Proposition 55K0165

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 10 mai 2007 tendant à lutter contre la discrimination entre les femmes et les hommes, en ce qui concerne l'interdiction de discrimination relative à la paternité ou à la comaternité, l'allaitement et la procréation médicalement assistée.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Nawal Farih, Nahima Lanjri, Els Van Hoof
Ecolo Sarah Schlitz
Groen Evita Willaert
LE Catherine Fonck
MR Caroline Taquin
N-VA Kathleen Depoorter
Open Vld Robby De Caluwé
PS | SP Patrick Prévot

Submission date

July 16, 2019

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

family protection anti-discriminatory measure family law paternity leave

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

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 ¶

Jan. 23, 2020 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I refer to the written report.

Mrs Depoorter, you are also on my speaker list for the general discussion and so I give you the word first. Also the colleagues Willaert, Schlitz, Taquin, Vindevoghel, De Caluwé, Jiroflée, Fonck, Prévot, Van Hoof, Rohonyi and Sneppe are registered.

Colleagues, I would like to remind you that things are facilitated if the names of the speakers are communicated to the secretary prior to the meeting.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, the N-VA Group will support the bill to combat discrimination between men and women, in particular the prohibition of discrimination on paternity and co-motherhood.

Any direct distinction based on motherhood, transgenderity and gender expression is already recognized as a form of gender discrimination. The bill gives us the very good signal that men have an equal place in the family as women, and they can therefore take care duties in the family. With the new text, we also give men the means to fight sexism and discrimination. Indeed, we fully support the recognition of paternity as a basis for discrimination.

That does not mean that our group is still convinced – I have already emphasized this in the committee – that paternity leave, which has nothing to do with this, but is often linked to it, is a right and not a duty.

Through the bill, we also want to regulate the co-motherhood. If a distinction is made on the basis of parenthood, then that is discrimination. From now on, the mother-in-law will enjoy the necessary protection and have the opportunity, like the fathers, to assume their role of parent.

However, colleagues, we have also clarified in the committee that we do not opt for an exhaustive list.

We will therefore abstain from voting on the amendments; we do not want to exhaust the law. We are convinced that every individual, every person in the role of mother, father, parent, can be represented, that every person can take on his or her role and that with the adjustment of the law as we will pass today, we will not let anyone fall out of the boat.

The amendment is about adoption. We received the net. We will also abstain from voting on this. We also explained our reasons for abstinence in the committee. Adoption is regulated by the regions. We believe that regions have the right to pass laws themselves.

Finally, I have one thing from my heart. We have worked very well on the bill. We have been working well together for a while now. I felt very sorry for the discussion. The N-VA group will therefore vote as Democrats to represent the 1 million voters who voted for us.

First of all, I would like to thank Mrs. Van Hoof for promoting this bill as a priority in the Health and Equal Opportunities Committee. That is her merit. I would also like to thank all colleagues for the good cooperation.

Today we add a number of protective criteria to the 2007 Gender Discrimination Act. It is more specifically about paternity, co-motherhood, medically assisted reproduction and, very importantly, breastfeeding. There are amendments to add other criteria.

With these new protection criteria, we aim to provide the data subjects with the legal handles to combat and prosecute discrimination. We also give a very strong signal that discrimination based on these criteria is not tolerated by our society.

The first criterion is paternity. At the same time, we indicate that we find it very normal that the father’s care duties also take on. Yet too often we see that men who apply for paternity leave strike thresholds. Sometimes it goes very far. There have been cases where they were threatened with dismissal.

We also do not forget the mothers. They now have the same legal status as fathers and they also deserve the necessary protection. If fathers are already experiencing social pressure and sexism when they want to take birth leave, this is especially true for parental leave. Therefore, we empower the Institute for Equality of Women and Men to make advances in discrimination against fathers and co-mothers. This also addresses a question from the review committee on anti-discrimination laws. In addition, we comply with a number of international obligations.

Another criterion to be added, which we have also submitted a text on, is the criterion of breastfeeding.

I would like to comment on the criticism that has been made. Although we have worked well together, the violins are not completely equal. The fear of inflation consists of criteria that it would disrupt the powerful signal we want to give.

However, I think that this is the answer to a question from an authority in this area, in particular the Anti-Discrimination Laws Assessment Committee. We put all our confidence in these experts. It is a request from the institute to do this. These are people who speak with knowledge of things. They do not give light on that.

I think we should look intrinsically at those criteria. The argument of inflation of criteria does not stand. We just need to make sure that those who need protection can also get them.

