74 BELGIUM* IHF FOCUS: anti-terrorism measures; freedom of expression, free media and infor- mation; freedom of religion and religious tolerance; national minorities; racism, in- tolerance and xenophobia; migrants, asylum seekers and refugees. The main human rights concerns in New anti-terrorism legislation adopted Belgium in 2005 were racial discrimination during the year broadened the powers of and intolerance and violations of the rights police and public prosecutors to engage in of asylum seekers and immigrants. surveillance and control, which gave rise to In May, Belgium signed Protocol No. 7 concern about violations of privacy rights to the Council of Europe Convention for and freedom of expression. the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), which ex- Anti-Terrorism Measures1 tends the list of protected rights to include On 28 October, the Council of Minis- the right of aliens to procedural guarantees ters submitted to the Chamber of Repre- in the event of expulsion from the territory sentatives a draft law that envisaged chan- of a state; the right of a person convicted ges to the criminal code and judicial code of a criminal offence to have the sentence concerning special forms of investigation reviewed by a higher tribunal; the right to in the fight against terrorism and organized compensation in the event of a miscar- crime.2 New legislation on this topic was riage of justice; the right not to be tried or necessary because the Court of Arbitration punished for an offence for which one has partially revoked existing legislation in a already been acquitted or convicted; as decision of 21 December 2004. The court well as equality of rights and responsibili- had found that some of the existing provi- ties between spouses. sions were not in conformity with the con- In its annual report published in June, stitution and pointed to the need to make the Centre for Equal Opportunities and some measures, especially those directly Fights against Racism (CECLR) reported related to private life, subject to approval that it received a growing number of com- by an independent and impartial judicial plaints about discrimination in 2004. Com- body. The draft law was dealt with in a fast- plaints about discrimination on grounds of track procedure by the Chamber of Repre- origin, nationality and religion were fre- sentatives and the Senate, and was adopt- quent in the areas of employment, hous- ed by the Senate on 23 December, two ing and public service. months after it was first proposed.3 In October, the Parliamentary Assem- Human rights organizations and civil bly of the Council of Europe (PACE) adopt- groups criticized the draft law for infringing ed Resolution 1469 (2005), calling on fundamental rights. Concerns were expres- Belgian authorities to encourage commu- sed that the bill granted the public prose- nication and cultural cooperation across cutor’s office the right to enter into private the linguistic borders of the country as well places, except for places of residence, on as to ratify the Framework Convention for its own initiative and without any control. the Protection of National Minorities. Bel- This provision was at variance with the ju- gium also still has to ratify Protocol No. 12 risprudence of the European Court for Hu- to the ECHR, which contains general anti- man Rights (ECtHR).4 The League for Hu- discrimination provisions. man Rights also found that the bill appea- In December, the Council of Ministers red to be aimed at establishing “an ideolo- adopted new legislation to simplify and ac- gy of permanent control.”5 celerate asylum procedures, a reform that Senators from both ruling and opposi- was long overdue. tion parties expressed concern that the ap- * Written by Human Rights Without Frontiers, IHF Cooperating Organization, January 2006. BELGIUM 75 plication area of the law was not suffi- a legal guarantee for the protection of ciently defined, which may lead to abuse. sources.”10 In response to such concerns, Justice N On 25 January, three days before the Minister Laurette Onkelinx stated that the Senate vote on the bill on the protection of law would be applied only in cases related journalists’ sources of information, reporter to the fight against terrorism and organized Anne de Graaf and editor Yves Desmet of crime. the Flemish-language newspaper De Morgen were interrogated as witnesses in Freedom of Expression, Free Media an investigation by federal prosecutors into and Information unauthorized leaks. In particular, they were The rights of freedom of speech and asked about calls made on De Graaf’s freedom of the press were generally re- phone between 23 March and 8 May spected. However, the principle of confi- 2004. Media monitoring NGOs con- dentiality of journalistic sources remained demned this as an attack on journalists’ a topic of discussion. In 2003, two bills re- right to confidentiality of sources.11 