Proposition 54K1951

Projet de loi portant des dispositions diverses en matière de lutte contre le terrorisme (III).

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

July 5, 2016

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

public prosecutor's department offence criminal procedure criminal law terrorism detention before trial

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Voted to reject

Groen Ecolo PS | SP DéFI 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 20, 2016 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr Buysrogge, the rapporteur, refers to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, terrorism sows death and chaos cowardly, wildly, brutally. Unfortunately, there is not a week, not a day without weeping the innocent victims of the murderous madness of Daesh’s armed hands.

Beyond marking us in our flesh, these attacks are also a loose and frontal attack on the values of our pluralist society: democracy, the rule of law, respect for fundamental rights and unity in diversity.

We all agree that we must fight strongly against all forms of terrorism and fundamentalism. We must deploy all useful and necessary means to prevent terrorism. We need to strengthen our security; this is more than obvious.

But we insist that the fight against terrorism does not just require a security response. We must, of course, address some profound causes that allow terrorism to find a fertile ground. Thus, for example, it is urgent to better combat discrimination, to guarantee equal opportunities in our democracies. I also think of the absolute need to respect international law, international conventions, humanitarian law and refugee rights.

Our states are and must remain a rule of law, even in the face of barbarism. There can be no freedom without security and vice versa. Security without respect for the democratic principles of the rule of law is unacceptable. Our starting point is that no restriction of fundamental rights is justified.

Mr. Crusnière, I obviously agree with you in saying that we must collectively ensure that we better fight against discrimination in general. This is about defending our values of tolerance and respect. I am, however, somewhat surprised that you make, as part of a counter-terrorism project, the link to the fight against discrimination. I imagine that you do not imply that it is because we would not have made enough efforts yet, it is true, to fight against discrimination that it necessarily induces terrorism. It is very serene and a little surprised that I see you present a cause-to-effect link within this project.

Mr. Ducarme, terrorism has to do with a lot of things, as you know. Let me finish my speech and you will finally understand why I made this link. I am not trying to convince you. We will often stay on different ideological debates. One day, ⁇ , we will be able to find ourselves on a whole series of things, but let me finish my demonstration and, at the end of this, you will understand why I spoke about it.

Unquestionably, our starting point is that no restriction of fundamental rights is justified unless it is necessary, proportionate, legitimate and even to ensure the security it is supposed to offer. All current security and law enforcement policies must be fully used and thoroughly evaluated.

Therefore, an in-depth assessment of all existing security policies, measures and instruments should be carried out in order to find what works, identify weaknesses, identify potential gaps or gaps and see whether the measures are implemented and used correctly. This is the objective of both the Investigative Committee and the Special Committee. This assessment is crucial to identify problematic areas and determine the type of new measures needed, where appropriate. Indeed, to legislate in precipitation, under the cover of emotion, is not a guarantee of full effectiveness.

As with all security measures, three criteria must be considered in order to assess their validity. The first criterion is relevance. Are the proposed measures appropriate, well targeted, well effective? Second criterion: proportionality, that is, compatibility with public freedoms. Is there a fair balance between the objective pursued and the damage to the exercise of public freedoms of all citizens? The third criterion is feasibility. Are the measures applicable? Are the budgets and resources available sufficient to implement them?

My group has repeated it repeatedly: in terms of terrorism, we will support all texts that resist this triple analysis. It is especially on this basis that we recently supported the text sounding the end of the anonymity of prepaid telephone cards.

Unfortunately, we can only regret the way the work was organized around this law with various provisions. Indeed, the text on which the government received opinions from the Council of State in March and April, which was amputed from its main provisions, courageously evacuated towards bill proposals, finally landed on the banks of the parliament only on 6 July, for a review in commission on 12 July, and a vote in the aftermath. We can ask ourselves huge questions.

In such sensitive matters as those mentioned here, is it serious? What a lack of respect for parliamentary work. What a deplorable vision of legislative work to consider that while the government took six months to elaborate a bill, including the Assassin’s Critic of the State Council, parliamentarians should not take more than 15 days to adopt a text that touches on preventive detention, under the fire of criticism of the State Council, and that touches on freedom of expression, would seem to contradict the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights – I will return to it.

At the end of the debate that followed the presentation of the draft by the Minister, we are not more advanced, either regarding the very motivations of the arrangements taken in view of what rises from the ground or how the objections of the State Council find a response in the draft in its current form. Let us not reduce, please, the federal parliament to a simple chamber of rehab!

That said, the present debate should not be summed up to a question of form, we should also talk about the substance. First of all, why is this aggravation of the conditions of preventive detention for those accused of terrorist acts? In no way does the government explain how the current regime of preventive detention of these suspects constitutes an impediment to the ongoing fight against terrorism. No field actor has so far echoed a particular need for reform in this area. No assessment of the law is made available to prove the necessity of the measure decided here. So what? Wouldn’t this be a little bit in connection with the debate on the guard in sight that the majority can’t resolve within it.

