Belgium / Criminal court / 22L001479
Country
Belgium
Year
2023
Decision/ruling/judgment date
Thursday, November 09, 2023
Incident(s) concerned/related
Hate speech: Public incitement to violence or hatred
Related Bias motivation
Religion
Racial or ethnic origin
Groups affected
Muslims
Court/Body type
National Court
Court/Body
Criminal court (Correctionele rechtbank)
Key facts of the case
A man posts on Facebook several messages inciting hatred or violence towards other (so-called) races and towards Muslims. The prosecution had prosecuted the accused for the following charges: (A) Incitement to hatred or violence towards a group and more spcifically other racial groups (art. 20, 4° Antiracism Law) and (B) incitement to hatred or violence towards a group and more specifically other religious groups (muslims) (art. 20, 4° Discrimination Law).
Main reasoning/argumentation
The accused faced charges for inciting hatred and violence against groups through social media posts. Since the offense involves publicly accessible written material, it qualifies as a press offense. Although press offenses typically fall under the Assize Court's jurisdiction, charge A, driven by racism and xenophobia, falls under the criminal court’s authority (Antiracism Law, Article 444 of the Criminal Code). For charge B, which involves incitement to hatred or violence motivated by faith and falls under the Anti-Discrimination Law, the court determined that this press offense remains under the jurisdiction of the Assize Court.
Is the case related to the application of the Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia, the Racial Equality Directive?
Key issues (concepts, interpretations) clarified by the case
Unia identifies a de facto impunity for non-racist hate speech on social media. Indeed, the assize court is almost never convened to rule on non-racist print press crimes. Unia has long advocated revising Article 150 of the Constitution so that non-racist print press offences can also be adjudicated by the criminal court (see, for example, recommendation 16 in Unia's Memorandum for the 2024 elections).
Results (sanctions, outcome) and key consequences or implications of the case
The link between charges A and B led the court to declare itself incompetent to rule on the entire case.
Key quotation in original language and its unofficial translation into English with reference details
"De rechtbank is van oordeel dat verschillende van de uitingen van de beklaagde zowel racistisch als haatdragend tegen het geloof zijn. 3 Gelet op het gemengd karakter van de berichten op sociale media, de aard van de berichten en posts en de samenhang tussen de tenlasteleggingen A en B, dient de rechtbank zich onbevoegd te verklaren voor het geheel van de feiten onder zowel tenlastelegging A als B.''
"The court finds that several of the defendant's utterances are both racist and hateful to the faith. Given the mixed nature of the posts on social media, the nature of the messages and posts and the connection between charges A and B, the court should decline jurisdiction for the facts as a whole under both charges A and B."
DISCLAIMERThe information presented here is collected under contract by the FRA's research network FRANET. The information and views contained do not necessarily reflect the views or the official position of the FRA.