The Double Standard of Belgian Justice - Two Measures, Two justices
Something is profoundly wrong with the Belgian justice system when it comes to freedom of speech. The double standard applied by Belgian justice can no longer be ignored. Two cases, two verdicts, one conclusion: selective justice determines who may speak with impunity in Belgium, and who may not. Freedom of speech, it turns out, is not equal for everyone in practice.
Let us begin with the case of Herman Brusselmans, the well-known Flemish author who wrote that he wants to stick a sharp knife in the throat of every Jew. A statement that, read objectively, is nothing other than a call to violence, an incitement to murder based on ethnic or religious identity. Precisely the kind of expression for which Belgian law, and the European Convention on Human Rights, provides a clear framework. Incitement to hatred, discrimination, or violence is punishable by law. Or at least it should be. Brusselmans was acquitted. Belgian justice apparently concluded that this fell within the bounds of artistic freedom or public debate. A sharp knife in the throat. Acquitted.
Now compare this to the case of politician Dries Van Langenhove, who was recently convicted for, among other things, saying: "We see that the white man does quite well; for black men, things go a little less well." A sentence that, regardless of the political views of the speaker, is statistically demonstrable. Every serious socioeconomic study in Belgium confirms that men of African origin score lower on average in terms of labour market integration, family structure, and crime statistics. That is not racism, it is a societal problem that demands acknowledgment, debate, and policy. Naming a problem does not solve it. But those who are not allowed to name it will certainly never solve it. Van Langenhove was convicted. The double standard of Belgian justice could hardly be illustrated more clearly.
This is selective justice in its purest form. When a writer calls for violence against Jews and walks free, but a politician states facts about socioeconomic inequality and is convicted, something is fundamentally broken. Freedom of speech in Belgium appears to depend on the political positioning of the speaker, on their popularity in certain circles, or on whether their statement fits within the prevailing narrative.
Let this be clear: this is not a defence of Van Langenhove's entire worldview. His comparison between the pride-flag and paedophilia is demonstrably incorrect, gratuitous and hurtful, and it is right that such statements are condemned by society. But societal condemnation is not the same as judicial condemnation. In a constitutional state, a judge convicts statements that break the law, not statements that are politically inconvenient. That boundary seems to be blurring with increasing frequency in Belgium.
Freedom of speech is not an absolute right. There are limits: incitement to violence, defamation, genocide denial. But those limits must be equally wide or equally narrow for everyone. If a call to stab people escapes prosecution, while a factually accurate sociological observation does not, then the standard being applied is not the law, it is ideology. And a justice system that rules on the basis of ideology is no longer justice. It is selective justice, dressed in a robe.
Belgium has a serious problem with the consistency of its justice system in cases involving freedom of speech. As long as Belgian justice continues to cultivate this double standard, allowing one statement to go unpunished while another is penalised based on political colour rather than legal content, it undermines its own credibility. A constitutional state stands or falls by the equal application of the law. Not by two measures and two weights.
Citizens deserve a better explanation. And the law deserves equal application. Because selective justice, in the long run, is no justice at all.Perhaps in Belgium, just as is the case in the United States, we should move toward a system of judges, prosecutors, and other officials who are largely elected by the people. Perhaps class justice perpetuated by a caste of like-minded individuals can be prevented this way.
Image credits: Planet Volumes via Unsplash
