Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Treaty bodies
COMMITTEE ON ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION CONSIDERS REPORT OF BELGIUM
27 February 2008
Share
Committee on the Elimination
of Racial Discrimination
26 February 2008
The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has considered the combined fourteenth and fifteenth periodic reports of Belgium on its implementation of the provisions of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination.
Presenting the report, Bart Ouvry, Deputy Permanent Representative of Belgium to the United Nations Office at Geneva, voiced Belgium's firm commitment to the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, and noted that every two years it was Belgium that sponsored the resolution in the General Assembly that related to the work of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. Belgium also had a firm commitment to the follow-up work to the Durban Conference within the context of the European Union, and very often represented the European Union in meetings on the implementation of the Durban Declaration. For about one year now, since the May 2007 elections, Belgium had been going through a difficult political phase. However, although Belgium was in a difficult political pass that did not mean that Belgian society was equally divided.
In preliminary concluding observations, Morten Kjaerum, the Committee Expert who served as country Rapporteur for the report of Belgium, said that, at both the federal and regional level there was a focused and serious approach to include minorities, new and old, into Belgian society. There was also recognition that new and more proactive approaches to integration were needed. The diversity approach in the labour market, in the police force and other parts of the administration was a clear indicator that Belgium had moved beyond merely ensuring that those who were seeking admission to employment were not turned away, but was looking to create a diversity culture in the workplace itself. There were also a number of concerns, including in the areas of housing, asylum-seekers held in transit centres, the criminal justice system, and the issue of veils in the schools, given the need to guarantee access by all to the education system, which would be the subject of concluding observations and recommendations of the Committee.
Other Committee Experts raised questions and asked for further information on subjects pertaining to, among other things, problems between the French-speaking and Flemish-speaking communities and whether there were mandatory requirements to study French and Flemish in schools in all regions of the country; access by migrants to social services, particularly to health care; more detailed information on the Equal Opportunities Centre; laws banning sale of communal lands in the Brussels region to non-Dutch speakers; why Belgium had not ratified international conventions against the crime of Apartheid; what was the distinction between the terms "Roma", "Gypsies" and "Travellers" that were used in the report; and concerns that Government policy to allow each school to make its own policy on whether to allow the wearing of headscarves in schools could lead to de facto discrimination.
The delegation of Belgium also included representatives from the Belgian Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of the Interior, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Police Oversight, the Ministry of Employment and Social Affairs, the Centre for Equal Opportunity and Action to Combat Racism, the Ministry of the French Community and the Walloon Region, the Ministry of the Flemish Community, and members of the Permanent Mission of Belgium to the United Nations Office at Geneva.
The Committee will present its written observations and recommendations on the fourteenth and fifteenth periodic reports of Belgium, which were presented in one document, at the end of its session, which concludes on 7 March.
When the Committee reconvenes at 3 p.m. this afternoon, it is scheduled to take up the combined tenth to fourteenth periodic reports of Nicaragua (CERD/C/NIC/14).
Report of Belgium
The combined fourteenth and fifteenth periodic reports of Belgium (CERD/C/BEL/15), presented in one document, notes that, as part of the December 2000 plan of action against discrimination two important pieces of legislation have been enacted: the Act of 25 February 2003, on combating discrimination, and the Act of 20 January 2003, on reinforcement of the legislation against racism. These Acts include the following new elements to the fight against racism: incitement to discriminate, and racist harassment, now constitute forms of discrimination; in employment, discrimination against a group – and no longer merely against an individual – is now punishable; labour inspectors have been given a specific mandate to monitor compliance with these acts; the mandate and powers of the Centre for Equal Opportunity and Action to Combat Racism [have been expanded and] now cover foreigners’ fundamental rights and a duty to inform the centre of complaints of racism handled by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Police Oversight or the disciplinary body of the federal and local police; the power to act on de facto discrimination (direct or indirect) through an injunction such as an action for interim relief; a racist motive is now an aggravating circumstance in a range of criminal offences; the burden of proof of discrimination (in civil cases) has been alleviated by admitting evidence collected during tests and statistical data; and workers who complain of discrimination are now protected.
Regarding bans on racist propaganda, in particular cases where acts of racism have triggered the suspension or withdrawal of civil and political rights, in one recent decision (April 2006), someone who had appeared on various extreme right-wing parties’ lists of candidates, and had distributed a circular denigrating the many nationalities that live together in Belgium, was convicted of incitement to racism and sentenced to a fine and a five-year disqualification from exercising certain civil and political rights, including the right to be elected and the right to hold public posts or employment. The Belgian Parliament currently has before it two bills on the suspension of certain civil and political rights. One of these would introduce an automatic suspension of the right to be elected in the event of a conviction under the above-mentioned acts. The other goes further, not only proposing automatic withdrawal of some of the civil and political rights provided under article 31 of the Criminal Code, but also precluding any consideration of mitigating circumstances or the imposition of suspended or conditional sentences. Moreover, it was envisaged in the Government’s programme statement of July 2003 that any conviction for racism or negationism would entail the automatic loss of certain civil and political rights for a specific time. The inner Cabinet reaffirmed that intention on 13 July 2004, when it adopted in principle the federal plan of action on racism, anti-Semitism and xenophobia. Draft legislation on the subject will shortly be presented.
Presentation of Report
BART OUVRY, Deputy Permanent Representative of Belgium to the United Nations Office at Geneva, voiced Belgium's firm commitment to the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, and noted that every two years it was Belgium that sponsored the resolution in the General Assembly that related to the work of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. Belgium also had a firm commitment to the follow-up work to the Durban Conference within the context of the European Union, and very often represented the European Union in meetings on the implementation of the Durban Declaration.
Belgium was a federal State with a constitutional structure. For about one year now, since the May 2007 elections, Belgium had been going through a difficult political phase. There was an interim Government in place, and negotiations were under way for a possible overhaul of Belgium's institutions. However, although Belgium was in a difficult political pass that did not mean that Belgian society was equally divided. No one had ever died arguing Belgian politics, and while there was a lot of saliva flying around, no blood was being shed, Mr. Ouvry underscored.
Response by the Delegation to Written Questions Submitted in Advance
Responding to the list of issues submitted by the Committee in advance, the delegation said that the information that the Committee had requested on the population (by languages spoken, ethnic minorities, etc.) was simply not available. However, the Government was moving slowly towards the collection of data requested in specific areas such as in employment. That was also true with regard to discrimination complaints.
Regarding questions on the Centre for Equal Opportunity and Action to Combat Racism, the delegation said that the Centre had been in existence since 1993. In 2003 and then again in 2007 the scope of action for the Centre had been expanded, notably to include non-racial discrimination. There was also the National Commission for the Rights of the Child, in place since 2007, a Platform for Joint Action, and a Centre for Equality of Men and Women, established in 2002.
