The President of the PS recently proposed bringing together all party presidents to revise the charter of democracy and strengthen the fight against the far right. For the MR, the fight against the far left should be included in this text. The MR also doubts the need to set up new public structures for this, when democratic tools already exist. While the PS wants to correctionalise press offences, the MR opposes this and believes the press must continue to be protected and benefit from the special protection resulting from the use of the jury of assizes, a historic guarantee of freedom of expression and pluralism in our country.
Here is the response sent to Paul Magnette.
Mr President,
Dear Paul,
Thank you for your letter regarding the Charter of Democracy and the Code of Conduct, as well as for the proposed working method you attached. The MR fully shares the goal of defending the rule of law, fundamental freedoms and the fight against all forms of hatred, racism and challenges to democratic principles.
The MR has always supported the principle of a cordon sanitaire against movements whose programme or actions endanger the fundamental and constitutional values of our democratic system.
As the Charter emphasises, the danger posed by the far right remains present and its normalisation is unacceptable. Rest assured on this point: we have never stopped fighting the far right and its ideas, and we have no intention of letting them settle in among us, whether through complacency or misunderstanding. I regret, moreover, that you were able to publicly suggest otherwise.
Nevertheless, if we want to remain fully consistent with the spirit of the Charter, it seems essential to us to extend the cordon sanitaire to the far left, which, in many respects, shares the same flaws as the far right: rejection of democratic institutions, a culture of hatred towards others, and antisemitic tendencies.
We would also like to point out that we ourselves, during various events, have been the target of intimidation, verbal and physical attacks from the far left (in no way condemned by the leaders of left-wing parties), which also undermined democratic debate and respect for institutions. Legal proceedings are indeed underway on this matter.
This phenomenon is not limited to Belgium: in France, the death of Quentin Deranque, killed during a clash with anti-fascist activists, has brought back to the forefront the issue of a far left that accepts physical violence as a means of political action. At the same time, the antisemitic tendencies of certain radical left figures, regularly denounced in both France and Belgium, illustrate how hatred of others is unfortunately not confined to the far right. Europol's annual reports also show that a significant share of terrorist attacks recorded in the European Union is attributed to far-left or anarchist movements.
In this logic, there is no reason to treat the far right as an absolute danger while treating the far left as a mere acceptable side phenomenon in our democracy.
We note that the Charter mentions the prospect of a constitutional amendment allowing all press offences of a discriminatory nature to be correctionalised. While this idea may once have appeared as one possible avenue for combating hate speech more effectively, the experience of recent years and debates on freedom of expression now lead us to fully assess the risks involved. For the MR, the press must continue to benefit from the special protection resulting from the use of the jury of assizes for genuine press offences. This specific regime is one of the historic guarantees of freedom of expression and pluralism in our country. On the other hand, we believe it is necessary to put an end to the broad interpretation of press offences, which leads to a range of statements disseminated online or on social media, with no real connection to journalistic work, being treated as such. Legal clarification must be provided to allow judicial authorities to effectively prosecute hate speech and incitement to discrimination circulating online, outside the strict framework of journalistic activity. We have carried out a study on this issue and have several proposals in this regard.
Finally, we wish to return to your proposal to create an independent body, functionally attached to the Parliament of the Wallonia-Brussels Federation, tasked with monitoring compliance with the commitments set out in the Charter. We oppose the creation of a new body tasked with deciding what is politically or morally acceptable in public debate. We doubt, firstly, the need to create yet another public structure in a country already saturated with bodies, committees and councils whose remits largely overlap. We doubt, secondly, the genuine independence that could be guaranteed over time by individuals chosen and reappointed by the same political forces they are supposed to oversee. We are wary of new, expansive interpretations of what would constitute the identity of the far right, disregarding the serious and well-documented work of the leading specialists in this field. We believe that, in a state governed by the rule of law, the only legitimate authority to rule on violations of the law, whether racist statements, hate speech or violations of fundamental rights, must remain a judicial, independent and impartial authority, bound by procedural guarantees. Assessments, recommendations, or even political “sanctions” must remain the responsibility of the parties themselves and existing democratic institutions, not of a new body for policing opinions, which, even with the best intentions, would risk becoming an instrument of political policing of public debate.
We note your proposal to form a working group during the week of 23 March. The substantial reservations outlined above, extending the cordon sanitaire to all freedom-threatening extremes, refusal of the general correctionalisation of press offences, refusal to create a new oversight body, nevertheless lead us to conclude that, at this stage, there is no sufficiently shared basis for a joint text.
For all these reasons, the MR will therefore not designate a representative to take part in this working group.
Please accept, Mr President, dear Paul, my best regards.
Georges-Louis BOUCHEZ