COMMITTEE ON THE ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION DISCUSSES SITUATION IN BELGIUM WITH A NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination this morning held an interactive dialogue with a non-governmental organization from Belgium on the situation of racial discrimination in the country. The report of Belgium will be reviewed by the Committee on 6 and 7 February. The reports of Honduras and Montenegro will also be reviewed this week but no non-governmental organizations from those two countries were present today.

Representatives of La Ligue des droits de l’Homme, a Belgian non-governmental organization, raised a number of issues concerning the situation of minority groups, including the treatment of the Roma and the Travellers, forceful expulsions of foreigners, and the ever-tighter regulations on obtaining Belgian nationality. Speakers highlighted the issues of the prohibition of wearing Islamic headscarf and burka, and wondered if they were further detrimental to women’s rights. The issue of banning of extremist organizations which promoted hate speech was discussed in detail. The role of the Centre for Equal Opportunities and the Fight against Racism was also raised.

Carlos Manuel Vasquez, the Committee’s Rapporteur for Belgium, asked for details regarding discrimination based on language, especially between the Francophone and Flemish communities, and raised the issue of positive discrimination. He also inquired whether migration in Belgium was treated at the federal level. Other Experts asked, inter alia, about Belgium’s failure to ratify the Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, the rising Islamophobia, and public perceptions of Belgium’s historic involvement in the Republic of the Congo.


The next meeting of the Committee will take place at 3 p.m. today, when the Committee will begin its consideration of the combined initial to fifth periodic report of Honduras (CERD/C/HND/1-5).


Statements on Belgium

PIERRE-ARNAUD PERROUTY, Ligue des droits de l’Homme, said that the level of respect of fundamental rights in Belgium was quite high, but the country was nonetheless not innocent of human rights violations. Given its small size, Belgium was playing a fundamentally large role in the international fora. However, Belgium had still not ratified a number of conventions and additional protocols, including the United Nations International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families.

MANUEL LAMBERT, Ligue des droits de l’Homme, noted that the Centre for Equal Opportunities and the Fight against Racism was a government agency, whose board was appointed by the Government. The Centre played an important role in addressing racism and migration issues, but those two issues were unnecessarily separated. A national human rights institution had not yet been properly established.

Regarding the rights of Travellers, the Belgian authorities had not taken necessary measures to bring to an end a number of violations, such as recognizing Travellers’ caravans as housing and stopping the eviction of families from sites on which they were settled. The Roma in Belgium were still very poor and vulnerable, and since March 2012, a government steering committee on the Roma had not held a single meeting. There was an enormous lack of coordination among various State agencies and nobody was stepping in to help the Roma.

Several extreme right wing movements were active in Belgium, and the processes to prohibit some organizations were underway, but without a due legal process. A balance had to be found between banning the most extreme organizations and the fundamental freedoms of speech and expression. No new law was necessary on that matter, but better coordination was needed among executive and legislative branches.

The systematic detention of asylum seekers at borders and quasi-systematic detention of asylum seekers in the context of the Dublin Regulations was discriminatory. It compromised their chances to assert their rights properly and was damaging to their physical and mental health. Violent expulsions of foreign nationals had been recorded on several occasions and objected to by a number of human rights treaty bodies. There was no possibility for non-governmental organizations to access detained people prior to their deportation. The authority in charge of controlling deportations should be external to the police force.

On the nationality code, Belgium had tightened up the regulations on obtaining nationality in December 2012. It was regrettable that people at more risk of poverty seemed to be excluded, given that one needed to have a job in order to receive nationality, and one could not find a job without a nationality or at least a residence permit.

Many preconditions were in place for family reunions, making it often impossible to bring families together. The recent law aiming at strengthening the fight against relationships of convenience should be abolished because it was intrusive and affected many who were legitimately married.

Training of the police forces on how to deal with minorities should be further developed, and the issue of impunity of the police for acts of violence should be properly addressed. There had been several visible cases when police officers had been convicted, but much more needed to be done.

The access to health care was a fundamental right which could not be jeopardized for “peripheral reasons” such as migration control. Migrants in Belgium had the right to urgent medical help, and in other cases they would need to pay for services, after which they should be refunded by the State, which was not always the case as the migrants were often not aware of that right.

When it came to economic, social and cultural rights, figures showed that the most vulnerable foreigners were disproportionately discriminated against. There was a problem with the subsidized housing, especially in the Flemish part of the country, where a link had to be established with the local community before being eligible for such housing.

Regarding the wearing of the headscarf, judges had on several occasions given the right to private employers to refuse to employ a worker wearing an Islamic headscarf. Some awareness-building work on those issues remained to be done with the private sector. In the French-speaking part, the vast majority of schools had decided to ban wearing of the veil, leaving only a few schools available to young girls with a headscarf. In 2011, the Constitutional Court had confirmed the law prohibiting wearing of the burka. The law, which meant to protect the women wearing burkas, in reality would lead to their penal repression and was not helping the cause of women’s emancipation.

Questions by Experts

CARLOS MANUEL VASQUEZ, Country Rapporteur for Belgium, asked for more details on discrimination on the basis of language, and whether it was leading, by extension, to ethnic and racial discrimination.

The Rapporteur inquired whether migration itself was a federal issue in Belgium, or whether different regions had prerogatives in that respect.

More details were also asked about the laws on positive/affirmative action and whether private companies were also obliged by it.