In a word, and as the League of Human Rights is ⁇ concerned about it, the government deviates the Criminal Code from its purpose by using it as a means of preventing the commission of an offence rather than resorting to it in order to punish it. This is a fundamental paradigm shift that is incredible to make pass without a genuine in-depth and enlightened debate by the word of many law practitioners and theorists. Therefore, in the committee, we requested the holding of hearings.

The second part, which also deserves to be stopped, deals with the issue of expanding the notion of incentive. The draft removes, even in the case of indirect incitement, one of the constituent elements of incrimination, namely the case-by-case assessment of the risk of transition to the act. This change affects one of the fundamental and major rights of our democratic rules: freedom of expression and restrictions on its exercise.

This requires, on the basis of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, a thorough examination of the legality of the text, its proportionality as well as its necessity. What do we have in this area? Unfortunately nothing. Worse, the government project does not hesitate to violate both the Council of Europe Convention and the directive, which has been transposed into Belgian law by the law of 18 February 2013.

In the name of the fight against terrorism, these European texts have effectively limited freedom of expression, but by combining this limitation with the condition of the judge’s assessment of the risk of passing to the act, a fortiori if no terrorist offence is committed in the wake of this indirect public incitement, which is not the case for incrimination.

These are not minimum restrictions, we will agree. Relying on violations of these conventions committed by other states does not make this project a good project.

What about the necessity? The Government tells us that there are difficulties in interpreting Article 140bis in the current state of affairs. On what is it based? We will not know anything. In any case, it is now appropriate for everyone to be excessively cautious. Anyone who posts a rageous “cow death” on his Facebook page, even if it does not lead to any follow-up could, because of this text, be sentenced to a sentence ranging from five to fifteen years in prison. This would not be excluded.

Working in this way on such fundamental security issues is not a pledge of efficiency, nor, much less, of seriousness. For these various reasons, my group abstained in the committee. He will go further today by voting against this text.

I would like to ask a question to Mr Crusnière. My group leader, Mr. Ducarme, is more agile than me and he asked the question directly. You had announced that we would understand why you linked terrorism and discrimination. I took note, I listened. You said you were going to make a demonstration. You talked about preventive detention, the notion of incitement and freedom of expression. You talked about incrimination, but incrimination is not discrimination.

After that, you have not said a word of that. Your demonstration, I’m not going to force you to do it but I’m still a little disappointed because you really started a debate and then after, more a word.

My introduction, Mr. President and Mr. Miller, focused more broadly on the fight against terrorism in the broad sense. We have a text here. We have already had many of them and we will have many more. We have a consistent work that is done both in the special committee and in the investigation committee, and it will also need to be dealt with on this subject. This also seems to me important.

We are impatient. I hope that the texts and projects will intervene a little faster within this Parliament and, above all, that we will have time to analyze them serenely in a democratic debate, taking time for reflection, with hearings if necessary. This is what is missing in this case. I will not go back on how this happened, but I think that the topics we are addressing today and globally in the fight against terrorism, indeed deserve serene debates, hearings and above all decision-making in full knowledge.

Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen, I will give a brief explanation on my bench.

I would like to start by stating that we had a first terro design, then a second and today there is a third to be discussed. There are six articles and two in-depth opinions of the State Council.

Furthermore, I note that the serenity that lived during the discussion of the present draft last Wednesday is in sharp contrast to the outrage of some today. Last week we had time. In addition, the terro commission has no tradition of refusing all kinds of matters. There are ⁇ hearings, but that must of course make sense. We had two extensive opinions from the State Council. I find it a little short through the curve to make heisa about that now. Then one should have done the same last week and one should not have been happy with a quick, correct treatment. It was then made the choice not to take advantage of the extra day that was still ahead of it, and I did not hear any protests against it. I think the attitude of some is not consistent.

I come to the content.

The Terro-Design III is an important design. It is a new step in the fight against the permanent threat of terrorism that exists today. It cannot be stressed enough that in this struggle we expect a lot from our Justice, from our police services and from our security services. Well, if we have the expectation that they will secure us, that they will help us, that they will guard our society, then we must also give them the necessary means to do so. The present design does that.

Colleagues, those who are not so concerned with criminal law may not know it, but our Criminal Code and Criminal Procedure Law date back to Napoleonic times. When the code was written, there was no terror threat. Those incriminations, the crimes included in them, are therefore not envisaged at all. It is evidence that today, with the threat, we are adjusting the crime descriptions and procedures to the actuality. This is also what the draft law does, after the terro I and terro II laws.

I now hear that there is an objection to the provisions relating to the provisional detention. I invite the colleagues who have a problem with this today to read the State Council opinion carefully again. I think they know enough. It is very important that the adjustments take place.

What is very important for me is that now the specific stage before the attack, also with the crime descriptions, is fished. The aim is to intervene as quickly as possible. The incriminations are very clear, so clear even that almost no comment was made in the article-by-article discussion. They were treated very quickly.

There will be votes today – I have also read Amnesty International’s press releases – that our fundamental rights are being violated and that freedoms are being abolished. As a lawyer, such a comment is a first reflex. I have said this in the committee. I even understand that. When we adjust something, we all immediately stand on our back legs, sure who has experience on the ball. But whoever accurately reads the text and examines the opinion of the State Council will be able to determine that the draft is balanced and the rights of defence are preserved.