We see a positive evolution in our company in the area of breastfeeding. There are fewer taboo around. We see more mothers starting breastfeeding. However, there are still too many stories of moms talking about strange looks when they breastfeed, from moms being asked to cover themselves when they breastfeed, from moms being asked to stop or leave the restaurant when they breastfeed. This summer there was also the case of a mother who was breastfeeding in her car. An agent behaved aggressively toward her and threatened a fine for public moral scandal. He asked her to stop it. That mother was terribly intimidated.

This story shows that there are still problems and taboos, that people sometimes misunderstand this, that it is just about a mom who wants to feed a baby. It shows that it is very important that this is the most normal thing in the world, but it also shows that there is still a lot of work to do in the store. This is a strong signal that it is not taboo. We also increase the level of support for breastfeeding, which clearly indicates that discrimination in this area will not be tolerated.

Medical assisted reproduction is another criterion that is added to the protective criteria of the Gender Act. Currently, moms and prospective dads are not sufficiently protected by the Gender and Labour Act and they have to rely on articles relating to motherhood, pregnancy and paternity, but they are not yet pregnant or not yet a mother or father. Some of them, unfortunately, will never be. Therefore, it is important to provide more legal clarity, and direct protection.

I am very proud that we have succeeded in adding these criteria to the Gender Act. In this way, we demonstrate to the victims that we help them by breaking existing taboos and by giving them concrete tools to prosecute and combat discrimination.

I am very proud that we now explicitly state that breastfeeding mothers have the right to move freely with their baby in public spaces, that they have free access to services and goods, and that they can breast their baby when the mother, or usually the baby, considers it necessary.

Finally, I am very pleased that with this text we are also increasing equality between men and women. It is not only women who have to fight too often against stereotypical images in this society. For example, I think of the image of the caring mother. Also, many men are too often confronted with stereotypical imaging and expectations of what 'masculinity' would mean.

This text is an important step forward in addressing this issue.

The fight against discrimination is more than ever at the heart of our concerns and, more ⁇ , of those of the Socialist Party. This struggle must obviously affect all spheres of society, including the labour market.

To trace back a little parliamentary history, one will remember that the anti-discrimination laws of 2007 helped protect nineteen criteria. In addition, they are destined to evolve according to the new needs of society. It was therefore appropriate to go further. This is why we are here to discuss this bill.

The text that the Socialist group had deposited at the beginning of the legislature formed the following statement: maternity was protected, in particular thanks to the Gender Act, but there was nothing about paternity and co-maternity. Following the recommendations of the Institute for the Equality of Women and Men, we have decided to formally include in the law this protection of co-mothers – a somewhat barbaric term, but we have not found another – and also fathers.

It is indeed indispensable and necessary in our eyes to provide the possibility for co-mothers and fathers to fully engage in the essential process of maternity and to be able to fully take the measure of this task. We know how important this is, since mental load is determined in the first days of maternity.

We want these criteria to be protected. Very practically, this means that from now on, if a majority of you support this text – as I hope – when an employer wants to put pressure on a father or co-mother wishing to take maternity or paternity leave, he will no longer be able to do so. In addition, this text will allow parents to be in court or to refer to the Institute for Gender Equality in order to help them file their complaint.

I remember, however, that there was a cruel lack of numbers, as often with this kind of problem. But a 2010 study by the Institute for Gender Equality found that more than 10 percent of fathers said they were under pressure when they applied for paternity leave. The pressure was of several orders. Sometimes it was promotions that were no longer accepted, or pressures from all colleagues. Unfortunately, it is still observed that fathers most often give up their paternity leave, especially due to pressure from the employer. From now on, this will no longer be the case. We can no longer ask employees to give up this struggle.

I would like to thank all my colleagues who contributed to this text, especially those who spoke before me. I also thank Ms. Van Hoof for her text and her active collaboration on this matter.

We wanted to expand this text, following the negotiations and discussions we had in the committees. This is why a more comprehensive proposal is presented to you today. Beyond the protection of co-motherhood and paternity, we wanted to include breastfeeding and medically assisted reproduction (PMA).

Here too, we realize that fathers and mothers who enter the process of PMA often find themselves facing a long road, often painful, sometimes marked by chess. We therefore wanted to allow these men and women to fully enter the process without being discriminated against by their employer. It was very important to protect them.