The delegation noted that Belgium had a 10-point action plan to combat racism and racial discrimination, and an assessment of that plan had also been carried out.
Regarding the Travellers, the delegation noted that, since 2001, there had been had a mediation centre for Travellers in the Walloon region to support awareness-raising and to provide information. In particular, the Centre raised awareness among the public and among communal organizations about the Travellers community, and also worked to make the Travellers community aware of the rules and regulations of Belgium. In the Flemish region, the social situation of Gypsies and Travellers with regard to education, work and health care remained very precarious. The decree on minorities called for priority attention to be paid to this group by the creation of social centres in major towns.
The Decree of Equal Opportunity in the Educational Sphere also enshrined the right to school enrolment in Belgian legislation. However, as it had been noted that some parents did not take full advantage of that opportunity, the law provided that schools could prioritize measures for disadvantaged pupils with the goal of obtaining the greatest possible diversity in the school population.
Both the French and Walloon communities had affirmative action programmes in the schools that targeted socially disadvantaged pupils, the delegation noted. In addition, the Brussels-Capital region hosted a large number of schoolchildren of foreign origin. An affirmative action measure in that region provided schools with additional funds to devise programmes to assist socially disadvantaged groups.
With regard to the 2004 decision of the Belgian Constitutional Court to annul part of the acts on discrimination, the delegation noted that the Court's decision had not touched the main provisions of the anti-discrimination laws in place. The main areas that it changed were to repeal the provision on the public dissemination or display of discriminatory messages, as that was considered excessively restrictive of the right to freedom of expression; and the Court struck down the measure seeking to sanction the intent to discriminate, as it was considered that that would not allow for the open debate of ideas. Moreover, the provision targeting discrimination by public officials had been eliminated, but public officials were still subject to anti-discrimination legislation in force for all citizens.
Responding to a request for further information on the Anti-Racist Act of 10 May 2007, the delegation explained that it contained a number of improvements in anti-discrimination law in place, including provisions on incitement, acts of discrimination committed by a public official, criminal sanctions for failure to comply with a cease and desist order, and hate crime, among others. There was no specific provision in the 2007 law to combat the problem of lengthy procedures, but there were no special legal procedures attached to such cases and so they were no more likely to be lengthy than in other cases.
It was true, there had been a number of challenges to the 2007 laws criminalizing dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or racial hatred, both by a political party and by a trade union, the delegation said. In particular, Vlaams Belang had challenged the law was too close to prohibiting the "intention" to discriminate that had been struck out of the law by the Constitutional Court.
On the prohibition of organizations that promoted or incited racism or racial discrimination, the delegation said that there was at present no legislation providing for this. Nevertheless, the Anti-Racism Act provided for criminal penalties for individuals belonging to racist groups; legal persons (i.e. organizations) could be declared criminally responsible for their acts; and a proposal to prohibit racist, negationist or neo Nazi groups had been submitted to Parliament on 22 March 2007.
The delegation could confirm that, yes, the 18 April 2006 decision of the Brussels Appeals Court had supported the conviction of the chairman of the National Front political party, and the sentence of 250 hours was currently being carried out.
In the case of unaccompanied children seeking asylum, the delegation noted that, since the entry into force of a new law on 12 January 2007, such children were no longer kept in closed detention centres, but were kept in observation centres run by the Ministry of Social Integration. They could stay in such centres for a maximum of 15 days, with one possibility of extension, under exceptional circumstances, for five days. Guardians were appointed to such children, and if such children were ordered returned to their country of origin the guardians accompanied them. The guardian was responsible for finding a long-term solution in the interest of the child or minor, and the guardian's activities were monitored. Indeed, in principle, those who were seeking asylum were not detained, unless for reasons of public order, national security, or the Dublin process and that was highly exceptional. Minors subject to detention measures were usually held pending expulsion.
Concerning the components of the civic integration programme, in the Walloon region, the integration policy was organized on a voluntary basis by a number of associations and institutions that worked to help immigrants integrate into society. There were French language programmes for those who had newly arrived, as well as courses to help familiarize newcomers with the administrative and civil procedures in their host country. In the Flemish region, there was a specific integration programme for new immigrants. The first part of that programme focused on strengthening the new immigrants independence, and included language courses, while the second part focused on the civil integration, and provided courses in civil laws and responsibilities, which were mandatory, the delegation said.
As for discrimination faced by Belgians of foreign origin, members of the Muslim community and the Roma in the field of employment, the delegation said that there were a number of programmes in place to improve the situation of the Roma in the labour market, and employers' organizations were also mobilizing to enhance and stimulate diversity in companies. The centre, Business and Society Belgium, a business network, had been established to provide seminars on diversity in the workplace, and, in May 2005, the Inter-Ministerial Conference on Social Integration had proposed the idea of a "label" for companies that followed best practices in this area to promote diversity in the labour market.
The delegation noted that access to public health care in general was quite extensive in Belgium. As for AIDS treatments, the Government had set up a programme for AIDS prevention via the Institute for Tropical Medicine to reach out to target groups and to improve access by disadvantaged groups, taking into account the sensitive matter that many of those who had AIDS in Belgium came from African countries.
The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Police Oversight was completely independent of the Police Force, the delegation said. In the last few years it had taken quite a number of initiatives and had received awards and accolades from the European Union for its actions.
Training programmes on the suppression of racism and xenophobia existed via the Centre for Equal Opportunity and Action to Combat Racism, for judges, members of the police forces and members of the Standing Committee on Police Oversight. There were also awareness-raising programmes for State officials and prison authorities that included training in this area.
Oral Questions Raised by the Rapporteur and Experts
MORTEN KJAERUM, the Committee Expert serving as country Rapporteur for the report of Belgium, said that to satisfy the two populations in the country (Dutch/Flemish-speaking in Flanders in the North, and French-speaking Wallonia in the South), Belgium had witnessed an ever-increasing devolution of power to regional authorities. In that respect, information on discrimination in Flanders against Walloons and vice versa would be appreciated. He understood that the ability to speak Dutch, or being in the process of learning that language, was a condition for obtaining social housing.
There was a third official language in Belgium – German – and Belgium also hosted a number of small and struggling languages such as Walloon, Picard, Champenois and Lorrain, as well as one of the largest Yiddish-speaking groups in Europe (in Antwerp), and Mr. Kjaerum wondered what was being done to support those languages. In that regard, he wondered why Belgium was not a party to the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages or the European Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities.
While commending the Government for its action against racist political parties, Mr. Kjaerum wondered what was happening with regard to the Vlaams Blok party, which had been reconstituted as Vlaams Belang. According to a 2004 report from the Belgian State Security Service, the change was mainly a matter of form and Vlaams Belang and Vlaams Blok were in fact the same. Since Vlaams Blok had already been convicted of spreading racist propaganda, what steps was the Government taking against Vlaams Belang?