By the way, I also remind that terrorists today have much less respect for the rights of their victims than we expect to be given to them if they are arrested. No victims are asked to speak about any attack; no families are asked to speak before they are removed from the road.

The possibility of intervening now in the pre-attack phase is ⁇ important for our group. We would rather avoid an attack than make new victims. For us, preventing is still much better than healing.

We will ⁇ support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, the attack in Nice on 14 July, as well as the hail attack on passengers of a train in Bavaria earlier yesterday, remind us once again how determined terrorists remain to spread terror throughout the world, from Istanbul to Paris, from Brussels to Tunis.

The bill that is submitted to us today is part of the government’s desire to continue implementing the necessary measures to strengthen the fight against terrorism and its ground, radicalism. The federal government, conscious of the need to equip our services with adequate material and legal capabilities, has begun, for more than a year and a half, an extensive construction project, the assumed goal of which is to catch up with the accumulated delay in recent years and to raise our level of security in the face of a constantly changing terrorist threat.

The measures we are supposed to vote today are in addition to those adopted in recent months. Of the 30 measures presented by the federal government in January and November 2015, more than twenty have so far been adopted.

The deployment of our military near sensitive sites has become a reality. Their positive role has been widely emphasized in the work of our Parliamentary Inquiry Committee, both in terms of first aid and in terms of the security and logistical support they were able to provide on 22 March.

The departure and return of foreign fighters is now criminalised. Special methods of investigation are now applied to all terrorist offences. Authorities are now empowered to withdraw the identity card or passport of candidates at departure. We no longer give a minute of rest to terrorists and their accomplices since we made possible searches 24 hours a day.

The foreign fighters circular and the law allowing the establishment of dynamic databases common to the various services involved in the fight against terrorism also facilitate the exchange and sharing of information concerning potential terrorists.

This bill is important in more than one title. It strengthens legal certainty by formally dedicating the competence of the Federal Prosecutor’s Office in terrorism cases. It upgrades our criminal arsenal, in particular to include recruitment to train foreign fighters and help them leave the operations theatres of jihadist organizations.

It ensures that every terrorist offence committed against one of our compatriots abroad can be tried by our courts. There was, indeed, no reason that some perpetrators meeting the legal criteria could be punished and others could escape the sanctions simply because some terrorist offences were not covered by our legislation. It facilitates the work of our services, as it will enable them to act more effectively in advance in the context of preventive detention if sufficient elements lead to the conclusion that it is appropriate to deprive an individual of liberty due to its dangerous nature, while respecting the presumption of innocence and the criteria already applied to serious crimes punishable by a sentence of more than fifteen years in prison. Some have questioned whether it is useful to align terrorist offences punished with at least five years of imprisonment with common law offences punished with at least fifteen years of imprisonment. The explanation given by the government is quite satisfactory.

Terrorist offences are sufficiently serious that we can apply a special regime to serious offences related to preventive detention. This is our deep opinion.

Finally, the project addresses an increasing phenomenon in recent years: the incitement to terrorism, especially on the Internet. We know the role played on the web and social networks at this level. We know how much they are instrumentalized by Daesh and other terrorist organizations that use these leverages to spread hatred and recruit.

It was also appropriate to adapt the legislation in order to make it more effective in the face of the threat and to facilitate prosecution. We do not show total advance in this matter. Luxembourg and France have introduced this element in their legislation.

That said, Mr. Minister, we would probably have gone further. We are talking about incitement, indirect incitement. At the level of the Reform Movement, we have submitted a bill, which aims to incriminate, to sanction the apology of terrorism.

We will have this debate. There is incentive, indirect incentive. One difference is evidently established: it is no longer necessary to prove that the act will become concrete, but that the suspicions in the matter are largely sufficient.

Mr. President, I agree with Mr. Ducarme on the subject, apologizing can be considered as a preparatory act. The problem is that here we go further. Without a preparatory act, one is incriminated. This is obviously dangerous and, to return to Mr. Miller’s question, it opens the door to everything and anything, including in the field of discrimination. This is what Stéphane Crusnière said.

You have to be careful with what you do. At some point, in the absence of a preparatory act, you open the door, including to faces incriminations and in this sense it becomes dangerous. I agree with you to say that apologizing is a preparatory act. I have no problem saying it, but, for the rest, be careful of the drifts! It seems to me that with the text proposed by the Minister of Justice, you open the door to them.

Onkelinx, from our point of view, we consider that indirect incitement is an act that can lead to a dramatic situation. As part of the finding related to this indirect incitement, we wish to protect our society, the Belgians, from attacks that may occur as a result of a number of indirect incentives. There is an act. The incitement as such is an act, given the suspicions sufficiently heavy in relation to the act made. This is in itself quite different from the apology debate. This is a proposal that we have submitted and we would like to see discussed. As has been the case in France, Denmark or Spain, we want to see apology, promotion, terrorism – we are no longer in the incitement – incriminated as a crime of opinion. Fortunately, in our country, unlike other countries, we do not incriminate racist and anti-Semitic expressions. We believe that this law is an example. We should, therefore, punish the crime of opinion, the apology of terrorism and therefore its promotion.

