Proposition de loi modifiant le Code de droit économique en ce qui concerne l'emploi des langues en matière de publicité.
General information ¶
- Authors
- VB Katleen Bury, Erik Gilissen, Reccino Van Lommel, Wouter Vermeersch, Hans Verreyt
- Submission date
- July 11, 2019
- Official page
- Visit
- Subjects
- advertising use of languages
⚠️ Voting data error ⚠️
This proposition is missing vote information, which is caused by a bug in the heuristic algorithms. As soon as I've got time to fix it, the votes will be added to Demobel's database.
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 23, 2020 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)
Full source
Reccino Van Lommel VB ⚙
Mr. Speaker, colleagues, at the committee meeting on 11 March, our bill was rejected on the basis of an opinion of the State Council claiming to demonstrate the unconstitutionality of our proposal. The strange thing is that we have based our bill on a previous opinion from the State Council that states that one can impose a language, but not refuse. Therefore, it was by no means the intention of our bill to refrain from languages, but rather to prioritize our own language.
The new opinion refers to the incompatibility with Article 30 of the Constitution, while that law article has never been amended between the first and second opinions of the State Council. According to the State Council, it would be possible if the necessity could be demonstrated, something that then apparently wasn’t necessary, but now suddenly turns out to be a issue.
Whatever it turns or turns, we can demonstrate the necessity of our own language. It seems to us no more than normal that a language of its own language area is a priority and must be understandable for everyone. This immediately shows the necessity to which the Council of State refers. Among the population there are a lot of people who can only speak the language of their language area and who can not read foreign-language advertising.
The State Council has written down a lot of things that are not relevant to our bill. He assumes that we would like to ban languages, which is absolutely not true. So we looked at our bill with the wrong glasses. Similarly, it is strange that one refers to the consulting practice, while there is no concrete reference or reference.
As far as we are concerned, the bill is pertinent and proportionate. I have noticed that parties in the hemisphere who are so willing to stand up for our language now suddenly seem to hide behind a advice that, in our opinion, is not relevant and proportionate. Colleagues of the N-VA, where is the time when you came up for your own language? I hope the public will remember this well.
I therefore call on you to vote against the rejection, colleagues. It is no more than normal for our population to receive advertising in their own language, which must still be primary and therefore preferred, and only in second instance in another language.
When we assume that our people speak different languages, the Parliament is not worthy of being Parliament because it must speak, serve and express the language of our people.