Proposition 54K3515

Projet de loi portant des dispositions diverses en matière pénale et en matière de cultes, et modifiant la loi du 28 mai 2002 relative à l'euthanasie et le Code pénal social.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Sonja Becq, Raf Terwingen
MR Gautier Calomne, Philippe Goffin
N-VA Sophie De Wit, Kristien Van Vaerenbergh
Open Vld Carina Van Cauter

Submission date

Feb. 6, 2019

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

European Union religion international criminal law public prosecutor's department legal system criminal law church-State relations

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Open Vld N-VA MR

Voted to reject

∉ VB

Abstained from voting

Groen Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP DéFI PVDA | PTB PP

Party dissidents ¶

• Peter De Roover (N-VA) abstained from voting.
• Olivier Maingain (MR) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

April 24, 2019 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The rapporteurs, Mr. Van Hecke and Mr. Brotcorne, refer to the written report.

On the draft law no. 3515 I would like to submit an amendment. In the beginning of my motivation, I would like to point out that today is April 24. It is a very unfortunate coincidence that for the Armenian community this is the commemoration day of the Armenian genocide. I also understood that the Armenian community regrets this coincidence. I understand that, because there is something unclean in it. I assume that this is, of course, a purely agenda-technical coincidence, but I would like to take the opportunity to pay tribute to the Armenian community on this special day for them and for all those who are involved in their cause.

My amendment proposes the deletion of Article 115 of the present bill. The intentions of its authors are undoubtedly highly defensive. They want to make amendments to the law of 30 July 1981 punishing certain acts motivated by racism or xenophobia; it concerns an inequality in the recognition and treatment by our country of the facts corresponding to a crime of genocide, a crime against humanity or a war crime.

The proposal, as it is presented now, is limited to facts recognised by international courts. The problem here – hence my proposal to delete the article – is that we actually create two categories of genocide crimes, on the one hand genocides for which an international court has taken a final decision and, on the other hand, genocides recognized, for example, by our own Parliament or government. The Armenian Genocide is a striking example.

This would not fall within the scope of the provision, since international recognition of the Armenian genocide by international institutions, unlike some other genocides, is of course ⁇ difficult because Turkey is an important player on the international scene. If China ever commits a massive genocide, it will never be recognized internationally, because China is a key contributor.

This means, unfortunately, that such international recognition is usually reserved for situations in which the convicted party no longer places weight on the international scale. This means that we make our muscle balls roll and show when the “opponent” is powerless and outnumbered, while we suddenly hide those muscle balls behind white shirt molds when it comes to genocides in which the guilty party still plays an important role. This unequal treatment is disturbing.

The article we want to introduce will always come close to the problem of free speech. It is edited in such a way that it may happen in practice, but then one can wonder whether the present text is more than some symbolism. Fortunately, we already have legislation that criminalizes hatred and calls for violence today, and rightly. Per ⁇ it is a symbolic act that actually has damaging consequences for those who happen to fall into the wrong category of genocide. This side effect of unequal treatment weighs, in our opinion, heavier than the good intentions underlying this proposal.

For this reason, we have submitted an amendment to remove the conscious article. However, Mr. Speaker, I would like to convene the Committee on Justice in order to avoid having trouble with the whole of our amendment if it is approved. We think this can be avoided if we discuss this in the committee. The rest of the free extended package can count on our approval.

Colleague De Roover calls for the convocation of the Justice Committee. The chairman of this committee being in the plenary session, I give him the floor.

Thank you Mr. President. I thought our last committee was sitting last Wednesday. We officially closed the work.

I hear here a request, which at this stage emanates from only one group, to eventually bring together the Justice Committee on an amendment submitted. I turn to my colleagues who usually sit in the Justice Committee to make sure that this request as such is supported or not; I do not feel overflowing enthusiasm about the requested meeting. Mr. Brotcorne, would the enthusiasm still be at the appointment?

This is not the question, but I would like to be able to explain the amendment I am submitting myself in relation to this text, which would indeed justify a meeting of the Justice Committee.

I was not aware of your amendment and, in this case, I find it appropriate to give you the floor before proceeding, Mr Brotcorne.

Thank you Mr. President. I would like to go up to the tribune to meet with the Minister. It seems to me that the subject in question deserves the honors of the latter.

The text that is submitted to us has an entirely commendable and legitimate goal: to strengthen the repression of negationism while encompassing all crimes of genocide.

It is ⁇ an initiative emanating from European institutions, whose object is to demand that such crimes have been recognised by an international court. This therefore takes into account a limitation suggested – and not imposed, it is important to emphasize – by a framework decision of the European Union, which dates back to 28 November 2008, on combating certain forms and manifestations of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law.

As we all know, the adoption of European directives or standards sets a framework, but this framework, as long as it is not shattered, can be strengthened by the Member States that adopt the legislation. This is the subject of the amendment that I submit this afternoon on behalf of the CDH group, so that the text we will vote can cover all the crimes of genocide that meet the definition of the International Criminal Court, but also to allow that it be the case of crimes recognized by bodies such as the Council of Europe, the European Parliament, or by Belgium itself, which obviously retains all its authority in this matter and can decide not to restrict but to add to the repression of any form of denialism.