That is why I tell the Minister. This is not – it could have been – included in this project. We would have, indeed, had an interesting debate, because the question is of course where freedom of expression ends. In the case of racist or anti-Semitic words, freedom of expression ends there.

I hope that the PS group will be able, as part of the debate we will have around this proposal, to join us on the need to introduce in our legislation sanctions related to the apology of terrorism. As I indicated, this was done in Spain, France and Denmark; and it was validated by the European Court of Human Rights in 2008 with the Leroy/France judgment.

He used this weapon in the repression of racism and anti-Semitism, along with the Moureaux Act and the Anti-Discrimination Act. For this reason, I can follow you on the subject without any problem.

Mrs. Onkelinx I think that what has just happened is very positive to end the session. For your information, we have requested that this proposal, which we have already submitted more than a year ago, can be quickly put on the agenda of the Committee on Combating Terrorism.

Mr. Crusnière, I will not return, or very little, on the fact that in fact, it is necessary to devote time, it is necessary that the debates can be serene. But if you indicate that you missed time, I don’t see why, as I said just recently, some did not want to use the day of last Friday, in order to continue the work...

Mr. Ducarme, this argument has already been heard several times on Friday. What I had asked during the committee on Wednesday – and the colleagues commissioners present are there to testify – is to have hearings, as we have had, among other things, for the amendment of Article 12 of the Constitution. They were long and interesting. We also talked about terrorist financing and weapons laws.

I would like to ask that there may also be hearings on this important text. The goal is not to make the flibust. We would have liked to have the return of the sector in relation to those proposals. You know very well that in terms of organizing committees, asking for hearings on Wednesday for Friday would really have been very complicated. Our requests for hearings were rejected by the majority. So stop this Friday argument that allegedly has not been used! We wanted to go much further. Other colleagues wanted that too. The majority did not want these hearings. This is what happened. What was the point of continuing to discuss on Friday, since you were closed to everything anyway?

Honestly, I must tell you from the beginning that I appreciate that we could, with one exception, debate today and vote on this project because, whatever our opinion, in the essence, we believe together that the sooner we can implement a number of measures such as this, the sooner we make every effort to raise our level of security. The population expects from us that we can decide in one way or another on counter-terrorism measures. It naturally expects us to vote and go as quickly as possible to implement a number of measures.

I know there was criticism – the committee did not meet sufficiently. Here she meets. Honestly, it is true that the deadline for a project is not extremely extensive, the Minister indicated. This project is specific on a number of points. It is also not huge.

But I confess to you that if I had been told “no” to a question of hearing, I would not have made the gift of Friday to the minister. As an opposition parliamentary, I would have come to control it, to control it again. I would have asked him and I would have used the time of speech that was allocated to me.

That said, I keep in mind that this project contains a number of nuances sufficiently measured so that no group can formally oppose this project. This was the case in a committee where some abstained.

If we are forced to deal with new counter-terrorism measures – we now count more than twenty – there will still be opposition, tensions. You talked about ideology. I hope they will be as less ideological as possible.

It is still true that in view of the vote that took place in the committee, it is, in any case, by working as much together as possible that we will be able to take up the challenge to raise our level of security. This is done within the framework of the Anti-Terrorism Commission. The Inquiry Committee will take its part of the work, as it has already done with regard to the first part that we are analyzing and concluding today.

It is true that we must implement very sensitive measures to raise our level of security, reduce risks, reduce the threat while succeeding in ensuring a balance between freedoms and security. And, in my opinion, it is with the concern to work in a serene climate that we can ⁇ our common goal.

The safety of our fellow citizens is a political priority and obviously one for the Ecolo-Groen group, because it must represent a common good. We are all responsible for it. The fight against terrorism, which is discussed here, is part of this theme. As political leaders, we must be able to respond to this.

Several initiatives must contribute to the fight against terrorism and constitute an appropriate political response to this phenomenon. Today we are discussing security measures, which are partly necessary. Of course, other very complex aspects must be taken into account. We must reflect on the reasons why young people in our country give in to the Daesh sirens and end up committing attacks and horrible acts.

To summarize the message that we ecologists carry, I believe that for every euro we have to invest in security, another must be in training, education and work in neighborhoods with young people. This balance is fundamental to us.

Around the measures presented in the bill, which have been analyzed in the special committee for the fight against terrorism and which strengthen our repressive arsenal, we wish, as environmentalists, that several badges be placed. They must target these measures, which must not be used to ward off all our fellow citizens, to be effective and respectful of our fundamental freedoms and human rights.

This is important for us in all positions taken, in all our interventions on this subject.

With regard to this bill, I would like to return to how the work was conducted. Early in the afternoon, we talked about the forcing that the government wanted to do on this text. This is how we felt it from the ecological banks, the banks of the opposition. Beyond the lack of time, beyond the pressure we have felt, it is the quality of our work that loses there. We have not had the opportunity to deepen this dossier, on these fundamental issues. It has nothing to do with the number of articles. One can have a law with only one article, which is in itself fundamental.