Mr. Kjaerum wondered what the current status was of plans mentioned in the report for introducing the automatic loss of certain civil and political rights for a specific time in case of conviction of racism and negationism as part of its federal Action Plan on Racism, Anti-Semitism and Xenophobia. Also what were the next steps the Government was planning under the Plan?
Concerning the 2007 anti-discrimination laws, Mr. Kjaerum understood that one of the new provisions was a more restrictive definition of discrimination, that required intent to punish such acts. Could the delegation confirm that the need to prove intent only applied to punishment, not to compensation of victims and other civil consequences of racist acts?
On training plans for civil servants and others, Mr. Kjaerum asked whether the training plans for police on diversity and multiculturalism had been implemented, and with what effect; whether the Integrated Police Force Diversity Action Plan provision to recruit more members of minorities and to encourage them to try for promotions had been implemented; and why, despite an anti-discrimination training programme given to judges and prosecutors, according to a 2005 study by the National Institute on Criminal Statistics and Criminology, youths and adults of foreign origin were still treated more harshly than offenders of Belgian origin.
Mr. Kjaerum was sorry to say that the report did not address the issue of segregation in housing, except with respect to the Roma. In particular, while the report attributed the fact that ethnic minorities were overrepresented in social housing to lower incomes, there did not appear to have been any studies that had ruled out the possibility that they faced discrimination in finding other housing.
On treatment of asylum-seekers, Mr. Kjaerum asked a number of questions, including what were the criteria for declaring an asylum application admissible; how long did the determination of an application's admissibility take; and were asylum-seekers allowed to work?
Furthermore, he asked for more information about the use of the airport transit area for detention, in particular with a view to preventing similar cases to the Riad and Idiab v. Belgium case, in which the European Court of Human Rights held that Belgium had violated the rights of those two Palestinian nationals because it held them in a transit centre (without adequate facilities for such a long stay) for more than 10 days.
On the situation of Roma and other similar groups, it would appear that the Flemish authorities were taking specific positive steps to address their situation, but that was less the case for Wallonia and the Brussels region. Mr. Kjaerum had only found limited information with respect to Wallonia's activities, namely the Traveller's Mediation Centre, and he asked for more information in that respect.
Other Committee Experts raised questions and asked for further information on subjects pertaining to, among other things, problems between the French-speaking and Flemish-speaking communities and whether there were mandatory requirements to study French and Flemish in schools in all regions of the country; access by migrants to social services, particularly to health care (currently, only emergency health care services were available to them free of cost); more detailed information on the Equal Opportunities Centre; laws banning sale of communal lands in the Brussels region to non-Dutch speakers; why Belgium had not ratified international conventions against the crime of Apartheid; and what was the distinction between the terms "Roma", "Gypsies" and "Travellers" that were used in the report.
An Expert was concerned about the way in which the Government was handling the issue of wearing veils in schools, as it could lead to de facto discrimination. The Government's stance was essentially to allow the schools themselves to decide whether or not Muslim schoolgirls could wear a veil to school. If a girl wished to wear a veil in a school that forbade it, she would be enrolled in another school where that practice was accepted. That could lead to a concentration of Muslim children in certain schools.
An Expert asked what type of immigration policy Belgium had, that is, did it encourage immigration or was it immigration neutral? In that connection, he suggested that Belgium formulate a programme to raise awareness about the benefits and value added that migrants had brought to the country, as part of a strategy to prevent discrimination.
Response by Delegation to Oral Questions
Addressing queries put by Experts, the delegation said, with regard to national identity, that Belgian identity was not defined in contrast to a regional or European identity. For example, the cultural scene in Belgium did not focus on Flemish nationalism, but was comfortable with a whole range of identities. However, as far as the public authorities were concerned, there were no efforts under way to forge a Belgian identity, particularly given the current political climate, such efforts might not be well received.
Regarding questions on the teaching of languages, the delegation said that language education was given a lot of prominence throughout the country. Teaching of second and third languages was done quite consistently; was essential to Belgium; and was of great asset to Belgium, both socially and economically.
As for the federal system with its three communities (French-, Flemish- and German-speaking) and three regions (Wallonia, Brussels-Capital, and Flemish), the delegation noted that there was no real hierarchy among the three levels: European, federal, and regional. There was a sort of cooperation and continual process of negotiation that took place. It was hard to explain how it worked, the fact was it did work. And despite the federal crisis, for example, the regions continued to work.
Concerning the attractions of the Vlaams Belang party, the delegation said it was anti-immigrant, at times going beyond the norms and provisions regarding racism. It was attractive because it filled the void left on the right – as right wing parties migrated towards centrist positions – and it played on nationalist, anti-establishment sentiments, as well as on fears of insecurity, quite effectively. Since the conviction of the party in its previous incarnation (Vlaams Blok), Vlaams Belang no longer pursued openly racist positions, but confined itself to promoting a policy of maximum limitation of immigration. The Government was, nevertheless, closely monitoring that party and how it spent its funds.
Regarding discussions in government to limit the work of the Centre for Equal Opportunity, the party that had raised that issue was no longer part of the ruling coalition, and so there was no opposition to it within government. Indeed, the value of the Centre's work was largely recognized today, although it was relatively young. In particular, the support of Experts of the Committee was very important, and mention of that in the Committee's concluding observations would contribute to guaranteeing its continued independence and continuity of its activities.
As to terminology, Belgium was using the terms "Roma/Gypsies" to indicate those Roma coming primarily from Eastern Europe, and the terms "Roma/Travellers" for those from Western Europe who used caravans to travel about for part of the year for work and for religious purposes.
For asylum-seekers, since June 2007 there had been a big change in eliminating the issue of admissibility for applications: that meant that an asylum judge would adjudicate all requests for asylum. The only exceptions related to those under the Dublin Convention and multiple requests. As for social services available to asylum-seekers, all those seeking asylum had the right to work and had access to social housing. Belgian law provided for urgent medical care to all persons, regardless of their nationality or legal status. What was "urgent" was left to the discretion of the attending doctor. It was true that access by asylum-seekers to some social rehabilitation agencies could be restricted, as admission was often based on the criterion of being a job-seeker.
As for issues related to diversity within the police force, the delegation affirmed that human rights training was part of police training and the federal police was implementing diversity training. In addition, the percentage of federal police of foreign origin had risen from 10 per cent in 2003 to 12 per cent in 2006.