The same applies to women who want to breastfeed, either by choice or by necessity. Without storytelling, I was talking yesterday with a mother whose son had been diagnosed with autism Asperger. She had to breastfeed her child for thirteen months. She was fortunate to have benefited at the time of an understanding employer. Otherwise, his child would have had a much longer stay in the hospital, since he only accepted breastfeeding.

I would like to thank all my colleagues again. Both of these criteria can now be protected. This is a good thing.

We have had many discussions and this text has been the subject of broad consensus.

We discussed, in particular, with Ms. Van Hoof on the criterion of sexual characteristics. We are aware of the association sector. Ms. Van Hoof was willing to include this in her text but, at the time of the discussion, there was no majority to do so. So we adopted the theory of small steps and accepted the broad consensus on the text.

Today, I am therefore depositing an amendment co-signed by Ms. Van Hoof because we heard that and there that the Socialist Party had an ambiguous position on this text. This is not the case, and we wanted to reaffirm this in this amendment so that we could also include sexual characteristics in the protected characteristics. I think in particular of the intersex who today do not enter the binary system that wants to be a man or a woman.

I think that today we are taking a step in the right direction to fight discrimination in the long and beautiful path of parenting.

Whatever others may say about the Flemish Interest, the Flemish Interest is clearly against any form of discrimination.

We will therefore support this bill, especially because it upgrades paternity, which contributes to upgrading our families, which we as a family party of course support.

Our Group is delighted that this proposal to add paternity, co-maternity, breastfeeding and medically assisted reproduction to the recognized grounds of discrimination is included on the agenda of the plenary session today. It is also crucial to fight against discrimination against men, against fathers. This discrimination is as unacceptable as any other discrimination.

This proposal is a response to the difficulties men may face when they wish to take paternity leave. This logic of protection also applies to co-maternity, protection covered by this proposal. Fathers and co-parents must, like mothers, be able to welcome their children in the best possible conditions. In addition, the text further improves the protection of women by adding criteria related to the treatment of medically assisted reproduction and breastfeeding.

It is therefore an advance, although it is obviously not the only measure to guarantee men and women an equal place in the family. In fact, the MR has several proposals to continue the fight against discrimination. Several ways can contribute to this. We want to extend paternity leave and ease parental leave, whereas conditions for access to the profession, education for equality between men and women from an early age or feminisation and masculinisation of certain professions to fight against the famous glass ceiling are essential issues on which much remains to be done. These different measures contribute – we know it – to a better balance of everyone in family life.

Ladies and gentlemen, I will not be longer to avoid repeating what has already been said. I therefore conclude by reaffirming that the MR Group will continue to initiate and support initiatives aimed at combating all forms of discrimination and ensuring a better balance between private and professional life.

In Japan, the word patahara stands for “intimidation because one is a father.” Fortunately, it is not so bad in Belgium that we have to look for a separate word, fortunately Belgium is not Japan, but unfortunately this does not mean that fathers in Belgium do not experience problems.

In Belgium, men are also faced with sexism. It has been said several times that this is most common in the expression of negative reactions and social pressure that fathers experience when they want to take leave and care tasks for their children. It is good that everyone today wants to give an important signal that fathers – how often we have to repeat it – have an equal place in the family and that it is no more than normal that they can also take care duties. Therefore, it is good that we recognize this basis of discrimination within the gender law. Honest is fair and equal is equal, and it is not permissible for fathers to play parties on the workplace.

No figures have yet been mentioned. Today, 15% of fathers still do not take their paternity leave and 30% of fathers only take it partially. It is also true that 10 % of fathers have experienced difficulties when applying for paternity leave at work. There even comes the threat of dismissal and missing promotion and the employer out sometimes also his dissatisfaction.

We obviously do not want patahara in Belgium, because what is one ultimately with rights if they are not enforceable? By incorporating paternity as a protected criterion in the gender law, we ensure that fathers can also contact the institute, that the institute can mediate and that there may be compensation in case of dismissal. As ultimum remedy, the institute can, of course, also pose itself as a civil party.

I am very pleased that we can overcome this gap together. However, many other gaps have been revealed. It is important that we know that today an evaluation of anti-discrimination laws is underway. We must wait for the following report to look at how parenting and adoption are involved. In this way we will be able to take a few more steps.

I also find it important that we remove those two gaps that we want to include in this bill through an amendment.

