Proposition 55K0560

Projet de loi adaptant la loi du 4 avril 2014 relative aux assurances à l'abolition de la peine de mort.

General information ¶

Authors

Open Vld Robby De Caluwé, Vincent Van Quickenborne, Marianne Verhaert, Kathleen Verhelst

Submission date

Oct. 8, 2019

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

death penalty insurance

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Abstained from voting

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 ¶

Feb. 13, 2020 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, the bill adapting the Act of 4 April 2014 on insurance to the abolition of the death penalty was adopted in a second reading at the committee meeting of 29 January last year, following the first reading articles adopted on 8 January.

During the committee of 29 January, the meeting took note of the legislative note of the Legal Service on the text adopted in the first reading. As a result, Kathleen Verhelst, as the main contributor, submitted an amendment in response to the comments made.

The amendment was adopted with 12 votes for and 2 abstentions from the Flemish Interest. The entire bill was also adopted in second reading with 12 votes for and 2 abstentions from the Flemish Interest.

For further details, I refer to the report.

You may continue with your presentation in the general discussion, Mr. Van Lommel.

We ask ourselves about the need of this bill to amend the Insurance Act so that the death of the insured is covered if he is sentenced to the death penalty.

When I subsequently asked the competent Minister Nathalie Muylle a written question on the number of cases of people sentenced to death abroad, she had to continue to blame me for the answer. Thus, this bill came without any concrete cause or problem.

The ethical themes are very in demand at Open Vld. They seem to find very little to distinguish themselves in this House.

I will give you a few examples. Abortion: preferably until the day of birth. Euthanasia: if possible for every person over 60. Insurance money: please, if we can please the relatives of Syrian terrorists, who get their deserved punishment.

Let’s be honest, the death penalty has been abolished in Europe. We find it strange that relatives of Belgian criminals, such as terrorists who are sentenced to death for their actions in Iraq or Syria, can still enjoy the payment of an insurance premium.

Even those who travel with 25 kg of drugs in their suitcase, are caught and consequently receive the death penalty, will be able to enjoy a payment.

The worst thing I find is that our residents who struggle with psychological problems, no longer see a way out and deprive themselves of life, often can not resort to the payment of an insurance premium. I don’t hear about this in this hemisphere.

We therefore consider this to be a purely symbolic file, without any cause or necessity. Are there no other priorities in this House? As in the committee, Vlaams Belang will also abstain here when voting on this bill.

This bill is intended to adapt the insurance law to the abolition of the death penalty. The death penalty was abolished in the European Convention on Human Rights and in our Constitution. Nevertheless, in the law of 4 April 2014 on insurance, there is still an article that speaks about the death penalty. This article even states that the insurer does not cover the death of the insured if the death is the result of the execution of a court sentence to the death penalty. This needs to be abolished. This is not a priority, but it is important that it is corrected.

The bill is a purely technical and legal intervention. This provision needs to be amended not only because the death penalty no longer exists, it is also not correct that an insurance company can benefit from the effective execution of a death penalty, even if it would take place in another country. That is unethical. No one should be able to benefit economically from a death penalty in another business model.

However, I think that Flaams Belang throws all too much on a lot. There were no objections raised in the committee while Vlaams Belang here now holds a talk where I am not behind. I am convinced that the insurance world should not be able to profit from this.

If a parent gets the death penalty, the children should not be fined financially for it. I think that the insurance does not have to intervene legally in order to evaluate it again. Right must be done.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to briefly replicate what Ms. Verhelst said.

Mrs. Verhelst may do this as a talk of Vlaams Belang, but we must look at what the purpose of all this happening is.

She may say that this is a purely legal-technical matter, but after answering my written question to Mrs. Muylle, I do not see the necessity of this. This is merely a symbolic file.

It is said that the family does not need to be punished for the actions of a father, but we must be honest: who can use the payment of an insurance premium in case of a death sentence? This is because the death penalty is effectively abolished in Europe.

I do not really understand the necessity of this bill.