I think we cannot accept that there are two types of genocide, crime against humanity or war recognized by Belgium: those whose denial would be criminally punishable and those whose denial would not. That is why it is appropriate to target, in the provision we are about to vote on, all the genocides recognized by the Council of Europe, the European Parliament or Belgium.

Everyone will do the political analysis they want of this text and the amendment. Today is the special date of April 24 for the Armenian community. It would be a shame that on this anniversary, we would not seize the opportunity that I propose you to accept, knowing that it is not directed against any other community that also has the right to exist on Belgian soil, on European soil or anywhere else.

In these matters, communities should never be opposed to each other. But one must at some point make honorable fines, acknowledge that genocides, crimes against humanity or war crimes have been committed. It is the greatness of humanity as a whole to recognize them. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I would like this amendment to be also discussed within our Justice Committee as soon as possible, so as to know the fate we can reserve for it. It could ⁇ bring a consensus on the document.

I listened carefully to my colleague De Roover in the exposition of his own amendment. In short, he proposes to remove the somewhat disturbing element we are discussing today. I believe this would constitute a downturn in the recognition of any genocide or any form of identical crime. Our Parliament would not deliver a correct signal on this particular day of April 24.

The White House also asked for the floor.

Mr. Speaker, apart from the debate later on everything that hopefully remains of this important bill, I believe that we must first clarify this aspect.

Are there any other amendments?

I would like to comment on this question, which I think is quite questionable. As the Chairman of the Justice Committee just recalled, it was agreed to finish our work last week.

This was discussed in the committee. Each political group had the opportunity and the opportunity to request hearings. It was not the case.

We also have as usual, in committee, to study and discuss each draft or proposal of law article by article. Therefore, it is always possible for us to identify an anomaly and give our opinion. It was voted unanimously, if I am not mistaken. This shows that there was no problem.

Now, today, as it is the last parliamentary week, an amendment is being submitted in precipitation, on a topic as delicate as the Armenian Genocide. I understand the symbolic aspect, but the legal aspect must also be taken into account. We are lawyers who must look at this latter aspect, in particular in terms of international law. I’m sorry, but we can’t replace an international court. This question simply does not fall within the scope of the text that was discussed in the Justice Committee. This is the comment I wanted to formulate.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to Mrs. Özen that we did not discuss this particular text in a committee. The article was drowned in a pot-pourri law on cults. No one paid particular attention to this provision. It was only then that attention was drawn to the possible limits of the legislation that was proposed to us. This is not the first time in our Parliament that we work this way and try to correct a text before it is adopted. I think it’s better to correct it before and not after, with a repair law. Getting the committee together makes sense.

I repeat that we are not talking about the Armenian genocide, which everyone has in their mouth. It is not just about that. This also applies to other situations as dramatic as this and that may occur in the future. This text will then allow Belgium, as a sovereign authority, to consider, in a situation like this – which its courts and courts, or its government or its parliament, will appreciate – that it is a situation of genocide, war crime or crime against humanity, the negationism of which cannot be tolerated.

I fully understand the requests made. I also hear what Ms. Özen and Mr. Brotcorne also recalled. It is true that this text contains several provisions on quite varied topics. But the truth has its rights, and we must also say the way we worked in the Justice Commission.

We really gave all groups the opportunity to discuss this topic in the best conditions of transparency, inviting groups to reflect a week before fixing any subjects that would be submitted to hearing. Then, as every time in the committee, we found a consensus to fix the list of guests and speakers in this context. We have also mentioned here even elements relating to the precise legal difficulty that is presented to us.

As a constructive proposal, I suggest inviting Mr. Minister to come in committee to remind us of the legal elements that made the text, as it is here, suitable for most of the groups present in committee that day. We can discuss this. Important technical and legal aspects must be emphasized here.

It may be more useful to do so within the framework of the Justice Committee. I can put it together to have this discussion. Can you access my request?

Mr. Goffin, I am prepared to answer the questions here and in the Commission. It is indeed unfortunate – but it was unpredictable – that this project be discussed on the day of the anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. I am ready to discuss the technical elements and the reasons why the government has put this text forward; text that has been taken over by the former majority and, I think, by many others. I can better explain how we got there. Do it here or in commission, it is according to your preference.

I think it is necessary to decide whether to go to the committee or not.

We did not discuss this in the Conference of Presidents, which means that the decision will be taken by the plenary session.

My question to the plenary session is as follows. Can you agree that we sit and stand up to decide whether or not the amendments are referred to the committee? If necessary, we will hold a sort of counting instead of a vote. Can the House agree that we decide in this way?

(Instemming to vote)

Those who support the request to return the three amendments, No. 72, No. 74 and No. 84, to the committee stand up.

It is only about these amendments. The rest has been discussed.

So can I ask that the members who believe that we should return to the committee with the amendments are right now?

The sending to the committee is accepted by sitting and standing up.

The referral to the committee is adopted by sitting and rising.

We will therefore organize the committee meeting in a pragmatic way.

Mr. Chairman of the Justice Committee, we will organize the referral to the committee in a pragmatic manner.

This means that we stop here and that we can continue after the return of the Commission proposal.