In the employment sphere, Belgium had been pursuing the policy of encouraging employers to implement their own diversity strategies, and the Government had diversity consultants in place to follow up on those measures. In addition very recent studies had been launched to undertake quality and quantity assessments of those efforts. Efforts were also being undertaken to assist persons to find jobs, and, starting in 2007, diversity prizes had been awarded to businesses for best practices in planning for and implementing diversity in the workplace.
Belgium encouraged the teaching of immigrant children in their language of origin to ensure that they were able to maintain links with their culture and their countries of origin.
There had been positive results of the Mediation Centre for Travellers, since it had been set up in 2001. The local authorities were more aware of issues surrounding this group, and before a situation arose a mediator from the Mediation Centre would be called in.
In Belgium, the question of prohibiting the wearing of the veil in schools was left to the director of the school concerned, in concert with the school's decision-making body, the delegation stated. In 2007 in Belgium, 10 per cent of French-speaking schools accepted the wearing of headscarves in their institutions.
Funding for political parties was mostly regulated at the federal level, but the policy of the present political parties in government was to preserve a sort of cordon sanitaire between themselves and the Vlaams Belang far-right party, keeping that party effectively at a distance.
On Kosovo, the Belgian Government supported the declaration of independence and the future accession of Kosovo into the European Union.
There was a need for a better, more positive social policy towards migrants, the delegation recognized. In the past, the view had been that as long as migrants could find a job, they would integrate into Belgian society. There had been a political backlash, however, with the emerging far right-wing parties, and politicians had become aware of a need for a more developed social policy to integrate immigrants. The delegation had spoken of the policies to include immigrants in education and social housing. The heart of the policy was non-discrimination, respect for diversity and multiculturalism. There was no specific department for integration, but the policies were mainstreamed throughout all ministries and government departments. There were monitoring systems in place, and baseline studies had been carried out when the decree on civic integration entered into force in 2003.
Starting this year a new scientific monitoring body had been set up to study social inclusion, with a particular focus on the situation of Travellers. In 2009, there would be new data in this area showing how social policies were affecting these groups, the delegation said.
Further Oral Questions Posed by Experts
In a second round of questions, Experts asked, among other things, whether clandestine immigration was having an effect on visa policies, limiting entry to Europe for Africans; what happened to those students who wished to wear a headscarf but attended a school where headscarves had been banned; whether there were any prosecutions or convictions connected with the issue of the wearing of headscarves; whether there were any actions being taken to limit the high concentration of ethnocultural minorities in social housing; and what disciplinary actions were taken against law enforcement officials for discrimination or for not enforcing anti-discrimination laws.
An Expert, while lauding Belgium for its anti-discrimination legislation, remained worried about difficulties in implementing those laws. It appeared that many of the discrimination complaints raised were closed. Moreover, he felt that the numbers of complaints were relatively low given the size of the country. He wondered if the public were ignorant of their rights in this area, if they were afraid to bring such complaints and if the police force was sufficiently aware of the seriousness of such crimes and the need to prosecute them actively.
Replies by the Delegation
Responding to those questions and others, the delegation said that access to Belgian nationality was available to those who had been born in the country to foreign parents upon their request, once they had reached the age of 18. If a child was born in Belgium to parents at least one of whom had Belgian nationality, the child was automatically Belgian by birth.
Belgium was an open society. However, visa policy was part of a European policy, operating under the Schengen rules. Sometimes those rules were difficult, but a lot depended on how they were implemented. In Casa Blanca, Morocco, for example, where visas were issued on an industrial scale, the Government supplied coaching and assistance to those seeking visas, to make the procedure more efficient, more human and much smoother, the delegation said.
On active prosecution of discrimination cases, the delegation noted that, in the area of human trafficking for example, the authorities looked for cases in which racism could have been a factor and to follow-up on them. The delegation said that there were competing interests here between "not wanting to weight the courts down" by going out looking for cases and the need to address these serious crimes. Awareness-raising programmes could perhaps address that.
On the wearing of headscarves, the delegation said that there was nothing against parents or others bringing cases against the schools under the Strasbourg rules. As for the right to an education, there was currently a procedure under way against a priest operating on the periphery of the Catholic Church on the basis of inciting hatred against Muslims following verbal and written statements.
Concerning disciplinary measures for law enforcement officials, the delegation noted that, in a recent case a police officer had been convicted of racial violence for having struck certain individuals. There were several mechanisms that could result in disciplinary measures: first, there was an internal mechanism, whereby any member of the police could be questioned on the basis of a complaint, and an internal inquiry be undertaken, by a police oversight body; second, there was a possibility of investigation by an entirely independent body; and, third, it was possible to bring a criminal case, as had been done in the recent case just mentioned.
On the anti-discrimination monitoring unit, it had initially been set up in 2004 to deal with an increase in anti-Semitic incidents after 2000, the delegation said. As a result, there had been greater confidence built on the part of the Jewish community, which had been neglected in terms of the issues affecting them on the part of the Belgian Government. That situation had changed radically over the past few years. There was nothing to say that a similar mechanism could not be set up to address issues surrounding the Muslim community, hopefully with similar results.
Further Remarks by Experts
In a third round of comments, an Expert remained concerned about the headscarf issue. While local remediation of such issues could be a good thing, it could also result in a very "patchy" application of standards.
Further Remarks by the Delegation
Responding, the delegation noted that in Belgium the discussion on this issue was ongoing. Those who felt that they were adversely affected by a local conciliation efforts could come to the Centre for Equal Opportunities and enlist their help. If a student was not allowed to wear a headscarf, that did not mean that another school would not be found for her. There was also the possibility for the parents to bring a legal action against the school.
Preliminary Concluding Observations
In preliminary concluding observations, MORTEN KJAERUM, the Committee Expert who served as country Rapporteur for the report of Belgium, thanked the delegation for the interactive dialogue, and for their responses to the questions put. Both the report and the replies by the delegation had underlined two things: that at both the federal and regional level there was a focused and serious approach to include minorities, new and old, into Belgian society. There was also recognition that new and more proactive approaches to integration were needed. The diversity approach in the labour market, in the police force and other parts of the administration was a clear indicator that Belgium had moved beyond merely ensuring that those who were seeking admission to employment were not turned away, but was looking to create a diversity culture in the workplace itself. Belgium was also conscious of the need, within its integration policies, to "include" rather than "assimilate". The conciliation policy was an example of that, as manifested in the Mediation Centre for Travellers. That type of approach to issues surrounding discrimination had created a win-win situation where the traditional legal system could only provide a win-lose situation that was not truly productive of inclusive societies.
There were also a number of concerns that the Committee had voiced, including in the areas of housing, asylum-seekers held in transit centres, the criminal justice system, and the issue of veils in the schools, given the need to guarantee access by all to the education system, and those concerns would be the subject of concluding observations and recommendations of the Committee Mr. Kjaerum concluded.
