Belgian Interior minister Bernard Quintin (Francophone liberal MR) is amending draft legislation that would have enabled the government to ban extremist organisations. At the end of last year, the minister received critical advice from the Council of State, the body that vets all new legislation. The council stated that the government can only ban the activities of organisations temporarily. For dissolution or prohibition of organisations, the government must follow legal channels through the courts. Earlier, the Federal Institute for Human Rights (FIRM) also issued a damning verdict of the bill.
Interior minister Quintin wanted to give the cabinet the power to ban radical and extremist organisations without the intervention of a judge. A single report from a single security service would be sufficient to make such a decision.
In a 50- to 60-page advisory opinion, the council of state states that an administrative measure – without judicial intervention – can only be temporary. This means that the government can temporarily ban the activities of extremist organisations, but not the organisations themselves. To do so, it must, as the executive power, get the OK from the judiciary i.e. from a court. The dissolution of an organisation is final and must be decided by a judge, the advice states.
Interior minister Quintin (MR) says he will amend his bill. ‘We will amend the bill on the basis of all the advice received,’ he says. ‘What matters is that an administrative ban on activities provides us with an effective instrument to take swift and decisive action against current threats posed by radical organisations.’
The minister emphasised that the council of state confirms the need for a mechanism to combat organisations that pose a threat to society and is now looking to the judiciary: ‘It is clear that judicial decisions in cases of this kind must be available more quickly today.’
The Federal Institute for Human Rights was also critical
Last year, the Federal Institute for Human Rights (FIRM) also issued a critical opinion of Quintin's proposal. The FIRM described the bill as providing ‘insufficiently definition and specification’. ‘As a result, the bill would have a disproportionate impact on freedom of expression and association.’
‘If the ministers think that the justice system is too slow, then it's simple: give it more resources so that it can act more quickly. The legal tools to prohibit such actions already exist, so use them,’ Martien Schotsmans of the Federal Institute for Human Rights said at the time.