What we regret is the fact that we have not had precise background debates, the fact that any request for hearing has been rejected from the back of the hand, whether it be hearing of people we would have invited or written opinions we would have requested in committee.

Yes, the context is heavy, difficult. We all remember the attacks of the last few months, the tragic scenes we have been able to see through the media. I think in particular of the Nice attack, for which we observed a minute of silence today. These 84 deaths are terrible events and the context is extremely heavy in this regard.

It is precisely this context that compels us, as political leaders, to carry out a work of deep reflection, a work with the actors on the ground, with civil society. This forces us to take targeted and effective measures, to reject the symbolic and emotional. Honestly, Mr. Minister, I have the impression that this is what we have done during these committee sessions.

I can’t help but, to conclude my introduction, quote Alain Grignard, Islamologist, Director of the Federal Police, a recognized specialist of all these issues of international terrorism related to jihadism. He said this, in a recent interview: “The emotional has invaded everything. This is the victory of these people, the terrorists. We are exactly where these people want to lead us. We must give the word to reason.”

This is really the impression that we have had in the discussions. The emotional and the symbolic took over. We would sincerely wish you were back to reason by scheduling auditions, having a quality debate, even if it had to be completed in September. Because yes, in these matters, the time to conduct a quality debate is important.

In a more detailed way, I will also return to some points. These are questions that I have had the opportunity to ask you, Mr. Minister, and which relate to two articles in particular of the bill. First of all, Article 2. I will return to the questions discussed in the committee for which we remained hungry after the answers you provided us. Article 2 changes the legislation; it will no longer be necessary to prove that the incitement creates the risk that an infringement may be committed. I have actually asked you the question in relation to the basic formulation that comes from the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism, which imposes the incrimination of incitement to terrorism. I have also asked you about the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. Freedom of expression requires that incitement creates risk. It therefore recommends that the European Member States, of which Belgium is part, that the judge take this criterion into account. You answered me in committee that there is no mandatory factor; that is what allows this article to pass today. But again, what about the demand of field actors? What is absolute necessity? I’m sorry, but the answers that have been given, either by you or by the colleagues of the majority banks, are not convincing, while these are quite fundamental changes compared to the European Court of Human Rights, compared to the Council of Europe Convention. However, these are not recommendations on which one can sit without precise and detailed justification.

The second article that has been the subject of many debates and many questions is Article 6, which amends the Preventive Detention Act and allows that none of the four conditions relating to Preventive Detention is required to order a preventive detention of at least five years for a person suspected of a terrorist offence.

I recall the four conditions: the risk of collusion with third parties, the risk of destruction of evidence, the risk of escape or withdrawal from the action of justice, the risk of recurrence. What is today the demand that comes from the ground so that a judge does not have the opportunity to prove one of these four conditions when it comes to a criminal offence punishable by five years for terrorist acts? Is there no way to justify the risk of collusion, the risk of destruction of evidence, the risk of leak? I even asked you if you could cite us a case, without revealing secrets of instruction, where this factor blocked instruction in terms of fighting terrorism, for which a request was made following these conditions and which would have restricted or hindered the work of justice. This question, for me fundamental, has remained unanswered.

We would like to draw attention to the fact that Article 6 induces a difference in treatment between terrorist offences punishable by five years and other extremely severe punishments equally punishable by five years, for which this would not apply. How can we explain this imbalance? I think of the difference of treatment with someone who commits a murder, someone who commits acts of rape, acts of pedophilia, acts of extreme seriousness. Why are there two measurements in this case? In our opinion, you did not answer this question in a clear and detailed way.

Some here talked about the ground returns that occurred in the last few days following the committee discussions last week. We deeply regret the manner in which the discussions took place. In a heavy context, the day after the attacks that shocked us all, we regret the way these debates took place. We are passing to the hussard of measures that profoundly change our legal arsenal.

At present, our group cannot support this text.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, the present bill has good intentions, with which we largely agree.

Mrs. White, I want to make an improvement. In the committee meeting last week Wednesday, there were indeed concerns about the speed with which this law was submitted and about the fact that the urgency was requested.

Unfortunately, there was no major debate ahead of this bill. On the contrary, we do not want to delay the approach to the, unfortunately, existing radicalization. Certain sections were deleted after advice from the State Council, instead of revising them. Although proposals have been presented for months, the debate remained out. Because of the approval of the high urgency, we still have to decide today. The result is an amputated proposal, while earlier and more thorough preparation could have avoided that.

In terms of content, we hope that those some deleted parts can be taken back in a thorough debate. We would like to participate constructively in thorough discussions on the deleted sections, taking into account the comments of the State Council. We also call for the necessary caution, as we have already done in the committee. The extension of the conditions of interim detention may also cause frustration. This can lead to further radicalization and that is exactly what we want to prevent.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, as we have said many times, and here again a year ago, every time the government attacks terrorism, we will be on its side. We have widely demonstrated this through votes in favour of various projects he had presented. In addition, we have proved this by submitting several bills regarding the deprivation of citizenship, the withdrawal of identity cards and the criminalization of persons who go to fight abroad. In addition, my colleagues Georges Dallemagne and Catherine Fonck also submitted a bill concerning a center for returnees.