Collega Willaert already pointed out that it is unacceptable that women are still prevented today from breastfeeding in both restaurants and – as recently – swimming pools. There is labour legislation that allows for discharge at work. It can be removed twice over half an hour. Twenty percent of employers do not allow this. This is unacceptable. In the hospital, one is encouraged to breastfeed because it is much better for the health and development of the baby, but once at work one should not take those breastfeeding breaks. That is unacceptable. We must therefore give these women legal remedies, because today they are not sufficiently protected by the gender law. In this way, they can accuse the institute of unequal treatment.

The same applies to medical supervised reproduction. A child wish is very beautiful and very expensive. Any disadvantage in this area must be rejected. Everyone has the right to have children, but unfortunately, one in six couples finds that there may be problems with them. We should not prevent these couples, but just support them to pursue their child desire. After all, it is a demanding process with blood samples, hormone injections, egg puncture and reimplantation of embryos. In short, a demanding process that often requires absences at work from the woman concerned. She often has to be creative at work in order to meet her childhood wishes. It is unacceptable that some employers consider this illegal.

The problem with the gender law is that these women are neither mother nor pregnant, so they are not covered by the relevant provisions. It is therefore good to name this separately and thus give those women sufficient legal protection and clarity. In addition, these rights will also give them greater visibility. It is important not to be immediately punished. In my opinion, the inclusion of these discrimination criteria in the law works very sensitizing. This makes everyone vulnerable, including employers. In addition, fathers and mothers become aware of their rights in this area and can no longer be discriminated against.

I am very pleased that we have done this work together. I think this is appropriate for such a topic. I have signed as many people as possible because I consider it important that there is a broad support for this, not only in society, but also in Parliament.

I also thank you for the good cooperation. We do this important work for many fathers, mothers and grandparents. I hope we can finish this work well.

I will also support an additional amendment. This is an amendment on intersex. This is also a hole. Gender expression and gender identity are in law, but a group of people are neither male nor female. It is important that they can also file a complaint if they are discriminated against. That is why we have submitted this amendment again.

We look forward to the next report of the experts on anti-discrimination. In this way, we can look at how we can continue our work on parenting.

Thank you for the cooperation.

The PVDA will fully support the bill. The text came up on the basis of a recommendation from the Institute for Gender Equality, as there are many gaps in the law. We will also support the amendments that have been added.

I myself have worked as a trade union representative in a large company for a very long time and I can assure you that many trade union representatives often have to mediate for workers who cannot take their leave, in particular fathers who cannot take their paternity leave. Therefore, I can rightly say that there is often pressure on workers in this regard. Many employees in a weak position, such as those working in a small business or with a temporary contract, are often pressured by their employer not to take paternity leave. I know someone who works in the gardening sector and to whom the employer said that he should take paternity leave only when it came out to the employer. That does not make it all easy. It is also not easy for many members of the board. I also experienced it more often that there was a very strong culture in a company where it was not heard that a man took paternity leave, because this could reduce his career.

Dear colleagues, if we really want to tackle discrimination on the basis of paternity and ⁇ genuine equality between women and men, we must expand the scheme and automatically grant paternity leave. It should simply be equated with maternity leave, so simple it is. By automatically allocating paternity leave, like maternity leave, we create space, allowing men to take more care of their newborn daughter or son.

One of the causes of the gender pay gap is that women work much more part-time because they take care and cannot combine care with a full-time job. The Swedish example shows that the extension of the scheme through the automatic granting of paternity leave reduces the wage gap and significantly reduces the number of part-time jobs among women.

Again, if we want to promote genuine equality between women and men and address the pay gap, we must automatically allocate paternity leave to men and equate it with maternity leave.

It must be clear that discrimination, on any grounds, is evil. Therefore, we have a good anti-discrimination legislation in our country.

It has been shown that it needs to be more explicit. Explaining is exactly what the bill intends to do. This is also evidenced by the broad support for Mrs. Van Hoof’s proposal, which we have signed with great enthusiasm.

The discussion took a lot of time, because there was discussion about the points that really needed to be explained. There has not been a single second of discussion about the fact that a father or mother-in-law should not be discriminated against in order to take paternity or maternity leave. However, the question arises whether the inclusion of paternity or co-motherhood leave should be mandatory. As far as we are concerned, this cannot be the case, but that issue, which was addressed on the margins of the debate, fortunately does not belong to the subject of the bill, on which we will vote later and which our group has signed with.

On the inclusion of breastfeeding leave and medical supervised reproduction as explicit criteria for not discriminating, there was more discussion, not about the intention, but about the necessity, but finally a consensus was also found on that.