____________
For use of the information media; not an official record
of Racial Discrimination
26 February 2008
The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has considered the combined fourteenth and fifteenth periodic reports of Belgium on its implementation of the provisions of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination.
Presenting the report, Bart Ouvry, Deputy Permanent Representative of Belgium to the United Nations Office at Geneva, voiced Belgium's firm commitment to the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, and noted that every two years it was Belgium that sponsored the resolution in the General Assembly that related to the work of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. Belgium also had a firm commitment to the follow-up work to the Durban Conference within the context of the European Union, and very often represented the European Union in meetings on the implementation of the Durban Declaration. For about one year now, since the May 2007 elections, Belgium had been going through a difficult political phase. However, although Belgium was in a difficult political pass that did not mean that Belgian society was equally divided.
In preliminary concluding observations, Morten Kjaerum, the Committee Expert who served as country Rapporteur for the report of Belgium, said that, at both the federal and regional level there was a focused and serious approach to include minorities, new and old, into Belgian society. There was also recognition that new and more proactive approaches to integration were needed. The diversity approach in the labour market, in the police force and other parts of the administration was a clear indicator that Belgium had moved beyond merely ensuring that those who were seeking admission to employment were not turned away, but was looking to create a diversity culture in the workplace itself. There were also a number of concerns, including in the areas of housing, asylum-seekers held in transit centres, the criminal justice system, and the issue of veils in the schools, given the need to guarantee access by all to the education system, which would be the subject of concluding observations and recommendations of the Committee.
Other Committee Experts raised questions and asked for further information on subjects pertaining to, among other things, problems between the French-speaking and Flemish-speaking communities and whether there were mandatory requirements to study French and Flemish in schools in all regions of the country; access by migrants to social services, particularly to health care; more detailed information on the Equal Opportunities Centre; laws banning sale of communal lands in the Brussels region to non-Dutch speakers; why Belgium had not ratified international conventions against the crime of Apartheid; what was the distinction between the terms "Roma", "Gypsies" and "Travellers" that were used in the report; and concerns that Government policy to allow each school to make its own policy on whether to allow the wearing of headscarves in schools could lead to de facto discrimination.
The delegation of Belgium also included representatives from the Belgian Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of the Interior, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Police Oversight, the Ministry of Employment and Social Affairs, the Centre for Equal Opportunity and Action to Combat Racism, the Ministry of the French Community and the Walloon Region, the Ministry of the Flemish Community, and members of the Permanent Mission of Belgium to the United Nations Office at Geneva.
The Committee will present its written observations and recommendations on the fourteenth and fifteenth periodic reports of Belgium, which were presented in one document, at the end of its session, which concludes on 7 March.
When the Committee reconvenes at 3 p.m. this afternoon, it is scheduled to take up the combined tenth to fourteenth periodic reports of Nicaragua (CERD/C/NIC/14).
Report of Belgium
The combined fourteenth and fifteenth periodic reports of Belgium (CERD/C/BEL/15), presented in one document, notes that, as part of the December 2000 plan of action against discrimination two important pieces of legislation have been enacted: the Act of 25 February 2003, on combating discrimination, and the Act of 20 January 2003, on reinforcement of the legislation against racism. These Acts include the following new elements to the fight against racism: incitement to discriminate, and racist harassment, now constitute forms of discrimination; in employment, discrimination against a group – and no longer merely against an individual – is now punishable; labour inspectors have been given a specific mandate to monitor compliance with these acts; the mandate and powers of the Centre for Equal Opportunity and Action to Combat Racism [have been expanded and] now cover foreigners’ fundamental rights and a duty to inform the centre of complaints of racism handled by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Police Oversight or the disciplinary body of the federal and local police; the power to act on de facto discrimination (direct or indirect) through an injunction such as an action for interim relief; a racist motive is now an aggravating circumstance in a range of criminal offences; the burden of proof of discrimination (in civil cases) has been alleviated by admitting evidence collected during tests and statistical data; and workers who complain of discrimination are now protected.
Regarding bans on racist propaganda, in particular cases where acts of racism have triggered the suspension or withdrawal of civil and political rights, in one recent decision (April 2006), someone who had appeared on various extreme right-wing parties’ lists of candidates, and had distributed a circular denigrating the many nationalities that live together in Belgium, was convicted of incitement to racism and sentenced to a fine and a five-year disqualification from exercising certain civil and political rights, including the right to be elected and the right to hold public posts or employment. The Belgian Parliament currently has before it two bills on the suspension of certain civil and political rights. One of these would introduce an automatic suspension of the right to be elected in the event of a conviction under the above-mentioned acts. The other goes further, not only proposing automatic withdrawal of some of the civil and political rights provided under article 31 of the Criminal Code, but also precluding any consideration of mitigating circumstances or the imposition of suspended or conditional sentences. Moreover, it was envisaged in the Government’s programme statement of July 2003 that any conviction for racism or negationism would entail the automatic loss of certain civil and political rights for a specific time. The inner Cabinet reaffirmed that intention on 13 July 2004, when it adopted in principle the federal plan of action on racism, anti-Semitism and xenophobia. Draft legislation on the subject will shortly be presented.
Presentation of Report
BART OUVRY, Deputy Permanent Representative of Belgium to the United Nations Office at Geneva, voiced Belgium's firm commitment to the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, and noted that every two years it was Belgium that sponsored the resolution in the General Assembly that related to the work of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. Belgium also had a firm commitment to the follow-up work to the Durban Conference within the context of the European Union, and very often represented the European Union in meetings on the implementation of the Durban Declaration.
Belgium was a federal State with a constitutional structure. For about one year now, since the May 2007 elections, Belgium had been going through a difficult political phase. There was an interim Government in place, and negotiations were under way for a possible overhaul of Belgium's institutions. However, although Belgium was in a difficult political pass that did not mean that Belgian society was equally divided. No one had ever died arguing Belgian politics, and while there was a lot of saliva flying around, no blood was being shed, Mr. Ouvry underscored.
Response by the Delegation to Written Questions Submitted in Advance
Responding to the list of issues submitted by the Committee in advance, the delegation said that the information that the Committee had requested on the population (by languages spoken, ethnic minorities, etc.) was simply not available. However, the Government was moving slowly towards the collection of data requested in specific areas such as in employment. That was also true with regard to discrimination complaints.
Regarding questions on the Centre for Equal Opportunity and Action to Combat Racism, the delegation said that the Centre had been in existence since 1993. In 2003 and then again in 2007 the scope of action for the Centre had been expanded, notably to include non-racial discrimination. There was also the National Commission for the Rights of the Child, in place since 2007, a Platform for Joint Action, and a Centre for Equality of Men and Women, established in 2002.