Another Expert asked whether the European Court of Human Rights had been approached by any people affected by some of the mentioned discriminatory measures as foreign nationals could launch complaints with the European Court of Human Rights,

Response from the Non-Governmental Organization

Concerning the issue of linguistic issues in Belgium, a representative of La Ligue des droits de l’Homme said that Belgium had a system of linguistic cohabitation between the Francophone and Flemish communities. There was a Francophone majority, for example, in the nominally Flemish areas around Brussels.

Linguistic discrimination had not been addressed properly by the Centre for Equal Opportunities and the Fight against Racism because that would have meant taking part in the sensitive debate on political issues between the Francophone and Flemish parts.

Regarding developments since the previous report, it was clear that the State had made efforts to implement recommendations. Non-accompanied minor foreign nationals had seen positive developments, as such minors were now given tutors, allowing them to lead normal lives and be educated.

Another speaker said that progress had also been made on the housing issue and the right to property.

Over the past six years, the European Court for Human Rights handed nine rulings against Belgium on asylum cases, which was a lot for a country of that size. Belgium was not taking proper measures when it came to expulsion. Rules by the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (FRONTEX) were being applied by Belgium, and often violated the rights of non-refoulement.

Private companies could establish their own positive discrimination measures, as long as they could justify them. Incentives for the private sector to do so were thus largely missing.

Follow-up Questions by Experts

One Expert stressed that discrimination on the linguistic basis was prohibited in Belgium and around the world. The Expert asked about the Ligue’s position on having a new law against racial discrimination. The Committee had earlier recommended the adoption of a law which would ensure that Article 4 of the Convention was duly implemented. The Expert noted that there was no absolute freedom of association.

Regarding the issue of the right to nationality, the State had to pay more attention to it and it should not be contingent on the right to work and economic integration. Discrimination regarding access to medical care was an issue of concern.

On the issues of Islamophobia, the Expert asked whether there was an explanation for its wide prevalence, and wondered if there was a link to terrorism.

Another Expert wanted to know whether the national integration plan explicitly included both the Roma and the Travellers.

The Expert said that the Centre for Equal Opportunities and the Fight against Racism also seemed concerned that migration issues had been removed from their remit. The Expert added that Belgium was not the only European Union Member State without a national human rights institution.

Response by Non-Governmental Organization

One speaker clarified that the Ligue supported initiatives aimed at banning racist and extremist movements. The Ligue supported banning movements such as Sharia4Belgium, which clearly denounced democracy and called to reform Belgium into an Islamist State, as long as it was done in a legal manner. In other, less obvious cases, courts of law had to decide whether to ban, dissolve or allow the continued existence of such and similar organizations.

The speaker added that somebody subjected to linguistic discrimination was allowed to go to the courts, but the problem was the lack of involvement of the Centre for Equal Opportunities and the Fight against Racism.

On the issue of Islamophobia and anti-Semitism, another speaker said that it was a sensitive problem, likely connected with the rise of terrorism using the flag of Islam. Most members of the Belgian Muslim community were well integrated. There was an impression that anti-Semitism was in decline, while Muslim citizens were now more exposed to discrimination. Some right-wing organizations which used to target Jews had now turned towards Muslims. In the wider European setting, anti-Semitism seemed to be still thriving.

The speaker said that Belgium had not committed itself to any quantifiable goals in protecting the rights of the Roma and the Travellers. Local authorities’ regulations made it possible to move Roma caravans after 24 or 48 hours, which in reality amounted to expulsion.

Follow-up questions by Experts

An Expert asked what the explanation was for Belgium’s lack of ratification of the Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. He also inquired whether Belgium had ratified the International Labour Organization’s Convention on Domestic Workers.

Another Expert asked why the Ligue had a certain level of mistrust and apprehension towards the Centre for Equal Opportunities and the Fight against Racism.

An Expert expressed his belief that any legal activity taken by the Government to fight racism and xenophobia, including banning extremist organizations, should be welcomed and supported.

The Expert asked whether the Ligue believed that the Francophone minority around the capital city was discriminated against.

The issue of Belgium’s earlier actions in the Congo was raised by another Expert, who asked if the subject matter was still present in public opinion.

Response by Non-Governmental Organizations

A representative of the Ligue said that he did not have a specific answer why Belgium had not ratified the Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. He also did not have an immediate response regarding the Convention on Domestic Workers.

The Ligue believed that the Centre was an excellent institution, but the question was what their position was vis-à-vis the Belgian Government.

The Ligue was worried that the Government would abuse its power to abuse movements which were radical and the Government did not like, but were not preaching hatred. It was the lack of involvement of the judiciary in that process which was a matter of concern for the Ligue. If the legal system was involved, it was possible for the Government to take such movements before courts and demand their banning. The Sharia4Belgium movement was a small, ad hoc grouping not formally registered, but it had very vocal extremist views. The Ligue would not oppose the law on that matter which the Parliament would possibly adopt, but wished for that law to be balanced.

Regarding discrimination of French speakers in the Flemish areas in and around Brussels, there had unfortunately been such cases. That issue would likely remain present and would continue to poison Belgian national political life.

It could be said that the wider public and the State had not considered Belgium’s past in the Republic of the Congo in much detail. The Belgian State had not yet drawn conclusions on the assassination of Patrice Lulumba and investigated those who had taken part in it and were still living. Patrice Lulumba’s family was not taking those persons to court.


For use of the information media; not an official record

CERD14/003E