With each new attack, new modus operandi are discovered. We are constantly required to adapt our legislation to address a number of concerns as some new techniques are employed. This is, by the way, the purpose of the special commission on the fight against terrorism, which for months has been engaged in numerous thematic hearings.

Whether for prepaid cards or for this bill with various provisions, we have announced that we will support you. Of course, we are issuing a few beemots, which I have already listed for you in commission. We thus have the impression that decisions are taken in an extremely smooth way – if you give me the expression. Indeed, as regards the definition of incriminations, the Van Cauter and De Wit bills have been returned to the State Council. In addition, I hear Mr. Ducarme, declaring with some regret in the voice that the minister has not taken into account his proposals of law incriminating the apology of terrorism. These texts and yours deal with the same subject, but are not addressed at the same time. Admit that this makes a bit of confusion and that prevents parliamentarians from having a general view. In this case, we accuse you from the very beginning of advancing step by step by responding with measures to every attack committed in Belgium or elsewhere, rather than anticipating the fight against terrorism.

I also heard Mr. Ducarme say that you had issued thirty measures and that twenty had been implemented. Twenty in eighteen months, since January 2015! Of course, before January 2015, this government had been formed, and it could work.

Every time we get answers to the blow by the blow, or reactions. Sometimes we see increases in budgets, which, most of the time, have been sold – forgive me the phrase – about ten times: “The 400 million will be allocated to this, to this.” It seems that these 400 million have already been distributed ten times by the government. These 400 million are not recurrent; we know it. They do not provide enough power to the security services, whether it be police, justice, intelligence services or OCCAM. It is well felt that this government responds to the blow by the blow, whether in legislative matters or in matters of financing the fight against terrorism.

We can regret this lack of a comprehensive vision, which falls within the duration and extends over several years. It is true that it is necessary to react punctually at certain times, but these punctual measures would then be added to a line of force that the government would have determined, and to which it would stick, with precise financial means and personnel resources. This is the reproach we have made to you since the beginning of the fight against terrorism, which you have launched relatively slowly, and even very slowly.

I would like to remind you of last year’s episode. On 20 July we are voting on important proposals for which I had submitted with Georges Dallemagne, at the beginning of January 2015, three identical dossiers that you did not want to seize. We could have solved this in a month and won six!

Prepaid cards are an important topic for us. We wanted this disposition, but we realize that we are already completely overtaken by the facts. In July 2015, Mr. Minister of Justice, you said that this was an essential case. It took a year for him to come to the government table. We are always overwhelmed by facts. I know that you are not responsible for this matter, Mr. Minister of the Middle Class, but it was you who said it was important. I hope you are still part of this government, unless I have missed a step.

I just saw Mr. Justice Minister do “half,” or he is not sure. This is a scoop to raise!

It took you a year to implement a fundamental project, but completely overtaken by the facts. In fact, the techniques of communication between terrorists are different now. We will vote on this project. Of course, it is essential. But again: a year to ⁇ something! Similarly, it took you seven months to submit the other three projects last year.

Let’s recognize that this does not seem very effective, on the part of a government in permanent fight against terrorism. It’s a little bit: “Bloody arms, I’m trying to submit a few proposals.” We can regret the lack of proactivity and especially the lack of long-term vision combining prevention, repression and taking into account all phenomena related to the fight against terrorism.

I can see you smile, but in a mixed way. We have the feeling – and it’s more than a feeling – that the committee debates have been somewhat chaotic at times. Your projects are interesting separately, but what is the conductive wire? It would be time for this government to present its line of conduct to parliament at the time of the return, and not to act only one by one, in response to an attack: quickly deliver a small budget, quickly make a disposition. It is really time for the government to take the height.

I heard Mr. Ducarme say it is important that the opposition be associated with work. We don’t feel like we’ve really been associated with these files, because every time we made a proposal or submitted an amendment, it was swept off from one side of the hand. We regret that in Belgium we have not been able to enter into a form of national union, so important in the fight against terrorism.

More precisely, on the case that occupies us, you say every time, “I no longer know what to do. You tell me I go too fast, or you tell me I go too slow.” You go too slow to submit projects and you want them to be reviewed too quickly, that is, in 48 hours, in a few days.

We have to wait for projects seven or eight months, or even a year, and then we are asked to analyze them in two or three days. But these are fundamental projects that, in certain titles, are at the limit, as we know, of the violation of rights and freedoms. As such, these projects need to be seriously considered.

As for the provision on preventive detention, I would like, Mr. Minister of Justice, that you can tell us exactly how this provision responds to a request from the judges of inquiry. All members of this assembly are waiting for this response. Does this provision come from the judges of instruction? I don’t think so because we heard them in a special commission. There was no specific request on this point. How does the current legislative framework not allow for effective preventive detention? Was there, at some point, a fault, something that made an investigative judge say, “There, I’m short. I don’t have the legislative arsenal I need to keep someone in detention.”

