Jogchum Vrielink

Uncovering French and Belgian Face Covering Bans

This paper analyses the French and Belgian bans on face covering by taking a close look at the aims they are intended to serve in the eyes of the legislators in the two countries. These stated aims are the basis for a critical assessment of the bans from a human rights perspective. The authors conclude that the reasons proffered for the prohibition can legitimize at most a limited set of contextual bans, not the broad nationwide bans that are in place.

The Belgian ‘Burqa Ban’ confronted with insider realities

This chapter confronts the stated motives of the Belgian legislator who banned face covering in public with the experiences and views of women who wear the face veil in Belgium. Contrasting the insider experiences of the women concerned with the assumptions of the Belgian legislator, it argues that on account of its relying on erroneous assumptions, the Belgian ban does not actually serve its stated purpose, that it is disproportionate and that it denies procedural justice.

Banning Sexism: How Harassment Law May Threaten Freedom of Expression and Undermine Antidiscrimination Policies

On 26 September 2007, the Brussels’ Court of Commerce banned a sexist commercial and convicted its maker for violating several provisions of the federal Antidiscrimination Act. This contribution analyses the ruling and places it in a broader context. First, the facts of the case and the content of the judgment are presented. We then offer a closer inspection of the Courts reasoning and argue that the ruling is legally flawed and raises serious free speech concerns. To conclude, we consider some troubling implications the case may have for the fight against discrimination in Belgium.

Do We Want 'More or Fewer' Prosecutions of Opinions? The Geert Wilders Trial 2.0

What exactly had Wilders said, to merit prosecution? The trial concerned two sets of remarks made in The Hague around the time of the Dutch municipal elections in 2014. Firstly, during a campaign visit to a suburb of The Hague on 12 March 2014, Wilders said that a vote for his party would amount to a vote for ‘a safer and more social city, with less expenses and, if possible, fewer Moroccans’. A week later, on the eve of the elections, Wilders asked a café filled with supporters whether they wanted ‘more or fewer Moroccans’. The crowd chanted, ‘Fewer, fewer, fewer!’ to which Wilders responded: ‘Well, then we’ll arrange that’.