The delegation noted that Belgium had a 10-point action plan to combat racism and racial discrimination, and an assessment of that plan had also been carried out.
Regarding the Travellers, the delegation noted that, since 2001, there had been had a mediation centre for Travellers in the Walloon region to support awareness-raising and to provide information. In particular, the Centre raised awareness among the public and among communal organizations about the Travellers community, and also worked to make the Travellers community aware of the rules and regulations of Belgium. In the Flemish region, the social situation of Gypsies and Travellers with regard to education, work and health care remained very precarious. The decree on minorities called for priority attention to be paid to this group by the creation of social centres in major towns.
The Decree of Equal Opportunity in the Educational Sphere also enshrined the right to school enrolment in Belgian legislation. However, as it had been noted that some parents did not take full advantage of that opportunity, the law provided that schools could prioritize measures for disadvantaged pupils with the goal of obtaining the greatest possible diversity in the school population.
Both the French and Walloon communities had affirmative action programmes in the schools that targeted socially disadvantaged pupils, the delegation noted. In addition, the Brussels-Capital region hosted a large number of schoolchildren of foreign origin. An affirmative action measure in that region provided schools with additional funds to devise programmes to assist socially disadvantaged groups.
With regard to the 2004 decision of the Belgian Constitutional Court to annul part of the acts on discrimination, the delegation noted that the Court's decision had not touched the main provisions of the anti-discrimination laws in place. The main areas that it changed were to repeal the provision on the public dissemination or display of discriminatory messages, as that was considered excessively restrictive of the right to freedom of expression; and the Court struck down the measure seeking to sanction the intent to discriminate, as it was considered that that would not allow for the open debate of ideas. Moreover, the provision targeting discrimination by public officials had been eliminated, but public officials were still subject to anti-discrimination legislation in force for all citizens.
Responding to a request for further information on the Anti-Racist Act of 10 May 2007, the delegation explained that it contained a number of improvements in anti-discrimination law in place, including provisions on incitement, acts of discrimination committed by a public official, criminal sanctions for failure to comply with a cease and desist order, and hate crime, among others. There was no specific provision in the 2007 law to combat the problem of lengthy procedures, but there were no special legal procedures attached to such cases and so they were no more likely to be lengthy than in other cases.
It was true, there had been a number of challenges to the 2007 laws criminalizing dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or racial hatred, both by a political party and by a trade union, the delegation said. In particular, Vlaams Belang had challenged the law was too close to prohibiting the "intention" to discriminate that had been struck out of the law by the Constitutional Court.
On the prohibition of organizations that promoted or incited racism or racial discrimination, the delegation said that there was at present no legislation providing for this. Nevertheless, the Anti-Racism Act provided for criminal penalties for individuals belonging to racist groups; legal persons (i.e. organizations) could be declared criminally responsible for their acts; and a proposal to prohibit racist, negationist or neo Nazi groups had been submitted to Parliament on 22 March 2007.
The delegation could confirm that, yes, the 18 April 2006 decision of the Brussels Appeals Court had supported the conviction of the chairman of the National Front political party, and the sentence of 250 hours was currently being carried out.
In the case of unaccompanied children seeking asylum, the delegation noted that, since the entry into force of a new law on 12 January 2007, such children were no longer kept in closed detention centres, but were kept in observation centres run by the Ministry of Social Integration. They could stay in such centres for a maximum of 15 days, with one possibility of extension, under exceptional circumstances, for five days. Guardians were appointed to such children, and if such children were ordered returned to their country of origin the guardians accompanied them. The guardian was responsible for finding a long-term solution in the interest of the child or minor, and the guardian's activities were monitored. Indeed, in principle, those who were seeking asylum were not detained, unless for reasons of public order, national security, or the Dublin process and that was highly exceptional. Minors subject to detention measures were usually held pending expulsion.
Concerning the components of the civic integration programme, in the Walloon region, the integration policy was organized on a voluntary basis by a number of associations and institutions that worked to help immigrants integrate into society. There were French language programmes for those who had newly arrived, as well as courses to help familiarize newcomers with the administrative and civil procedures in their host country. In the Flemish region, there was a specific integration programme for new immigrants. The first part of that programme focused on strengthening the new immigrants independence, and included language courses, while the second part focused on the civil integration, and provided courses in civil laws and responsibilities, which were mandatory, the delegation said.
As for discrimination faced by Belgians of foreign origin, members of the Muslim community and the Roma in the field of employment, the delegation said that there were a number of programmes in place to improve the situation of the Roma in the labour market, and employers' organizations were also mobilizing to enhance and stimulate diversity in companies. The centre, Business and Society Belgium, a business network, had been established to provide seminars on diversity in the workplace, and, in May 2005, the Inter-Ministerial Conference on Social Integration had proposed the idea of a "label" for companies that followed best practices in this area to promote diversity in the labour market.
The delegation noted that access to public health care in general was quite extensive in Belgium. As for AIDS treatments, the Government had set up a programme for AIDS prevention via the Institute for Tropical Medicine to reach out to target groups and to improve access by disadvantaged groups, taking into account the sensitive matter that many of those who had AIDS in Belgium came from African countries.
The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Police Oversight was completely independent of the Police Force, the delegation said. In the last few years it had taken quite a number of initiatives and had received awards and accolades from the European Union for its actions.
Training programmes on the suppression of racism and xenophobia existed via the Centre for Equal Opportunity and Action to Combat Racism, for judges, members of the police forces and members of the Standing Committee on Police Oversight. There were also awareness-raising programmes for State officials and prison authorities that included training in this area.
Oral Questions Raised by the Rapporteur and Experts
MORTEN KJAERUM, the Committee Expert serving as country Rapporteur for the report of Belgium, said that to satisfy the two populations in the country (Dutch/Flemish-speaking in Flanders in the North, and French-speaking Wallonia in the South), Belgium had witnessed an ever-increasing devolution of power to regional authorities. In that respect, information on discrimination in Flanders against Walloons and vice versa would be appreciated. He understood that the ability to speak Dutch, or being in the process of learning that language, was a condition for obtaining social housing.
There was a third official language in Belgium – German – and Belgium also hosted a number of small and struggling languages such as Walloon, Picard, Champenois and Lorrain, as well as one of the largest Yiddish-speaking groups in Europe (in Antwerp), and Mr. Kjaerum wondered what was being done to support those languages. In that regard, he wondered why Belgium was not a party to the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages or the European Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities.
While commending the Government for its action against racist political parties, Mr. Kjaerum wondered what was happening with regard to the Vlaams Blok party, which had been reconstituted as Vlaams Belang. According to a 2004 report from the Belgian State Security Service, the change was mainly a matter of form and Vlaams Belang and Vlaams Blok were in fact the same. Since Vlaams Blok had already been convicted of spreading racist propaganda, what steps was the Government taking against Vlaams Belang?
Mr. Kjaerum wondered what the current status was of plans mentioned in the report for introducing the automatic loss of certain civil and political rights for a specific time in case of conviction of racism and negationism as part of its federal Action Plan on Racism, Anti-Semitism and Xenophobia. Also what were the next steps the Government was planning under the Plan?
Concerning the 2007 anti-discrimination laws, Mr. Kjaerum understood that one of the new provisions was a more restrictive definition of discrimination, that required intent to punish such acts. Could the delegation confirm that the need to prove intent only applied to punishment, not to compensation of victims and other civil consequences of racist acts?
On training plans for civil servants and others, Mr. Kjaerum asked whether the training plans for police on diversity and multiculturalism had been implemented, and with what effect; whether the Integrated Police Force Diversity Action Plan provision to recruit more members of minorities and to encourage them to try for promotions had been implemented; and why, despite an anti-discrimination training programme given to judges and prosecutors, according to a 2005 study by the National Institute on Criminal Statistics and Criminology, youths and adults of foreign origin were still treated more harshly than offenders of Belgian origin.
Mr. Kjaerum was sorry to say that the report did not address the issue of segregation in housing, except with respect to the Roma. In particular, while the report attributed the fact that ethnic minorities were overrepresented in social housing to lower incomes, there did not appear to have been any studies that had ruled out the possibility that they faced discrimination in finding other housing.
On treatment of asylum-seekers, Mr. Kjaerum asked a number of questions, including what were the criteria for declaring an asylum application admissible; how long did the determination of an application's admissibility take; and were asylum-seekers allowed to work?
Furthermore, he asked for more information about the use of the airport transit area for detention, in particular with a view to preventing similar cases to the Riad and Idiab v. Belgium case, in which the European Court of Human Rights held that Belgium had violated the rights of those two Palestinian nationals because it held them in a transit centre (without adequate facilities for such a long stay) for more than 10 days.
On the situation of Roma and other similar groups, it would appear that the Flemish authorities were taking specific positive steps to address their situation, but that was less the case for Wallonia and the Brussels region. Mr. Kjaerum had only found limited information with respect to Wallonia's activities, namely the Traveller's Mediation Centre, and he asked for more information in that respect.
Other Committee Experts raised questions and asked for further information on subjects pertaining to, among other things, problems between the French-speaking and Flemish-speaking communities and whether there were mandatory requirements to study French and Flemish in schools in all regions of the country; access by migrants to social services, particularly to health care (currently, only emergency health care services were available to them free of cost); more detailed information on the Equal Opportunities Centre; laws banning sale of communal lands in the Brussels region to non-Dutch speakers; why Belgium had not ratified international conventions against the crime of Apartheid; and what was the distinction between the terms "Roma", "Gypsies" and "Travellers" that were used in the report.
An Expert was concerned about the way in which the Government was handling the issue of wearing veils in schools, as it could lead to de facto discrimination. The Government's stance was essentially to allow the schools themselves to decide whether or not Muslim schoolgirls could wear a veil to school. If a girl wished to wear a veil in a school that forbade it, she would be enrolled in another school where that practice was accepted. That could lead to a concentration of Muslim children in certain schools.
An Expert asked what type of immigration policy Belgium had, that is, did it encourage immigration or was it immigration neutral? In that connection, he suggested that Belgium formulate a programme to raise awareness about the benefits and value added that migrants had brought to the country, as part of a strategy to prevent discrimination.
Response by Delegation to Oral Questions
Addressing queries put by Experts, the delegation said, with regard to national identity, that Belgian identity was not defined in contrast to a regional or European identity. For example, the cultural scene in Belgium did not focus on Flemish nationalism, but was comfortable with a whole range of identities. However, as far as the public authorities were concerned, there were no efforts under way to forge a Belgian identity, particularly given the current political climate, such efforts might not be well received.
Regarding questions on the teaching of languages, the delegation said that language education was given a lot of prominence throughout the country. Teaching of second and third languages was done quite consistently; was essential to Belgium; and was of great asset to Belgium, both socially and economically.
As for the federal system with its three communities (French-, Flemish- and German-speaking) and three regions (Wallonia, Brussels-Capital, and Flemish), the delegation noted that there was no real hierarchy among the three levels: European, federal, and regional. There was a sort of cooperation and continual process of negotiation that took place. It was hard to explain how it worked, the fact was it did work. And despite the federal crisis, for example, the regions continued to work.
Concerning the attractions of the Vlaams Belang party, the delegation said it was anti-immigrant, at times going beyond the norms and provisions regarding racism. It was attractive because it filled the void left on the right – as right wing parties migrated towards centrist positions – and it played on nationalist, anti-establishment sentiments, as well as on fears of insecurity, quite effectively. Since the conviction of the party in its previous incarnation (Vlaams Blok), Vlaams Belang no longer pursued openly racist positions, but confined itself to promoting a policy of maximum limitation of immigration. The Government was, nevertheless, closely monitoring that party and how it spent its funds.
Regarding discussions in government to limit the work of the Centre for Equal Opportunity, the party that had raised that issue was no longer part of the ruling coalition, and so there was no opposition to it within government. Indeed, the value of the Centre's work was largely recognized today, although it was relatively young. In particular, the support of Experts of the Committee was very important, and mention of that in the Committee's concluding observations would contribute to guaranteeing its continued independence and continuity of its activities.
As to terminology, Belgium was using the terms "Roma/Gypsies" to indicate those Roma coming primarily from Eastern Europe, and the terms "Roma/Travellers" for those from Western Europe who used caravans to travel about for part of the year for work and for religious purposes.
For asylum-seekers, since June 2007 there had been a big change in eliminating the issue of admissibility for applications: that meant that an asylum judge would adjudicate all requests for asylum. The only exceptions related to those under the Dublin Convention and multiple requests. As for social services available to asylum-seekers, all those seeking asylum had the right to work and had access to social housing. Belgian law provided for urgent medical care to all persons, regardless of their nationality or legal status. What was "urgent" was left to the discretion of the attending doctor. It was true that access by asylum-seekers to some social rehabilitation agencies could be restricted, as admission was often based on the criterion of being a job-seeker.
As for issues related to diversity within the police force, the delegation affirmed that human rights training was part of police training and the federal police was implementing diversity training. In addition, the percentage of federal police of foreign origin had risen from 10 per cent in 2003 to 12 per cent in 2006.
In the employment sphere, Belgium had been pursuing the policy of encouraging employers to implement their own diversity strategies, and the Government had diversity consultants in place to follow up on those measures. In addition very recent studies had been launched to undertake quality and quantity assessments of those efforts. Efforts were also being undertaken to assist persons to find jobs, and, starting in 2007, diversity prizes had been awarded to businesses for best practices in planning for and implementing diversity in the workplace.