This was not the case with the question of whether family duties should also be included. That goes just too far, especially when a request for advice from the Institute for Gender Equality, which insisted on its inclusion in the anti-discrimination law, showed that the concrete content of that term needed further investigation. Wisely, therefore, it was decided to temporarily park the concept as a possible criterion.

In general, I would like to point out, on behalf of my group, that we have good legislation that protects against discrimination. Ms. Willaert has just said that some people are concerned about inflation on the grounds of discrimination. We are effectively taking care of this. By explicitly incorporating a lot of discrimination grounds into the law, it would be possible that what is not explained would be excluded from the anti-discrimination law.

We must also not forget that a broader framework is needed to combat discrimination than merely the addition of discrimination criteria to the Act of 10 May 2007. There should also be work to raise awareness, including through the Institute for Gender Equality.

Two amendments were submitted by PS and CD&V to add the right to protection against discrimination of intersex persons, but who says they are not already covered? It is precisely for this reason that we are not talking about gender discrimination or gender identity, but about the broader understanding of gender, so that we can grasp the whole range of man, woman and all other forms.

In the explanatory note to the amendment of Mrs Van Hoof, it is explicitly stated that no legal proceedings have yet been conducted on this subject. This does not really surprise me. We therefore consider that another opinion should be obtained as to whether it is indeed strictly necessary to explicitly include that basis of discrimination in the law. If that proves to be the case, we will of course not oppose it.

Ms. Fonck submitted an amendment on adoption. This discussion is, in our opinion, not yet mature. We are still waiting for new reports from the Institute for Gender Equality. Therefore, we will not support this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, with the present bill we include paternity, as well as co-motherhood, as a basis for discrimination in the gender law. In particular, our group wants to emphasize that everyone, regardless of gender and background, has the right to take responsibility in the family. Education and care for children are not only for mothers, but for everyone who is older and feels older and takes care and responsibility in that sense.

However, ten percent of fathers still experience pressure from the employer if he takes paternity leave. Me-motherhood is still not fully considered by many employers. For our group, these two findings are unacceptable. We therefore support the bill of colleague Van Hoof with full conviction. It takes a village to raise a child, they say in Africa. It is time that we find it at least normal in Belgium that every adult in a family assumes his responsibility for the children.

With the same conviction, we have signed the amendment of colleague Prévot, which stipulates that intersex persons should also be protected from discrimination, of which they may be the victim on the basis of their sexual characteristics. That would be worthless to our society. Therefore, I call for the elimination of this possible discrimination today.

Many things have already been said on this topic that holds us especially at heart. This text had already been submitted in the previous legislature. We are delighted that we have been able to federate the different energies and the different groups to finally be able to realize it.

I hear the reservations of some colleagues. Often, the reality goes well within companies. It should be dared to recall it, but in some cases, what is happening is unacceptable. Those who would like to be able to give time in a balanced way, in this form of conciliation between work and family life, can sometimes be pointed with the finger and therefore discriminated.

As with almost all colleagues here, it was important for us to take into account the different family realities, the different choices of individuals and people, whatever these choices, whatever their orientations, their cravings, their loves, their passions. This question seems to me legitimate and essential. We also welcome the work done by the Institute for Gender Equality on this issue.

I would like to comment on two specific points. The first concerns close caregivers who are not currently taken into account. I can therefore resume a call to the party of Minister De Block since the legislation was voted nine months ago. It should have entered into force on 1 October 2019, but the enforcement orders have not yet been taken. This is of course the highest priority.

However, it will also be necessary, through the law on discrimination, to cover the situations of close carers. You can ⁇ be a parent of a seriously disabled minor child and be protected but you also find parents who take care of a seriously disabled adult child and who invest with him as close caregivers. They are not protected, as are those who take care of extremely severe dependence situations from one of their parents. This aspect will remain to be supplemented in this anti-discrimination law.

The second aspect I would like to emphasize is about adoption.

Ms Depoorter of the N-VA said it was a regional regulation. Certainly in part! Adoption depends both on the federal and also – it is true – on community decrees. But we are here in a 2007 federal legislation that aims to fight all discrimination, regardless of family forms.

Adoptive parents are, in many cases, the left-for-accounts. Adoptive families are seen as separate families, while, let’s admit it, the paths are difficult. In the reality of everyday life and in this period before being a parent, their course is sometimes very close to that of parents who are familiar with medical assisted procreation procedures. I see that you want to react but I propose to finish in such a way that you can really do it at your convenience.

I heard what you were saying. To abstain is not to oppose. It is already that!

