Mais, cette nouvelle loi a franchi un pas de plus en étant volontairement vague et en omettant les définitions claires des circonstances applicables...
Le
principal auteur de la loi, le député André Frédéric,
n’a laissé aucun doute sur le fait que sa véritable intention
était de cibler les minorités religieuses et idéologiques,
pourchassant ce qu’il a appelé les "sectes dangereuses et
pratiques sectaires."
Pour en savoir plus, lisez ce qui suit.
Human Rights Without Frontiers (09.08.2012 ) – On November
26, 2011, the Belgian Parliament voted a Law adding articles to the
Penal Code criminalizing « Abuse of Weakness ». Obviously, every citizen
agrees that a person in a situation of weakness because of his age,
physical or mental handicap or a permanent or temporary precarious
situation needs protection. However this new Law went a step further by
being purposely vague and omitting clear definitions of applicable
circumstances. As was pointed out during the Parliamentary debates, this
opens the way to prosecute even salesmanship, charisma, convincing
management, religious practices and more.
The lead author of the Law, Deputy André
Frédéric, left no doubt that the real intention was to focus on
religious and ideological minorities, going after what he called
« dangerous sects and sectarian practices »
It went through an elaborate delivery:
in the last decade, previous proposals with the same or similar content,
were either severely questioned by the State Council or stalled before
they could be voted on because of elections.
This time, the proponents, realizing
that their latest attempt might equally fail, reverted to plan B: they
« buried » their controversial articles in an amended proposal that
included more than 30 provisions that no right-minded person would
object to. Subsequently, they invoked a vague reference to a government
agreement to force getting the necessary votes. Even then, the proposal
went back and forth twice between the House and the Senate, and avoided
another referral to the State Council because of a blatantly inexact
statement by Senator Mahoux, who declared that « similar » proposals had
already been reviewed by the State Council, without mentioning that the
Council actually objected to the wording used in the past. He called
for an interruption of the Senate Justice Commission meeting to confer
with Senators of the majority. They decided that the majority would vote
it, alluding to provisions in the Government Declaration on Public
Security (in fact there was no such specific provision)
The new Law was published in the « »Official Gazette » on January 23, 2012.
To underscore their particular interest,
the lead author, together with another Deputy and an ex journalist who
was present during the hearings about the Law (he presented himself as
representing the Civil Society), immediately created an association to
act as civil party to represent alleged victims of « sectarian
organizations » targeted by the Law.
They seemed more than anxious to start their « witch hunt ».
In the meantime, reactions from
University scholars, lawyers and representatives of ideological and
religious associations began to surface.
An appeal to the Constitutional Court to void the Law seems therefore more and more likely.
It would not be surprising, since the Law managed to potentially violate at least 4 articles of the Belgian Constitution:
Art. 11: Enjoyment of the rights and
freedoms recognized for Belgians must be provided without
discrimination. To this end, laws and federate laws guarantee among
others the rights and freedoms of ideological and philosophical
minorities.
Art. 12: The freedom of the individual
is guaranteed. No one can be prosecuted except in the cases provided for
by the law, and in the form prescribed by the law.
Art. 19: Freedom of worship, its public practice and freedom to demonstrate one’s opinions on all matters are guaranteed.
Art. 22: Everyone has the right to the respect of his private and family life
The Law equally disrespects noble
principles anchored in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)
such as the right to liberty, right to a fair trial, right to respect
for private life, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, freedom
of expression, prohibition of discrimination.
In other words, both the Constitution
and ECHR rightfully protect citizens’ rights of freedom in ideological
matters, freedom of expression, as well as the exercise of their beliefs
and their privacy. Any potential restrictions would need laws with
prescriptions in clear, understandable and precise terms. The
consequences of non-obeisance should be predictable.
The new Law fails on all those issues.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire