence of this bill.

Thank you, Mr Francken.

I have already received a few requests.

I will try to be very brief.

I would like to comment on Mr. the Minister concerning the intentional crime and the recommendation of the UN to take decisions in the matter. He is well acquainted with public international law. Therefore, I will not insult him to remind him that the resolution has no binding character. This is a first thing. In my view, this argument has neither scope nor legal value.

Secondly, I remind him that when there is transposition into Belgian law, it is on the basis of the contingencies proper to Belgian law, including the principle of legality, which must be respected. This is a reminder from the State Council.

Mr. Speaker, I note that the great cordiality and the constructive spirit that reigned have disappeared since the response of Théo Francken. “It’s you who did it; no, it’s you!” will we finally give substantial arguments?

Either you join this project with the Terrorism measures – this is the thirteenth measure – and then we know what we are talking about, or you rely on other provisions that have nothing to do with terrorism.

We are talking about fighting terrorism. There are ⁇ serious offences. These are terrorist offences. It is enough to qualify them. If it is not, say it. This project did not need to be joined to this discussion. You confuse apples and pears with what you claim to be defending. In principle, we said that we support you.

As for the opinion, it can be discussed whether it should be consistent or not. But I still do not see how it would bother you that it is compliant, since it is present throughout the entire procedure and given all the guarantees inserted in Article 3. I do not understand why, especially since you seem to say that in any case, it will be the case, and that, by office, you will follow this opinion. Why is it not consistent? I am referring to the two amendments I have submitted on this subject.

Mr. Secretary of State, I have another substantive question to you.

Why do you not want to list the crimes that lead to the withdrawal of the refugee status? Why do you use the vague description of ⁇ serious crime?

We have already talked extensively about this in the committee. One can indeed argue whether to tax a number of crimes or not. After a long discussion, we decided not to do so.

First, the European Directive makes this perfectly possible.

Secondly, this is already laid down in Article 55, 4e, as regards subsidiary protection. That discussion was not expressly conducted then, but well, it can now be conducted.

It is more coherent, because subsidiary protection stands for “serious crime,” and we now make it a “particularly serious crime.” That is just more coherent. If we suddenly rate the refugee status specifically on some articles of criminal law, that ⁇ ’t make sense. Then we came into trouble with the subsidiary protection, I think.

The third reason is that I am convinced that the Commissioner-General is wise and reasonable enough to make a judgment on this. If that were not the case, the Council for Foreign Disputes would be destroyed. I think that, as with subsidiary protection, the right choice is to give a wider margin.

I ⁇ understand the vigilance of your group that some things don’t just apply to everything. No one is simply deprived of the refugee status. This is a very difficult decision.

I am convinced that we have sufficient guarantees, with the Commissioner-General and the Council on Foreign Disputes as appeal bodies, that no stupid things will happen, and that the status will only be deprived in very serious cases.

I am pleased that with your statement that it is a tough decision to remove someone’s refugee status. This has consequences within Europe.

However, the bill also allows the temporary subsidiary protection to be removed. The bill contains a number of provisions on this. When can it? This may be the case when the foreigner in the country of origin has committed a crime that would be punishable with a prison sentence if the crime had been committed in Belgium. In this case, the measure is definite and concrete. We do not understand why you did not opt for a more concrete limitation before the withdrawal of the refugee status, while that could be for subsidiary protection.

You explained that you have discussed and thought about it, but in our modest opinion you have chosen the wrong option to speak about a ⁇ serious crime that, as I just said, is not a legally defined terminology.

by Mr. Maingain has left the session and I will chain in his name.

I will return to the words of Mr. The concerns of mr. Maingain and our party, in the case of the imam who will be expelled, is that this man will go elsewhere to continue preaching. We encourage him to continue to do harm and to replicate the behavior he has adopted here in Belgium. A notorious legal breach is here to be pointed out. Let me once again emphasize this aspect of the matter.

I would like to thank the ministers for their answers.

I would like to emphasize the OCAM. Our group shares your opinion. The OCAM is the public actor best placed to do this work with the support services that surround it. We are on the same wavelength as you.

I am excited to hear that you want to take the initiative with federal entities and communities to add their essential skills in the fight against radicalism and terrorism.

For the rest, you have not answered some questions, especially on the budget level, and we camp on our positions.