I really ask you to answer this question. We submitted it to you in the committee. You said it was necessary but you did not bring any substantive arguments in relation to this. If you tell us that it is a request of the investigative judges who are impoverished, in this case, this provision must of course be voted. However, at the moment, we do not have any evidence on this subject. That is why I would like you to be able to answer this question.

There is no doubt that the fight against terrorism must be our absolute priority. The tragic Nice attack, for which we observed a minute of silence at the beginning of the session in tribute to the victims, reminded us strongly.

My group has always supported the government in this goal. However, this does not prevent me from regretting the way in which the government intends to legislate on this subject. While your time to reflect on the best response to terrorism is counted in months, which is normal given the fundamental rights and freedoms at stake, the time to reflect you impose on MEPs is counted in days. This way of working in no way ensures our mission of controlling government action, let alone on such a sensitive subject where the balance between security and freedom is fundamental.

Basically, my group will support some of your initiatives, such as the extension of terrorist offences for which recruitment for terrorist purposes is penalized, and the extension of the extra-territorial jurisdiction of the judge. The same applies to the competence of the Federal Prosecutor’s Office, whose mission was urgently to be clarified. This support is increased by the fact that related articles have been adjusted following the opinion of the State Council and that it is inspired by French and German legislation on the subject.

On the other hand, we regret that hearing could not be held on the provisions relating to indirect incitement to terrorism and preventive detention.

As regards the first provision, namely Article 2, it would therefore no longer be necessary that the conduct creates the risk that a terrorist offence may be committed, as proof of this element is difficult to provide. So let me ask you the question of whether the evidence of an indirect incitement to terrorism that you introduce here will be easier to bring.

In any case, it is apparent from the Convention of the Council of Europe, the European Union Framework Decision and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights that risk is nevertheless indispensable in order for the conditions of the offence to be fully met.

The State Council has also warned you of the risk that your project involves creating thus a too extensive incrimination and could thus undermine the element of guilt, which is an essential element of any offence.

The Council concluded finally that Article 2 conflicts with the principle of legality in criminal matters, which requires that the criminal law be formulated in terms enabling each person to know, at the moment he adopts his behavior, whether the latter is, yes or not, punishable.

As regards Article 6 relating to preventive detention, only the absolute necessity for public security will suffice to justify preventive detention for sentences of more than five years, and not more than fifteen years as currently. Therefore, it will no longer be necessary to demonstrate that one of the other conditions for the application of preventive detention, namely the risk of further offences, leaks, disappearance of evidence or collusion, is met. Regarding this deprivation of liberty, which must in essence be exceptional, I here express my regret that hearings could not have taken place to reveal the real need for such legislative modification.

To mention only the hearings conducted in the Constitution Revision Committee on the extension of the watch to 48, or even 72 hours, these showed how interesting proposals a priori could in the end prove to be significantly problematic with respect to fundamental rights and freedoms. For this reason, my group will not support this provision and will abstain on the entire text.

First and foremost, I express my condolences to all the victims of the terrorist acts in Nice, Brussels, Paris, Orlando, Baghdad, Istanbul.

We agree that we must be able to fight terrorism. The question that arises is how we can take up this struggle. Everyone agrees on the need for an urgent and compelling struggle, but the government must not seize the shocks after the attacks to hunt anybody through the Chamber, expecting that everyone will be brave, yes. The suffering of the attacks is great, more reason not to conduct this debate lightly. However, the government does the opposite, it seems to us, but I will come back to that later.

The most important questions are rarely asked. Are we really working? Will new measures prevent new attacks? What exactly is different from the existing legislation?

I think what happened in Nice should make us think. The incident in Nice unfortunately shows that the security policy is inefficient against terrorism. In France, many measures have already been taken and laws have been passed against terrorism.

The state of emergency in France has been extended for a few months. Nevertheless, this attack in Nice was not avoided.

We need to debate whether these measures are useful and whether they can be used in the fight against terrorism.

What exactly is different from existing legislation? Since the attacks in New York in 2001, in Madrid and in London, European countries already have a very extensive range of counter-terrorism measures. For example, British scientist Ben Hayes has summarized all anti-terrorism measures approved in Europe since September 12, 2001. This resulted in 239 adopted laws and measures, most of which were in Belgium. That is a huge number. None of the European counter-terrorism measures can be proven to be effective. That is the main aspect. It is likely that the pilot will also comply with several measures that have also been taken nationally. There is no doubt that the existing legislation provides opportunities for tackling terrorism.

My question, therefore, is how all the already existing instruments are used and what the outcome is. How many recruiters have already been prosecuted? How many hate sites have already been closed? Was an effective judicial investigation launched against every returned Syrian fighter? and so on. The PVDA calls for an audit of all existing counter-terrorism measures and calls for consideration before announcing another new measure. After all, many terrorism experts do not only doubt the effectiveness of the measures but consider many to be purely counterproductive, especially in terms of collecting it all, foreign interventions and high-tech spying nuts. In this context, I refer to the draft resolution submitted by the PVDA, and of course received by the colleagues, on an effective and democratic fight against terrorism.

