The Peeters directive (, ), officially Circular BA 97/22 of 16 December 1997 concerning the use of languages in municipal councils of the Dutch language area, is a circulaire of the Flemish government regulating the use of languages in municipal councils in the Flemish Region (Belgium), where the sole official language is Dutch. The directive is more in particular aimed at the municipalities with language facilities bordering the Brussels Capital-Region. It stipulates that each and every time French-speakers deal with the government, they must explicitly ask for their documents to be in French.
The circular caused national political commotion and reflects the conflicting perception of language facilities in Dutch and French-speaking public opinion. The non-appointment of three mayors of municipalities with language facilities – refused by the Flemish government because they repeatedly ignored the Peeters (and Keulen) directives – was a highly mediatised issue during the 2007–2008 Belgian government formation. It attracted international attention when the mayors took their case to the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe.
History
With the territoriality principle as the basic guideline of Belgian language politics, the language law of 28 June 1932 divided the country in the Dutch-speaking region, the French-speaking region and the German-speaking region. Brussels received a bilingual Dutch-French status. The law further stipulated that municipalities along the language border and around Brussels had to ensure a bilingual service when the minority language population exceeded 30% (so-called language facilities) and that the language of administration would be changed when this "minority" exceeded 50%. In order to estimate the number of speakers of each language, a decennial language census was established, of which the results were often contested by the Flemish.
The consensus in contemporary historical and political literature is that the results of the language census have to be interpreted with caution. The questions were alternatively on "known" languages or on the "usual" language, the most often spoken. Some considered this to refer to their mother tongue, while for others it referred to the prestigious and ubiquitous language that was French. Moreover, the censuses of 1920 and 1947 were performed in a post-war climate. Dutch, being closely related with German, was discredited due to collaborationism of certain wings of the Flemish Movement with the German occupation. French on the other hand enjoyed the status of the language of victory. Finally, given that the results had political consequences, inviting for manipulation in some cases, the census had more of a referendum on the language status of the municipality than of a sociological inquiry. In the 1947 census, more than 30% declared to speak French "exclusively or most frequently" in Wemmel, Kraainem, Drogenbos and Linkebeek, which meant that the French-speaking population of these municipalities received language facilities, whereby citizens can request to communicate with the municipal services in the language of their choice, while the official language remained the same.
The language laws of 1962–63, constitutionally entrenched in 1970, abolished the language census and fixed the language border between the language areas. All Belgian municipalities belong to one of these territories. Some municipalities went from one region to another, while others retained or were given a system of language facilities. Wezembeek-Oppem and Sint-Genesius-Rode became municipalities with language facilities. The last census in 1947 showed that the French minority in these towns was 18% and 16% respectively, but that 35% and 27% spoke French most frequently.
According to art. 7 of the 1966 law on the use of languages in the administration, the six municipalities situated in the Brussels periphery, namely Drogenbos, Kraainem, Linkebeek, Sint-Genesius-Rode, Wemmel and Wezembeek-Oppem, enjoy a "special treatment" and are called "rim municipalities". As part of the wider Francization of Brussels and a process of urbanisation, these formerly Dutch-speaking municipalities became majority French-speaking in the second half of the 20th century. This phenomenon, known in Flanders as the "oil slick", is, together with the future of Brussels, one of the most controversial topics in all of Belgian politics. All other municipalities with facilities, except for those in the German language area, plus Malmedy and Waimes, are grouped together as "language border municipalities" (art. 8).Also available in French .
Legal background According to a 1986 ruling of the Constitutional Court, the division in language regions entails "a restriction on the ability of legislators to regulate the use of languages and so forms the constitutional guarantee of the priority of the language of the unilingual area"."Artikel 3bis van de Grondwet behelst tevens een beperking van de bevoegdheid van de wetgevers inzake taalgebruik en vormt aldus de grondwettelijke waarborg van de voorrang van de taal van het eentalige gebied of van het tweetalige karakter van het gebied." The 1988 revision of the constitution (art. 129, §1) confirms that the parliaments of the French Community and the Flemish Community determine through decrees, each for their respective territory, the use of languages in administrative matters, the education system, for social contacts between the employer and his employees, and for official documents in business."Art. 129 (modification de la terminologie): § 1er. Les Parlements de la Communauté française et de la Communauté flamande, chacun pour ce qui le concerne, règlent par décret, à l'exclusion du législateur fédéral, l'emploi des langues pour : 1° les matières administratives; 2° l'enseignement dans les établissements créés, subventionnés ou reconnus par les pouvoirs publics; 3° les relations sociales entre les employeurs et leur personnel, ainsi que les actes et documents des entreprises imposés par la loi et les règlements." However, the constitution (art. 129, §2) makes an exception for municipalities with language facilities, stating that in those municipalities the law on the use of languages for situations listed in §1 can only be changed by a law adopted by a majority in both language groups."Art. 129 (modification de la terminologie): § 2. Ces décrets ont force de loi respectivement dans la région de langue française et dans la région de langue néerlandaise, excepté en ce qui concerne : les communes ou groupes de communes contigus à une autre région linguistique et où la loi prescrit ou permet l'emploi d'une autre langue que celle de la région dans laquelle ils sont situés. Pour ces communes, une modification aux règles sur l'emploi des langues dans les matières visées au § 1er ne peut être apportée que par une loi adoptée à la majorité prévue à l'article 4, dernier alinéa; (...)"