Adoptive families are not separate families. They are few. But acknowledge, dear colleagues, that these parents are considered half moms or half dads in many legislations. It is not about adopting for a few weeks or months. Once we are parents, we enjoy the same rights, except at the time of adoption, it must be remembered. But before being parents, the journey is sometimes difficult because you suddenly have to go abroad and this could not be anticipated. I repeat it; this happens regularly very well on the part of employers, with a positive collaboration between one and the other. But in some cases, this really poses a problem. I therefore allow myself to again plead with you so that these future parents can enjoy the same rights, the same support as other parents and other family forms.

Ms. Fonck, you say that adoptive parents are in a very vulnerable situation. That is, of course, so and we believe that every individual has equal right to care for his or her child.

Why should we abstain? Because we do not want to complicate it. In my presentation I have placed very clearly the emphasis on “every individual”. Adoptive parents are also involved, but adoption and care for adopted children remain a Flemish competence. I think that in an anti-discrimination law there is absolutely no need to specify that an adopted parent is also a parent. That is why we will abstain.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, my group fully supports the bill submitted to the vote of our assembly today and welcomes the positive evolution it induces.

I would like to thank the colleagues who have done a great job in the committee and who have sought the common denominator between the various texts that were in debate.

Our support for the final text is justified mainly for three reasons. First, because it responds to the progressive and emancipatory vision that we make of our model of society, namely a society in which gender equality is pursued and ensured by accompanying it with real protective mechanisms. As Leon Gambetta said, what constitutes true democracy is not recognizing equals, but truly making them.

As repeated in the committee, there can be no greater acceptance in the 21st century of discrimination against men for their role as fathers than of discrimination against women for their role as mothers because every parent, regardless of gender, plays an essential role in the proper emotional and physical development of a child but also because the father must enjoy an equal place with the mother within the family structure. It is also for this reason that the question of the mandatory nature of paternity leave was addressed during the committee debates without being held, which I regret. I regret this precisely because it is by establishing a mandatory parenting time for both parents that a better balance between private and professional life will be aimed, the presence of women on the labour market will be strengthened and the equality of men and women in the education of children will be strengthened. It is all the more essential that the equality of citizens in our society begins with their equality at the private and family level.

I am pleased that comaternity is recognized as a criterion of discrimination. This is, after all, the logical follow-up to the law of 5 May 2014, which establishes filiation with respect to the co-parent in the same way as with respect to the father. It follows that the father, like the co-parent who would be the victim of discrimination in his workplace, will finally be able to file a complaint. This is a significant step forward, especially when one out of four discrimination reports received by Unia concerns the field of employment.

If we also support this text, it is due to the addition of breastfeeding to the list of criteria for discrimination, thus concretizing the will of the European Parliament expressed in its resolution of 14 March 2017. It aimed to fully implement the principle of equal treatment between women and men. The inclusion of this criterion will undoubtedly contribute to raising women’s awareness of their rights, but also to guarantee the legal protection to which they are entitled. One cannot accept that a woman is discriminated, insulted, harassed simply because she feeds her child.

Finally, we look forward to the addition of medically assisted reproduction to the discrimination criteria, thereby providing legal protection for women treated in vitro fertilization – as, as some colleagues have recalled, recommended by the Institute for Gender Equality.

I am therefore pleased that, in the current very difficult federal context, our Assembly shows that it has its full right of legislative initiative – in this case, to strengthen gender equality, but also to ensure better legal protection for all victims of discrimination.

Many things have already been said. We look forward to the adoption of these new criteria, which lead us to a society that is more equal to men and women and more inclusive, where everyone can find their place, regardless of their choices or constraints.

With regard to the anti-discrimination criterion towards co-mothers or fathers, it is about giving them more space with their child. This is positive for everyone. In this way, other models of masculinity will be spread in our society.

Breastfeeding is a long-standing struggle by environmentalists. We took back the flame that was worn by Muriel Gerkens, whom we are very happy that the fight ends today. This issue remains a big taboo in our society. In fact, a UCL study found that for more than 50% of Belgians, breastfeeding is still equated to a sexual practice.

So I think the law we vote today will break this taboo. What is important for us is to guarantee women’s freedom of choice and to assure them that whatever their choice, they have their place everywhere in our society, in the public space and in every place. Whether they decide not to breastfeed or decide to breastfeed, and regardless of the child’s age because late breastfeeding remains also a stronger discrimination criterion than when it comes to a small baby.

I will not be longer. I look forward to the collective work that has been carried out in this Parliament to build a more progressive society. I thank you.