Nasty attack on democracy?
After France, Belgium criminalizes any deviance from the "state religion"...
https://bam.news/politique/belgique/atteinte-mechante-a-la-democratie
On February 22, the Belgian Parliament adopted Book II of the Penal Code, which includes a new offense that is as vague as it is worrying: malicious attacks on the authority of the State.
After the European DSA and the French law against so-called sectarian abuses (adopted in a simulacrum of democracy), this criminalization of protest constitutes an additional nail in the coffin of freedom of expression. But sleep soundly, it is under the noble pretext of “protecting the fundamental values of our democracy” that these wonderful initiatives are being presented to us…
Included in an exhaustive update of the Belgian Penal Code, the new notion of “mean attack on the authority of the State” rubs shoulders in the same law with war crimes, hostage-taking, ecocide, torture, domestic homicides, voyeurism, rape, etc.
In its original wording, the section of the law defined “mean attack on state authority” as an intentionally harmful and overt act that directly challenges legal authority or encourages disobedience. The final version of this article of law, however, introduces important distinctions: it punishes not only acts harming the authority of the State, but also those threatening national security, disrupting public order or hindering the prevention of offenses. It also imposes more rigorous penalties, while modulating them according to the category of the law transgressed and the severity of the offense committed.
Negative opinion from the Council of State
However, the parliamentary debates revealed a notable tension between the desire to strengthen the authority of the State and the need to preserve fundamental freedoms.
The Council of State highlighted the importance of a precise definition of terms such as "public order" and "attack on State authority", highlighting the risk of an overly broad interpretation which could lead to disproportionate restrictions on individual freedoms. The need to strictly align any new legislation with the guidelines of the European Court of Human Rights has been a leitmotif, with frequent reminders of the need to maintain a balance between state security and democratic freedoms.
Members of the federal parliament, such as Ms Rajae Maouane (Ecolo-Groen) and Mr Philippe Lamberts (Ecolo-Groen), have expressed concern that the law could be used to unduly restrict protests and freedom of expression , essential democratic pillars enshrined in the constitution. They pleaded for a measured and proportionate approach, in accordance with existing case law.
Debates also focused on the potential redundancy of the law, with arguments that already existing offenses sufficiently covered the scope of the proposed new law. This has raised questions about the practical usefulness of this article, with some speakers fearing that it could serve to introduce unnecessary additional punitive measures, which could be exploited arbitrarily.
Ms. Sophie Rohonyi (DéFI) recalled the crucial importance of the law in protecting freedom of the press and government criticism, citing the need to ensure that any legislative measure supports and does not undermine these fundamental rights.
A collective of 513 signatories sounds the alarm
In a carte blanche published in The evening of February 15 [3] , a collective of 513 signatories from the associative, academic, judicial and civil society world drew the attention of politicians and the public to the dangers of such law for freedom of expression and democracy.
Undemocratic nature of the proposal
The collective considers that civil disobedience, which consists of acts of transgression of the law in a public, collective, conscious and non-violent manner, is a fundamental and traditional element in the evolution of civilizations. They emphasize that civil disobedience does not call into question the rule of law but aims to establish a public debate essential to democracy. The authors of Carte Blanche recall that civil disobedience has been an important driver of social and political change throughout history. Civil disobedience was crucial to the civil rights movement in the United States, culminating in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with Martin Luther King. It also led to the independence of India with Gandhi. Her role was decisive in the acquisition of women's suffrage. Finally, she contributed to the end of apartheid in South Africa with Nelson Mandela. The proposed law, by criminalizing such actions, undermines the foundations of democracy.
Law enforcement hazards
The collective also considers that its scope is too broad, potentially allowing the criminalization of protest in a broad sense and seriously compromising the right to freedom of expression and protest. Furthermore, its application could create inequalities before the law and compromise legal certainty.
Redundancy and uselessness of the law
Like certain parliamentarians, the collective considers that the provision is redundant, because civil disobedience is already covered by freedom of expression protected by international, European, regional and national texts. They claim that the new offense would not represent any advantage and that similar provisions, which end up being used in a different context than initially intended, have already been observed in the past.
The collective therefore insists on the fact that this proposed law is undemocratic, dangerous and useless and that it contradicts the tendency within the political world itself to recognize the importance of civil disobedience for democratic debate. They urge parliamentarians to strongly reject this provision, considering it a serious threat to fundamental rights.
"Never mind!"
Despite the concert of disapproval emanating from the Council of State, the Federal Institute of Human Rights, as well as associative, academic, judicial and civil society voices, the majority of parliament remained deaf and finally adopted the law [ 4] .
Small consolation: the State, in its great leniency, will apply the law two years after its publication... Probably time to get used to our new democratic regime by learning not to be mean to the authority of the State... road to absolute democracy, where allegiance to power is enshrined in the Penal Code.
Marcan for BAM!
The illustration is by BAM!
[2] A new penal code adapted to the 21st century - Team Justice - see : https://www.teamjustitie.be/fr/2022/11/06/un-nouveau-code-penal-adapte-au-21e-siecle/
[3] Lawyers, academics, trade unionists and citizens: they say “no” to “the malicious attack on the authority of the State” - Le Soir - see : https://www.lesoir.be/568494/article/2024-02-15/juristes-universitaires-syndicalistes-et-citoyens-ils-disent-non-latteinte
[4] https://www.lachambre.be/doc/PCRI/PDF/55/ip292.pdf
Does anyone think that the “internationalists” in the U. S. Democrat party will not try to copy this here?
Merci à vous, CocotteMinute.
Also, if everyone increases their personal self reliance and courage that would help too. Can’t worry too much about what might go wrong. Per General Patton, make your plans and do not take council of your fears. If you are in the US, be armed. It’s raw power in the hands of the people, and they respect power if nothing else.