Proposition 54K1701

Projet de loi complétant la mise en oeuvre des obligations européennes en matière d'exploitation sexuelle des enfants, de pédopornographie, de traite des êtres humains et d'aide à l'entrée, au transit et au séjour irréguliers.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

March 4, 2016

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

EC Directive illegal migration child protection child pornography trafficking in human beings sexual violence criminal procedure criminal law

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR VB

Abstained from voting

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 ¶

May 4, 2016 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, with your welcome, I refer to the written report.

If you allow me, I would like to say very briefly that we are pleased that these guidelines introduce a further updating of our sexual punishment law. This has experienced years of stall. In this legislature, and also in the previous here and there, there have been adjustments to the technological and social developments.

During the discussions, our group had two concerns, which I would like to repeat.

A first consideration is about the additional authority given to Child Focus, which becomes a kind of civilian notification point that will screen websites. I have asked the Minister in the committee to ensure the necessary frameworking. I repeat that question today. In fact, it cannot be intended that the exercise of a criminal action is outsourced to individuals. Of course, we still have confidence in Child Focus, but we call for a change in the framework.

The second issue concerns the extension of the right of speech. I think there should also be an evaluation in this area. Professional secrecy is important, especially for the aid providers. From the discussions in the committee on sexual abuse we know that many humanitarian workers fear that if the professional secret is too violated, the victims will no longer come to speak. Of course, we should not cause this. I would like to address this concern to the Minister. In an evaluation, these factors must be considered.

Mr De White, I assume that you expressed the position of your group, while referring to the written report before the report.

Yes, I started with that reference, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. President, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the MR supports this project and all the actions aimed at pursuing as effectively as possible child pornography in all its forms, whatever they may be. The project allows Belgium to comply with EU provisions. This is a very good thing. Belgium is updating its legislation on sexual criminal law, in particular with regard to its international dimension following the use of new media: on the one hand, the requirement to remove child pornographic websites as quickly as possible and, on the other hand, the fact that it is now prohibited, with an explicit sanction, to watch live child pornographic shows broadcast on the internet. This incrimination was necessary to best respond to new cases related to the evolution of technologies. The project incriminates the fact of attending the debauching of a minor live by means of information and communication technologies.

A very important element of this legislation is the facilitating role given to Child Focus. Child Focus will be authorized to legally view child pornography sites to report them to justice in order to block them as soon as possible. Many questions remained regarding this new role entrusted to Child Focus. As part of the Justice Committee, after the introduction of the Minister and the exchange of views of both, we heard Child Focus regarding the effectiveness of its work, the way in which the functioning of this institution is regulated, the means it would require. Reassurances have been given, concrete answers have been given about the fact that Child Focus is ready for this new obligation to further monitor what is happening on the internet, to bring professional screening to child pornography sites that may exist, and thus to provide a much faster response to the difficulties encountered. We were a little afraid that it was a form of privatization of the police or justice function, that’s nothing: it’s an actor that adds to the existing arsenal of police and justice. As expertise is what it is, belonging to an international network also facilitates the quality and efficiency of the work. Child Focus really enlightened us from a concrete point of view.

Mr Minister, my group will support this text with enthusiasm.

The text that is being discussed today is very important. He was also thoroughly discussed in the committee and paid due attention to the many questions of colleagues. There was no discussion about most of the text: there are a number of legislative changes to boost the fight against child pornography. Of course, we support that 100%.

Critical questions were asked, ⁇ about the role of the point of notification. In practice, this will be the Child Focus, as the Chairman of the Commission has just said. The first fundamental question, which has been raised from various angles, is whether this does not privatize the police task. When a private association is given an important role in a legislation, in this case in the fight against child pornography, some vigilance and caution is needed, because does this not mean that a number of fundamental tasks of the police are rejected, much more because the government is making a global thinking exercise about the police matters? The answers were clear. The minister has made it very clear that the text does not involve privatization.

Child Focus has made this clear. To the concrete question whether the police will not give investigation orders to Child Focus, which would then work on behalf of the police, it has been answered very clearly that this is not the case.

I would like to emphasize this in the plenary session, because that is essential. A point of contact must remain a point of contact, and it can and should never be intended that police tasks would thus get less attention and be relocated to a private organization. The only thing Child Focus can do, it has been clarified, is filter out apparently unfounded notifications. Where it is established that information is stored or disseminated via foreign computer equipment, it may be passed on to foreign contacts. I think that’s no problem, but it shouldn’t go any further.

The second issue is the cooperation between the police and the judiciary. Can they follow? The bill clarifies that the police currently do not have sufficient capacity to respond to the various reports. That is revenge, that is interpellation, that is unacceptable. We are all convinced that we must fight child pornography and its dissemination, but that also means that the capacity of the police and the judiciary must follow in order to respond quickly and appropriately.

If, then, during the discussion of the present draft, we find that this is not the case today, we expect from you, Mr. Minister of Justice, and also from your colleague of Home Affairs, efforts to make this possible.

I would like to quote from the report. As mentioned above, the head of Child Focus was also heard before the discussion. When asked how the cooperation went, the following was said. I quote Mrs. De Pauw: “Child Focus has pulled the alarm bell in the knowledge that the police did little follow up on those images. There is a cooperation protocol with Child Focus which stipulates that the police must inform Child Focus of the consequences given to those photos. Unfortunately, this is not happening at the moment.”

There is therefore insufficient feedback, despite the fact that agreements have been made on this subject. It is clear that there are also problems with the ability to analyze the cases ⁇ fundamentally.

My question, Mr. Minister, is whether you would like to do this work. It is one thing to pass laws here – acceptable, good laws – to intensify the struggle. Executing it is another matter. If we have to establish that they cannot be executed, their approval also makes little sense.

I hope that you can reassure me later that there will be effective follow-up, so that the findings ⁇ can be properly follow-up.

Mr. Speaker, the PS Group will vote on this bill for the role given to Child Focus, with this particular contribution of organized legal certainty for the Child Focus intervention, which we look forward to.

Mr. President, your remercie Mr. President. Goffin, Van Hecke and Laaouej.

Mr. Hecke, in response to your question, I can tell you the following.

We agreed in the committee that the application of the new measure would be reviewed after a year with the assistance of the College of Prosecutors-General. That is also my real intention. After all, it is clear that it is not helpful to make a lot of information available to the police and judicial services if that information cannot be effectively used.

Therefore, you have my word that we will carry out that evaluation on time. You will also remind me of that.

I assume that after that evaluation we will take the measures that are necessary, based on the figures we received at that time.