garding the protection of journalists’ sour- A draft resolution on the protection of ces of information were submitted to the the rights of journalists and editors in the Chamber of Representatives, one of which exercise of their profession was also sub- 6 was taken up for further debate. The mitted to the Senate in February 2004. Senate amended and passed the bill on This draft resolution would expand the 27 January 2005 and the Chamber finally scope of protection of journalists and edi- 7 adopted it on 17 March 2005, following tors and of access to sources of informa- lively debates, which were due to the sen- tion.12 Senate discussions on this issue sitivity of the issue as well as the difference were pending at the end of 2005. in approach.8 The new anti-terrorism bill was viewed The new law provides that journalists by some as undermining the protection of have the right not to reveal their sources. the right of journalists not to reveal their They are explicitly protected against home sources that was established by the March searches, seizures, phone tapping and oth- law. A provision on “discreet visual con- er investigations. Under the new law, jour- trols” included in the bill revived debates nalists cannot be held responsible for ex- on the protection of journalistic sources. ercising their right not to divulgate the con- The Association of Professional Journalists tents of the documents in their possession in Belgium (AGJPB) addressed a letter to or for complicity in the violation of profes- the Senate members, demanding a revi- sional secrecy by a third party. Article 4 of sion of the draft.13 The AGJPB was mainly the law envisages exceptions to the right of concerned about the lack of legal guaran- journalists not to reveal their sources in tees in cases of controls in professional cases where it is considered necessary that places such as media offices and de- they disclose their sources “to prevent manded the re-establishment of the role crimes that represent a serious attack on of a judge in authorizing the enforcement the physical integrity of one or several par- of such measures. The European Fede- ties.” Any exceptions must be approved by ration of Journalists stated that the draft a judge.9 law was “out of proportions” and ex- The European Federation of Journa- pressed concern that the presence of po- lists welcomed the law as a “landmark vic- lice officers in press-rooms and media of- tory” for Belgian journalists as well as for fices could become a routine practice un- “European journalists who still do not have der the law. IHF REPORT 2006 HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE OSCE REGION 76 BELGIUM Freedom of Religion and Religious previous General Assembly, boycotted the Tolerance election in response to the government’s State and Religion policies. The General Assembly designated The relationship between the state 17 candidates for the Executive, who were and religions in Belgium is historically root- appointed only after being screened and ed in the principle of recognition and non- approved by the Ministry of Interior. recognition of religions. However, recogni- Discussions about the wearing of tion criteria have never been enshrined in headscarves (hijabs) in public institutions the constitution, in decrees or in other abated after a peak in 2004 and a pro- laws. Six religions (Catholicism, Protestan- posal made by two senators in 2005 to in- tism, Anglicanism, Judaism, Islam and Or- troduce new federal legislation banning thodoxy) and secular humanism (laïcité) the wearing of religious symbols in public are recognized by the state. This system of places garnered little political support. hierarchy of religions generates various The governments of the French and forms of institutional discrimination. As in Flemish community had granted public previous years, the state only financed rec- schools the right to ban the wearing of ognized religious communities in 2005, al- headscarves. By late 2005, about 70% of though state subsidies were provided by secondary schools under the authority of all taxpayers, including those who pro- the French community had introduced fessed a non-recognized religion or who such a ban, compared with 41% in 2000. A number of complaints were filed did not adhere to any religion or belief. with regard to school bans on head- Relations between the state and the scarves. representative bodies of the Muslim com- munity have been strained over the past N In June, in a case involving a com- few years and tensions lingered on in plaint about the policies of a school in 2005. In July 2004, the government intro- Hasselt in the Province of Limbourg, the duced a law requiring that new general Appeal Court of Antwerp ruled that the elections be held to fully renew the mem- Belgian anti-discrimination law did not pro- bership of the Muslim General Assembly hibit school bans for headscarves.