“ POur follow-up for 20 years for the same facts, acquitted twice, sentenced once, still not tried for the acts of 2011 and 2016… To date, no follow-up given to my case. Discriminatory, orderly and surreal justice! ”, it is in substance the conclusion of an imposing dossier prepared by Dominique Alderweireld himself on the legal setbacks he has been going through since his first arrests in 2002 and 2007 for running brothels. Facts for which he had been acquitted by the court of Oudenaarde.
The arrest that everyone remembers dates back to 2011, in the wake of the DSK affair. Without going into the details of the procedure (which we also discussed extensively in our pages at the time), Dodo la Saumure will experience over the years that will follow new arrests, several appearances in court, acquittals also until to this last arrest, in 2019, again for similar facts related to the keeping and operation of brothels.
Impossible to transcribe the whole of the file carried out by the principal concerned, a newspaper would not be enough there. In addition, it calls into question the integrity of certain investigators and magistrates involved in this case; serious accusations that it will be up to him, if he wishes, to support before the competent authorities at the appropriate time.
Questions that ask … questions
In addition to the fact that he is surprised that he has not yet been tried for cases dating back to 2011 (DSK) and at the end of the new investigation that we mentioned above and which was opened in 2016, Dodo wonders if in this case there is no “exceeding of the reasonable time”.
In this same dossier, he also evokes the evolution of the “sector” of prostitution over the last decade and in particular the fact that we are seeing the emergence almost everywhere today of establishments or networks “specialized” in this area. domain without being unduly worried about it (according to him); he evokes, for example, the case of brothels for which the municipal council of Namur is said to have been concerned about the fact that “The prostitutes in the windows dress in a more decent way so as not to cause any more car accidents” .
Dodo is also surprised that the Council of State of September 16, 2016 allows the establishment of a municipal tax on prostitution establishments while article 380 of the Penal Code prohibits the keeping of brothels. Say like that, it may indeed seem paradoxical …
The responses of the parquet floor of Tournai
These questions, we submitted them to the public prosecutor’s office in Tournai. His answers are … without appeal. “The case opened in 2016 in question against Mr. Alderweireld is in the final phase (there is also a case tried in Kortrijk for which he is on appeal as well as other defendants)”, specifies the first substitute, Frédéric Bariseau. “The assertion that no one is worried about the emergence of specialized establishments or networks everywhere is incorrect. Police and judicial authorities are very attentive to this. Cases are regularly opened and brought before the courts. Offenders, it is assumed, avoid publicity. Regarding what would have been discussed in Namur: The municipalities are, by virtue of municipal law, competent to regulate the aspect of “disturbances to public order” which can be generated by prostitution. The municipalities are therefore competent, for example, to limit street prostitution to certain neighborhoods, as well as shop windows, to manage the public nuisances that this can cause (distracted drivers, nearby schools, etc.). It is therefore quite logical and not at all surprising that some are worried about the holding of prostitutes in the window. It remains within their competence.
And the substitute to specify: “The ruling of the Council of State of September 16, 2016 to which reference is made is undoubtedly n ° 235.780. This rightly reminds us that prostitution is not an offense and that pimping is, It is also necessary to specify that the fact of letting (in shop windows for example) for purposes of prostitution is not an offense – and does not become real estate procuring (380 § 1-3 ° CP) – as long as there is a search for abnormal profit Determining what comes under real estate pimping is up to the judicial authorities and not to the municipalities. Here, the applicants said that taxing shop windows with prostitution is a way of exploiting prostitution and that exploiting prostitution is a criminal offense provided for in article 380 § 1-4 ° CP. The judgment responds to the argument: Considering that this article criminalizes procuring; that by the contested regulation, the opposing party (Editor’s note: the municipality) does not “exploit” the prostitution of others; that the tax it introduces affects buildings where prostitution is practiced, without encourages this exercise – on the contrary, it tends to reduce its profitability; that prostitution is moreover a lawful activity as long as it respects the limits which the laws and regulations place on its exercise, and that it is allowed to the communes to tax the buildings which are affected there; that the plea is unfounded. ”