Nothing wrong with tire terror, says Belgian justice minister

Ingezonden door LVB op 2006-05-18 02:34

Seven months ago, I reported about a Brussels gang, the Flagadas. They were deflating the tires of SUVs to protest against pollution. Sometimes more than 100 SUVs were deflated in one single night. These 'eco-guerillas' claimed they did nothing wrong, as the "theft of air" is not illegal. The Brussels police seemed to agree, as they refused to register complaints of the SUV owners because "the cars had not been damaged". I argued that the Flagadas actions were restricting the freedom of people and causing them harm.

Yesterday Laurette Onkelinx, the Belgian minister of justice, confirmed that deflating tires is not a crime.
If no harm is done to the car, it is not possible to punish the Flagadas. The deflating of tires can not be considered to be a crime. It does not cause any harm to moveable possessions, nor does it make a vehicle unusable. Hence, the Flagadas can not be brought to justice before a court of law.


There are, however, some ways to counter these Flagadas, according to the socialist minister. Towns could create local bylaws to counter vandalism with administrative penalties. She added:
But of course, this makes only sense if the police knows who these people are, and this is only possible when they are caught while committing the act. And it is evident that this will almost never be the case, as these people do everything to prevent being caught.

Car owners who feel that they are harmed by the Flagadas, can always press civil charges. "But that is only possible when the perpetrators are known", she warned. Make no mistake: the minister also said that she disapproves of these acts. "There are other and better ways to protest", she concluded.

What to think of all this? Implicitly the minister is sending a signal to all local police forces in Belgium. If your town is terrorized by the Flagadas, do not set up special patrols - "these people do everything to prevent being caught", so don't bother, folks. She's also sending a message to the population: we can not protect you against tire terror, you're on your own, folks! Press civil charges if you want, but as far as the state is concerned, we can't and won't do anything. That's the message people are hearing. This is Belgium, 2006.

UPDATE: Other blogs have picked up our story:
Bossy Belgian socialist minister
Belgian "Justice" is truly blind
Pajamas Media: Belgium falls flat … again.

Reacties

#21809

Hemaworstje

dinsdag, 13 juni, 2006 - 21:37

 

I like it when the government says , you are on your own.
gives me the freedom for an adequate response.
for every tyre that is flattened i purchase a can of Tunah , dolphins included.
lefties are as tolerant as my wife.

#20676

Steerse

maandag, 22 mei, 2006 - 17:32

 

@dof
I don't think anything. I do know that joy-riding was the immediate cause for expanding the legal definition of theft. Maybe joy riders could be tried for stealing 2 gallons of gasoline, the point is that they couldn't be brought for justice for stealing a car.
Off course the example of the flagadas shows that it might be necessary to expand the legal definition of theft a little further. But that does not take away that I find it wrong to blame a minister for not prosecuting someone who hasn't committed a felony according to the Belgian law.

#20604

R Kapje

zondag, 21 mei, 2006 - 16:38

 

The fastest way to change the law is to find out the Flagadas are right-wingers.

#20558

TM Lutas

zaterdag, 20 mei, 2006 - 02:28

 

I guarantee that the law will be changed following the first mass deflation of police vehicles.

#20541

Cogito

vrijdag, 19 mei, 2006 - 19:42

 

What kind of car does OnkeyDonkey have? One with deflatable tires?

#20512

dof

vrijdag, 19 mei, 2006 - 11:05

 

@Steerse

Dude, do you think joyriders return cars with the gastank filled?

#20507

Drieu

vrijdag, 19 mei, 2006 - 08:11

 

This is nonsense. Consider this case: your wife is pregnant, or gets hurt. You have to rush her to the nearest hospital. The hospital is very close to your home, you decide to drive her there yourself. Everybody's in the car, then you see that your tires have been deflated. Of course, you call an ambulance, but you've lost precious minutes. Another case: you're a doctor. One of your patient needs you, immediately. But your car, etc.

In these cases, not so rare in the real life (many doctors have 4x4), you may press civil charges, but if someone gets really hurt, criminal charges have to be pressed as well.

As for the possibility to find these bastards, the glorious Dutch & Belgian polices caughted the responsibles of the Tuf-Tuf Club without any problem. Why not the Flagadas?

#20490

anomdebus

vrijdag, 19 mei, 2006 - 00:04

 

Wouldn't putting the weight of the car through the wheel rims onto the surface of the wheel damage it somewhat?
If you do not have a portable way of filling the tire, you may have to drive the car to a gas station in order to to fill the tires, definitely leading to damage.
In the same way, presumably, it would not be illegal to disasemble someone's bike (or car) as much as possible, as long as you don't take off with the parts.

#20484

Robert Speirs

donderdag, 18 mei, 2006 - 22:20

 

Hmm. But don't these "flagadas" also have cars?? Or maybe just bicycles. And if someone just happened to identify a Flagada, his car or bicycle would be just as subject to totally non-criminal deflation, over and over again, as anyone else's, eh?

#20448

John Werac

donderdag, 18 mei, 2006 - 12:29

 

If the only purpose of justice were defining and applying the law, then parliament and judges would suffice. There is much more to justice: it has to be organized and it has to be presented to the public. Priorities have to be set, both for actual crimes (we deal with murders before mobbing) and for problems in society that haven't found there way to law yet.
The image presented here of justice is very poor. Tire terror or any other crime, if the perpetrators do their best not to be caught, that seems to be an argument not to try pursuing them.

Campaigns against mobbing and sexual harassment on the workfloor are rising to the level at which innocent social behaviour becomes suspect. At the same time harrassing owners of SUV's by deflating their tires must be accepted.

I don't like SUV's in traffic as I dislike behaviour in traffic that seems to be correlated with certain brands (flashing, bumper sticking, driving too fast, not taking bycicles into account, the law of the strongest in general) but the Minister of Justice should send another message: deflating tires is silly, it harrasses people and perpetrators will be prosecuted for harrassment. That it is low on the police's priority list, should not be sent out in public.

#20446

John Fleming

donderdag, 18 mei, 2006 - 12:13

 

Pffffffffffffffffffffffff...t!

#20444

Steerse

donderdag, 18 mei, 2006 - 11:54

 

Correct me if i'm wrong but a minister can only apply the law. If there's no law that forbids the deflating of tires, the minister can not decide that magistrates should prosecute for this.

I remember a similar incident when Belgian justice tried to prosecute people for borrowing someone else's property without permission. (e.g. joy riding, you take a car of someone else and afterwards you bring it back without having damaged it) According to the definition of theft, this was not theft, since the legal definition of theft required that the thief took away something of the owner (i.e. without bringing it back). For this reason Belgian Justice had to let go joy riders. Therefore the law was adapted. No the legal definition of theft (art. 461 Sw) stipulates that "borrowing without permission" is also theft.

In order to bring the flagadas gang to justice, the legal definition of vandalism should be expanded. That's a job for the legislative power, i.e. the parliament. The minister of Justice has to obey the rule of law. Therefore she's completely right when confirming that deflating tires is not a crime. If the legal definition of vandalism should be expanded, is a different question.