I would like to conclude on the question to mr. Francken and Geens. You spoke recently, Mr Francken, of those persons who are subject to withdrawal and removal, for whom expulsion is not possible. Do you realize the situation in which we will find ourselves? These people will be in the territory, unexpellable, and will continue to act. When it comes to people who carry in them a will to harm and commit terrorist acts, we see the limits of the logic you defend. Therefore, the question of incrimination and condemnation comes back on the carpet, Mr. Geens. We cannot leave in our territory people who carry in them a potential threat. This question needs to be considered by the government. You want to expel a person and you can’t, but you know well that that person is a potential threat to society. I can no longer follow your logic. Do things stop there?

by mr. Francken said: “We can’t expel. “Punt aan de linijn.” – “It’s not okay. We cannot accept that people who can be dangerous to our society are not subject to incrimination. I think we’ll definitely come back with this discussion at the start, because I see that...

You do not agree, but Mr. Franck just said it. We will not be able to expel them; they will remain in the territory. You resign from the presence on Belgian territory of people who could commit terrorist acts. Is it that? This means that you are in a statement and not in a proposal to find solutions. You are part of the government. You need to make suggestions to find solutions. You can’t just be an observing agent.

Mr. Kir, I think I’ve already explained this in commission, but you weren’t there. You can give me ideas. I am always open to good ideas.

If, for example, a Rwanda genocide asks for asylum in Belgium, we will not grant it to him, we can not even grant it to him under article 1, f, of the Geneva Convention on Refugees, because he is a oorlogsmisdadiger, he has committed a war crime. We cannot grant him asylum. But what should we do? We can put him in jail if the case is heavy. Upon his release from prison, he is still in illegal, irregular residence, he has no papers or residence permit in Belgium. Normally, we can expel a person who does not have a residence permit in Belgium. We must return him to his country of origin, Rwanda. But we cannot do so under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. If you have a solution, I am interested.

This is not new. You have experienced this when you were in the government, many times. Similar cases exist in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Germany. What to do with them? We cannot return them due to Article 3 (non-refoulement). One can never return a person, even a genocide, to a country of origin where he is threatened to be tortured or killed.

We can’t, and that’s normal. We cannot give him refugee status even in the light of the Geneva Convention. There is no solution.

If you have a solution, I would love to hear it.

Mr Francken, your example does not refer to terrorism or radicalism. This is a situation for which you highlight a problem. Today, we are reunited as part of the government’s policies against radicalism and terrorism. This is another situation of extreme danger, which shocks us. If you just apply a withdrawal, what happens? Individuals lose their status for a given period of time but can continue to act. We need to have sufficient elements to go further on the basis of a new legislation. We will return to the committee with proposals, Mr. Francken. There has been a discussion on the initiative of Mr. Maingain, relayed by others.

In my opinion, not incriminating someone who could be a threat to Belgium is a concern.

Mr Kir, I really don’t understand you.

In Antwerp, Sharia4Belgium was convicted. This sentence was pronounced under the legislation before 2013. The court has severely punished all sorts of people who have not committed any terrorist act as such. They only belonged to a terrorist group and preached hatred.

In 2013, under the government in which your party participated, we greatly expanded terrorist incriminations, such as incitement to hatred. It is clear that the expelled imam of whom Mr. Francken could have probably been punished under this 2013 charge. Today, in 2015, we are undertaking a new expansion. And you do not cease to say that we are only noticing and that we are not moving forward!

It is not serious! You must familiarize yourself with the law before you make such statements, Mr. Kir.

Mr. Geens, you are the Minister of Justice. What actions have been taken in this regard? Give your administration and public authorities the means to do their job!

The words you have just said are incredible. You said that this radicalised imam could have been the subject of a terrorist incrimination.

We have been discussing for six hours how to best protect the Belgian population from the dangers of radicalization and terrorism. Do you think that this radicalized imam will be less dangerous in the Netherlands or in prison following a terrorist incrimination by the federal prosecutor’s office? In my opinion, it would be less dangerous if he was arrested and interrogated by our police services than in the Netherlands or a few kilometers from Verviers where he is today and where he can continue to preach hatred and embridge young people. Stop him !

Mr. Hellings, your question is not relevant. I am the Minister of Justice, I am not going. The only thing I can do, from time to time, is a positive injunction. It is very rare for a Minister of Justice to do so.

What I don’t tolerate is that you act as if you didn’t vote for the 2013 law. There are questions of opportunity. by Mr. Francken made the decision he made. It could have been different if a prosecutor had prosecuted him, that’s all.

We have an arsenal that allows us to do the right thing. We are not going to discuss a particular case as if it was the end of the world!