We do not know of many measures whether they are effective and are used, possibly they are even counterproductive. However, we know that many anti-terrorism measures are compatible with the democratic rule of law and with fundamental human rights, in particular the separation of powers, the law on free expression, freedom of association and the right to privacy. That’s not just the PVDA, that’s the masses of official bodies, professors, lawyers, investigative judges and human rights activists.

Specifically on the measures proposed today, the following.

I think it would be important to conduct an audit to assess the effectiveness of all the measures already taken so far. This is what really lacks. I think, for example, of the measure concerning prepaid cards. It is no secret to anyone that these terrorists will use other encrypted ways to communicate with each other, via Viber or WhatsApp. Even via PlayStation, they can send encrypted messages.

It is a mirage to believe that by the type of measures like those presented today, we can effectively fight terrorism.

There is also the debate about the definition of terrorism, the other. Colleagues have already said that in the past, incitement to terrorism was only punishable if it led to the risk of an attack. With this legislative amendment, a risk is no longer necessary, the incitement to one of those acts is punishable with five years, even if that incitement does not involve the risk of committing acts. This comes in a straight line from France and Luxembourg.

I am, of course, a little involved in this, because by further expanding that definition, the question arises whether this could create problems with regard to freedom of expression. I repeat what I said later, namely what Amnesty International said about it: “The draft restricts freedom of expression and incorporates criminal law as a preventive tool.”

In La Libre Belgique, Claude Debrulle, honorary general director of the DG Legislation, Freedoms and Fundamental Rights of SPF Justice, said on this subject this week, I quote it: "This is an attack on freedom of expression. The Belgian government, like France and Luxembourg, deviates from the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. He concludes: “It is legitimate to wonder whether the Belgian government does not fall into the trap stretched yesterday by Al-Qaeda, today by Daesh, by multiplying expeditive security policies that fuel jihad rather than contain it.”

This is somewhat the question today. We already have an arsenal. We would like to know if this is not enough. We have talked about inciting to commit terrorist acts, but we already have laws that condemn racist speech and incitement to hate. Why not use the existing legislation? Why want to go deeper when we don’t even know the effectiveness of the current provisions?

In analyzing the events of Nice, I think that if we want to win this fight against terrorism, we must lead and win the political fight against the ideas and against the ground that allow these terrorists today to radicalize in seven days, in the case of Nicosia. We are no longer even in the presence of terrorists who went to train in Syria or who the French files knew. We are even in the presence of fools who respond globally to an international call to jihad.

I think today we must be able to focus on this political struggle, according to which we must not fall into this Daesh trap. Let us be very clear! The goal of Daesh is obviously not to win militarily against the armies of our countries, but rather to win politically through a polarization of our societies.

Also, we would do much better to focus all our energy on solving the underlying problems, the political problems of fighting against these hate speech rather than believing that we will ⁇ it through repression. I think that, unfortunately, the various examples of France and others show that we will not get there by this way. That is why our group will vote against the measures proposed today.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, this gradual introduction of the legislation au cas par cas, as we are sometimes accused of, is a result of the abundant judicial practice that is being used in our country in the field of terrorism.

In no other country in Europe so many judgments and convictions have been made since 2012. Each time, our services, our prosecutor’s office study the case and show us that our legislation has certain gaps. From there, from the decision on Sharia4Belgium, from the decision taken following the events of Verviers, we are studying and expanding certain incriminations to better combat terrorism. Do not say that what we are doing is not effective.

My second comment is about human rights, which are extremely important. About them, we have been made to understand that we are fixing the border a little too far, or that we are placing the bar at a totally intolerable level.

In my opinion, for a man of common sense impregnated with the fundamental values of our society, in terms of privacy and human rights, this border lies at the place where the latter places it from the moment when his fellow citizens were killed in a quite arbitrary way. In doing so, I am led to think that we did well.

That said, as regards the discussion we had on incitement to terrorism and risk, Mrs. Onkelinx, there was no question of preparatory acts. It was inciting terrorism. The question is whether the risk must be part of the constituent elements of the infringement. Please note that we believe that, given the provisions of the EU Framework Decision and the Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism, this risk should no longer be part of the constituent elements of the offence.

The European Court of Human Rights requires that, in view of the judgment on proportionality, the judgment stands in relation to the risks but does not require a link to terrorist offences. The concrete risk of a transition to the act, which some of you would like to see ⁇ ined, is also not envisaged by the legislation on racism and incitement to hatred. Mr. Crusnière, does the PS believe that it is necessary to amend the “racism” law to restrict it and also to provide for the real and concrete risk as a constitutive element of incitement to racism or hatred?

The time has come and I think everyone is tired. At least that is what I see. I answered the questions in so far as they were new because most of the questions I had already been asked in the committee, in particular with regard to detention. Mr. Vanden Burre and Mr. Crusnière, Mrs. Matz, you raised these questions, saying that I had not given any substantive element. It is not true. I have given you the example of young men you know and whose name I did not want to mention, who do not present a risk of recurrence or collusion. However, in relation to public order, even if the acts they have committed do not deserve a sentence of more than fifteen years, they pose such a problem that their preventive detention is justified by this element. I have proved and said it many times.

I have said everything.

I thank you.