The Standing Commission for Linguistic Supervision"Commission permanente de contrôle linguistique " in French, "Vaste Commissie voor Taaltoezicht " in Dutch. is a federal institution responsible for collecting and reporting language complaints. It can give its opinion to the responsible public authorities, but its opinions are not binding. In its recommendations 26.125A, 26.033 and 23.062 (all published in 1994), the agency argued that language facilities should not lead to a generalised system of bilingualism of public services in which both languages would hold equal status."In adviezen van 31 maart, 22 september, 27 oktober en 8 december 1994 (o.a. nummers 26.125A, 26.033 en 23.062) en ook in het door de Vlaamse volksvertegenwoordiger aangehaalde advies nr. 32.509 bevestigde de VCT dat het stelsel van taalfaciliteiten nooit tot gevolg kan hebben dat aan openbare diensten een veralgemeende tweetaligheid wordt opgelegd waarbij de twee talen op strikte voet van gelijkheid worden geplaatst.""De wetteksten en de voorbereidende werkzaamheden brengen duidelijk tot uitdrukking dat het stelsel van de taaifaciliteiten niet tot gevolg heeft dat aan de openbare diensten een veralgemeende tweetaligheid wordt opgelegd waarbij de twee talen op strikte voet van gelijkheid worden geplaatst." Only the regional governments can provide a supreme binding political interpretation for the language laws and the application of language facilities, which can only be annulled by the Council of State.
As a general rule, the federal government communicates with citizens in the language of the region, not in their individual language. Only in municipalities with facilities, another language can be used when so requested.
Contents
Underlying ideas The Peeters directive's recommendations for municipalities with language facilities bordering the Brussels Capital-Region and the language border, where to some extent the French-speaking population has the right to relate with the local and federal administration in French, have triggered political commotion. It stipulates these facilities, being "an exception to the rule of unilingualism of the official language areas", should be interpreted "strictly","De faciliteiten vormen de uitzondering op de eentaligheid van een taalgebied; bijgevolg moeten zij strikt geïnterpreteerd worden." considering their "exceptional" and "temporary" character.
The directive argues language facilities have an "integrative function", meaning that, "per definition", "for the concerned individual", they have an "extinguishing character".Section I.3.: "De faciliteiten zijn bedoeld als integratiebevorderende maatregel; dit houdt in dat zij per definitie, voor de individuele betrokkenen, een uitdovend karakter hebben. (...)" It reads further: "The interpretation of language facilities has to take into account the possibility that a French-speaking inhabitant, who previously made use of these facilities, meanwhile knows the language of the region well enough and consequently no longer wishes to invoke the facilities".Section I.3.: " (...) Bij de interpretatie van de faciliteiten moet rekening gehouden worden met de mogelijkheid dat een Franstalige inwoner, die voorheen een beroep heeft gedaan op deze faciliteiten, inmiddels de taal van het gebied voldoende kent en bijgevolg zich niet meer op de faciliteiten wenst te beroepen." In this sense, facilities are temporary in character, and because they are temporary, they have to be applied "restrictively", implying that French-speakers have to make a new request each and every time they wish to use French in official affairs. "De faciliteiten die de S.W.T. verleent, moeten echter restrictief worden toegepast, hetgeen impliceert dat de particulier telkens uitdrukkelijk moet verzoeken om het Frans te gebruiken. Uiteindelijk werden de faciliteiten ingesteld om de integratie van Franstaligen in het Nederlandse taalgebied te bevorderen." The directive claims the "spirit in which the language laws of 1962-63 were established" is reflected in the end report of the Harmel Centre:"Harmel Centre" is the nickname for the Centre de recherche pour la solution nationale des problèmes sociaux, politiques et juridiques des diverses régions du pays (in French) or Centrum van onderzoek voor de nationale oplossing van de maatschappelijke, Politieke en Rechtskundige vraagstukken van de verschillende gewesten van het land (in Dutch) – both meaning "Centre for research on a national solution for the social, political and juridical problems of the diverse regions of the country" —; it was an advisory body for the Chamber of Representatives and is widely considered to have had a considerable impact on post-war Belgian politics.