Belgium encouraged the teaching of immigrant children in their language of origin to ensure that they were able to maintain links with their culture and their countries of origin.
There had been positive results of the Mediation Centre for Travellers, since it had been set up in 2001. The local authorities were more aware of issues surrounding this group, and before a situation arose a mediator from the Mediation Centre would be called in.
In Belgium, the question of prohibiting the wearing of the veil in schools was left to the director of the school concerned, in concert with the school's decision-making body, the delegation stated. In 2007 in Belgium, 10 per cent of French-speaking schools accepted the wearing of headscarves in their institutions.
Funding for political parties was mostly regulated at the federal level, but the policy of the present political parties in government was to preserve a sort of cordon sanitaire between themselves and the Vlaams Belang far-right party, keeping that party effectively at a distance.
On Kosovo, the Belgian Government supported the declaration of independence and the future accession of Kosovo into the European Union.
There was a need for a better, more positive social policy towards migrants, the delegation recognized. In the past, the view had been that as long as migrants could find a job, they would integrate into Belgian society. There had been a political backlash, however, with the emerging far right-wing parties, and politicians had become aware of a need for a more developed social policy to integrate immigrants. The delegation had spoken of the policies to include immigrants in education and social housing. The heart of the policy was non-discrimination, respect for diversity and multiculturalism. There was no specific department for integration, but the policies were mainstreamed throughout all ministries and government departments. There were monitoring systems in place, and baseline studies had been carried out when the decree on civic integration entered into force in 2003.
Starting this year a new scientific monitoring body had been set up to study social inclusion, with a particular focus on the situation of Travellers. In 2009, there would be new data in this area showing how social policies were affecting these groups, the delegation said.
Further Oral Questions Posed by Experts
In a second round of questions, Experts asked, among other things, whether clandestine immigration was having an effect on visa policies, limiting entry to Europe for Africans; what happened to those students who wished to wear a headscarf but attended a school where headscarves had been banned; whether there were any prosecutions or convictions connected with the issue of the wearing of headscarves; whether there were any actions being taken to limit the high concentration of ethnocultural minorities in social housing; and what disciplinary actions were taken against law enforcement officials for discrimination or for not enforcing anti-discrimination laws.
An Expert, while lauding Belgium for its anti-discrimination legislation, remained worried about difficulties in implementing those laws. It appeared that many of the discrimination complaints raised were closed. Moreover, he felt that the numbers of complaints were relatively low given the size of the country. He wondered if the public were ignorant of their rights in this area, if they were afraid to bring such complaints and if the police force was sufficiently aware of the seriousness of such crimes and the need to prosecute them actively.
Replies by the Delegation
Responding to those questions and others, the delegation said that access to Belgian nationality was available to those who had been born in the country to foreign parents upon their request, once they had reached the age of 18. If a child was born in Belgium to parents at least one of whom had Belgian nationality, the child was automatically Belgian by birth.
Belgium was an open society. However, visa policy was part of a European policy, operating under the Schengen rules. Sometimes those rules were difficult, but a lot depended on how they were implemented. In Casa Blanca, Morocco, for example, where visas were issued on an industrial scale, the Government supplied coaching and assistance to those seeking visas, to make the procedure more efficient, more human and much smoother, the delegation said.
On active prosecution of discrimination cases, the delegation noted that, in the area of human trafficking for example, the authorities looked for cases in which racism could have been a factor and to follow-up on them. The delegation said that there were competing interests here between "not wanting to weight the courts down" by going out looking for cases and the need to address these serious crimes. Awareness-raising programmes could perhaps address that.
On the wearing of headscarves, the delegation said that there was nothing against parents or others bringing cases against the schools under the Strasbourg rules. As for the right to an education, there was currently a procedure under way against a priest operating on the periphery of the Catholic Church on the basis of inciting hatred against Muslims following verbal and written statements.
Concerning disciplinary measures for law enforcement officials, the delegation noted that, in a recent case a police officer had been convicted of racial violence for having struck certain individuals. There were several mechanisms that could result in disciplinary measures: first, there was an internal mechanism, whereby any member of the police could be questioned on the basis of a complaint, and an internal inquiry be undertaken, by a police oversight body; second, there was a possibility of investigation by an entirely independent body; and, third, it was possible to bring a criminal case, as had been done in the recent case just mentioned.
On the anti-discrimination monitoring unit, it had initially been set up in 2004 to deal with an increase in anti-Semitic incidents after 2000, the delegation said. As a result, there had been greater confidence built on the part of the Jewish community, which had been neglected in terms of the issues affecting them on the part of the Belgian Government. That situation had changed radically over the past few years. There was nothing to say that a similar mechanism could not be set up to address issues surrounding the Muslim community, hopefully with similar results.
Further Remarks by Experts
In a third round of comments, an Expert remained concerned about the headscarf issue. While local remediation of such issues could be a good thing, it could also result in a very "patchy" application of standards.
Further Remarks by the Delegation
Responding, the delegation noted that in Belgium the discussion on this issue was ongoing. Those who felt that they were adversely affected by a local conciliation efforts could come to the Centre for Equal Opportunities and enlist their help. If a student was not allowed to wear a headscarf, that did not mean that another school would not be found for her. There was also the possibility for the parents to bring a legal action against the school.
Preliminary Concluding Observations
In preliminary concluding observations, MORTEN KJAERUM, the Committee Expert who served as country Rapporteur for the report of Belgium, thanked the delegation for the interactive dialogue, and for their responses to the questions put. Both the report and the replies by the delegation had underlined two things: that at both the federal and regional level there was a focused and serious approach to include minorities, new and old, into Belgian society. There was also recognition that new and more proactive approaches to integration were needed. The diversity approach in the labour market, in the police force and other parts of the administration was a clear indicator that Belgium had moved beyond merely ensuring that those who were seeking admission to employment were not turned away, but was looking to create a diversity culture in the workplace itself. Belgium was also conscious of the need, within its integration policies, to "include" rather than "assimilate". The conciliation policy was an example of that, as manifested in the Mediation Centre for Travellers. That type of approach to issues surrounding discrimination had created a win-win situation where the traditional legal system could only provide a win-lose situation that was not truly productive of inclusive societies.
There were also a number of concerns that the Committee had voiced, including in the areas of housing, asylum-seekers held in transit centres, the criminal justice system, and the issue of veils in the schools, given the need to guarantee access by all to the education system, and those concerns would be the subject of concluding observations and recommendations of the Committee Mr. Kjaerum concluded.
____________
For use of the information media; not an official record
VIEW THIS PAGE IN: