Unia, or the Belgian art of not seeing what is named
After examining the political, media, and judicial indifference surrounding Herman Brusselmans’ call for the murder of Jews published in Humo, this second part of Rafaël Amselem’s investigation focuses on the ambiguous role of Unia, the Belgian institution responsible for combating discrimination. Between legalistic interpretation, refusal to act, and confusion in the face of anti-Zionism, the case reveals the profound limitations of the Belgian legal and political framework in dealing with contemporary antisemitism.
>>> Read the first part of the investigation here
Last week, we looked at a specific feature of Belgian law: under the law, expressing hatred is not punishable in itself. From a strictly legal point of view in Belgium, “dirty Jew” and “the sky is blue” are essentially the same thing. In order to condemn a discriminatory statement, it must be proven that the author intended to incite racial hatred. This high standard of proof is called special intent. But is this legal requirement sufficient to explain Brusselmans’ acquittal in the first proceedings against him? We went to meet another stakeholder in this case, an authority on discrimination in Belgium: Patrick Charlier, director of Unia.
When Unia recognizes antisemitism but refuses to act
“Unia is the inter-federal public institution for combating discrimination and promoting equality,” explains its director Patrick Charlier, who welcomes us to his large office not far from Brussels’ main train station. You can enter without having your ID checked, but every door requires a badge. The decor is very official, sober, almost worn out—there are no decorations on the walls.
Patrick Charlier takes the time to talk to us for almost two hours. “Unia was created in 1993 with the mandate to enforce anti-racism legislation. Our first priority is the legal definition: incitement to hatred, violence or discrimination. Unia can deal with hate speech, which is something that the Defender of Rights in France, for example, cannot do. As soon as we receive a report of hate speech, we follow the standard procedure of filing a simple complaint with a statement from the injured party.” Unia also conducts studies, issues opinions and recommendations, provides training, participates in public debate, and raises awareness on discrimination issues in Belgium more broadly.
In response to Brusselmans’ words, Belgian Jewish leaders naturally turned to this institution for help, and indeed, Unia’s mission seems to predispose it to intervene. In fact, the institution filed a complaint with a statement from the injured party. Patrick Charlier has no doubts about the antisemitic nature of Brusselmans’ statements: “He says: ‘when I see a Palestinian child crying for his mother, I want to put a sharp knife to the throat of every Jew I meet’. That sentence, in our view, is very clearly antisemitic. He talks about cutting throats. So there is a violent character. And he’s not talking about Israelis, he’s talking about Jews.“ Patrick Charlier even sees this as the repetition of a historical antisemitic stereotype: ”For a very long time, Jews were accused of cutting the throats of children to drink their blood. The fact that he uses this image, for me, is to mobilize this stereotype by turning it around.” It must be said that this is an anti-antisemitic stance that is both firm and somewhat confused. The link established with slit throats seems far-fetched. And even if he were talking about Israelis, Brusselmans’ comments would be no less problematic.
What followed was a disappointment for Jewish organizations. After filing a complaint, Unia finally decided not to bring a civil action. When questioned separately, various leaders of the Jewish community expressed their dismay to us. “If Unia had joined us, it would undoubtedly have tipped the balance in our favor,” they told us. This disappointment did not escape Patrick Charlier: “There is a feeling of abandonment. I understand it, I regret it,” he said with disarming lucidity.
The institution initially justified its decision by a rigorous interpretation of Belgian law. According to the director of Unia, the phrase “I want to stick a sharp knife in the throat of every Jew I meet” is unambiguously antisemitic, but difficult to condemn under criminal law: “ It is a statement that is horrifying, shocking, and antisemitic, but it does not fall under the law. It is not enough to make antisemitic statements; you have to demonstrate an intention to incite a third party to hatred, violence, or discrimination .“ This is an interpretation that is outrageous to say the least, but one behind which Unia intends to take refuge, much to the chagrin of Jewish organizations. ”That is their interpretation of the law, and it is questionable,” responds Viviane Teitelbaum, a senator committed to fighting antisemitism.
This is a strictly legalistic position, which Unia claims is in line with its mandate. Patrick Charlier admits that there is a weakness in Belgian law that prevents Unia from taking effective action: “There is a form of antisemitism, just like a form of racism or homophobia, which does not fall under the law, but which, when analyzed, can be described as such,” he notes, with the same lucidity.
The institution also believes that taking legal action in a context of legal uncertainty could have backfired: “It is problematic or dangerous for Unia to take legal action when the question of special intent arises, at the risk of an acquittal. This would allow the accused to legitimize the statements he made. He could then say, ‘I was right to say it.’”
Senator Viviane Teitelbaum retorts: ”These remarks are absurd and defeatist, considering that by sidestepping the issue, Unia, the official body responsible for combating racism, is facilitating the acquittal, which the popular antisemitic columnist will undoubtedly celebrate in front of the whole world.“ She adds: ”Instead of bringing a civil action, Unia could have communicated about this case to highlight the seriousness of antisemitism.“ She concludes: ”Assuming that Brusselmans is ultimately acquitted, such a court decision should argue for a modernization of the law.“ On the question of moral condemnation, Patrick Charlier politely disagrees: ”We are expected to express moral condemnation, to say of this or that case: ‘It’s scandalous.’ But honestly, if we start doing that, we’ll be shouting every day.“
For Viviane Teitelbaum, the argument still does not hold water, summarizing in one sentence the whole disagreement between Unia and Jewish organizations: ”Unia has set itself up as judge before the judge.” And, indeed, Patrick Charlier admits that Unia’s board of directors was actually divided on the issue. “Some said, ‘Unia absolutely must bring a civil action,’ while others said, ‘The risk of being dismissed is too great. It would be a disaster. We shouldn’t go ahead.’” What ultimately tipped the balance?
Forgotten legal precedents: Unia knew how to do it… but doesn’t anymore?
One of the most striking facts revealed by the interview with Unia’s director is that the crucial decision not to bring a civil action against Herman Brusselmans was taken outside the usual framework of a board meeting. The quorum was not reached. “When the case came before the board of directors, unfortunately there were not enough people to vote. One person was missing.” In this situation, Unia’s internal rules allow the co-directors to take an emergency decision without a vote: “Based on the discussions, we felt that the majority opinion was not to bring a civil action. And so, at that point, yes, we took the decision.” No minutes or deliberations currently exist to confirm such a trend within the committee. In the eyes of an outside observer, this strategic—and politically significant—decision was therefore taken in a non-transparent manner, on behalf of a supposed but unverifiable majority. This lack of transparency is all the more incomprehensible when compared with the attitude of total transparency adopted by Patrick Charlier during our interview. [1]
This decision-making process is all the more questionable given that Unia, having initially filed a complaint, now appears to be backtracking, thereby sending contradictory and disruptive signals in the fight against antisemitism.
However, the approach has been clear in the past. Unia has already brought civil proceedings in cases of antisemitism that raised precisely the same question of interpretation of Belgian law.
In December 2021, two football fans were accused of chanting antisemitic songs during a match between Beerschot and Anderlecht (“Hamas Hamas, all Jews to the gas”). The measures envisaged between Brusselmans and these fans are certainly not the same, but the intended action has the same purpose. As always, there was a risk of the case being dismissed—because what would prevent the fans from claiming that their expression of a desire to gas Jews was only their own and that they were in no way inciting anyone else to imitate them? This did not deter Unia from bringing a civil action[2]. The Court of Appeal sentenced the two supporters to a one-year suspended sentence for incitement to hatred and ordered them to pay Unia €350 in addition to the costs of the proceedings.
The second case is even more explicit: four soldiers accused of Holocaust denial and incitement to hatred created a discussion group in November 2018 soberly named “Auschwitz,” in which hate messages were posted for years. “The members of the group were called Jew No. 1, Jew No. 2, Jew No. 3…The group was described by the soldiers as a parody of concentration camps.“[3] Unia had also brought a civil action. The Court of Appeal of Mons recently convicted three of them for incitement to hatred and two others for Holocaust denial. However, it is noteworthy that the Hainaut Criminal Court had ruled in the first instance that “special intent could be questioned,” which led to an acquittal. Clearly, interpretations can vary. It is difficult, particularly in light of this decision, not to agree with Viviane Teitelbaum: Unia seems to have judged before the judge.
Similarly, Unia’s “legalistic” stance, confining it to strictly legal action, can be questioned in light of past actions. A striking example of this is the carnival in Aalst. This carnival, the most famous in Belgium, had been marked on three occasions (2009, 2013, and 2018) by antisemitic and Holocaust-denying representations: caricatures of Hasidic Jews, with all the accompanying antisemitic trappings (big hooked noses, prominent hats, dollars, diamonds, and rats) ; a parade of SS soldiers handing out bottles of Zyklon B to drink… Unia did not file a complaint in any of these three instances.
Aalst: the carnival of stereotypes, the embarrassment of institutions
It was during the 2019 edition—which led to the removal of the Aalst carnival from UNESCO’s representative list of the intangible cultural heritage of humanity—that UNIA’s attitude timidly evolved, without, however, moving towards legal action. When Patrick Charlier looks back on this emblematic case, he emphasizes the difficulty of analyzing and intervening in this type of situation. From UNIA’s point of view, it seems important to qualify, perhaps excessively, accusations of antisemitism, as if it were necessary to spare the particular sensitivities of the festival organizers. Charlier explains that the institution had “produced a whole report on carnival and freedom of expression in which it was indeed established that this float conveyed antisemitic stereotypes.” However, he immediately qualifies this by adding, “but perhaps not all of those for which they were criticized.”
One of the accusations concerned the similarity of the caricatured face to those of Jews published in the Stürmer, a Nazi propaganda newspaper. Charlier acknowledged that “there is a disturbing resemblance when you compare the two [the caricature and the float],” but immediately added that “it has been established, with supporting evidence, that the face used in the carnival had been used in previous years. Initially, this face was a caricature of a politician; it was never intended to be a Jewish face. The carnival organizers reuse faces because it is expensive to make new ones.” Let’s overlook the fact, which probably means nothing from a strictly “legalistic” point of view, that it is nevertheless worrying that a caricature of a politician can so easily be converted into a Jewish face as depicted by Nazi propaganda. It is better to agree with the poor organizers: it is indeed expensive to be vigilant about antisemitism, especially when you are immersed in a jumble of stereotypes.
The choice of theme for the 2019 float gives a sense of the scale of the problem and the timidity of Unia’s response. The carnival group was in financial difficulty this year, which led them to represent the idea of “saving.” We would have liked to have been present at the brainstorming session that led to the idea of producing caricatures of Orthodox Jews with hooked noses sitting on bags of gold. With his usual lucidity, Patrick Charlier points out what apparently slipped under the radar of the festival organizers: ” They chose to associate the need to save money with the need to represent Jews. This is clearly an antisemitic stereotype.” The small animals placed on the float—rats or mice—added to the controversy. The accusations, reiterated by the director of Unia, focused on the process of “animalization” typical of antisemitic rhetoric. As Charlier reports, without giving credence to the explanation, the carnival organizers defended themselves by saying that “according to them, there is an expression in Dutch that says mice save money.” Since there is also an antisemitic expression that says Jews save money, the logic behind the float’s design seems obvious.
In light of these facts, Unia did not deem it appropriate to file a complaint. Patrick Charlier justified this by pointing out that the complaints filed had not been successful: special intent, once again. “It was difficult to prove that the carnival participants had actually incited anything.” Rather than risk legal action, Unia preferred to initiate mediation between the carnival organizers and Flemish Jewish organizations. The aim of these meetings, far from the media spotlight, was to confront each party with the other’s sensitivities: the carnival participants were invited to visit the Jewish quarter of Antwerp and the Dossin barracks in Mechelen, a place of remembrance of the Shoah. In return, the Jewish organizations were given a guided tour of the Carnival Museum in Aalst. Patrick Charlier is hopeful that this awareness-raising initiative will be effective: “The head of the youth organizations forum showed the carnival participants a photo of the Stürmer. They turned pale. They realized the effect it had on the Jewish community.” Where Belgian law and public institutions fighting discrimination are powerless to tackle antisemitism, isn’t the simplest solution to let Belgian Jewish organizations deal with it themselves? Strangely, these cordial discussions between naive enthusiasts of antisemitic stereotypes and Jews do not seem to have solved the problem. The following year, in 2020, Flemish humor once again demonstrated its lack of inhibitions at the Aalst Carnival. This time, Hasidic Jews were depicted as spiders, “the insect most commonly associated with Jews,” recalls Joël Kotek.
Whatever one may think of this mediation approach and its chances of success, the fact remains that it is not true that Unia confines itself to legal action and a strictly legalistic point of view, as it claimed to do in the Brusselmans case.
Unia and anti-Zionism: discomfort with the definition
In reality, despite its director Patrick Charlier’s observation that Herman Brusselmans’ comments were clearly antisemitic, Unia seems to have decided to defend the journalist. The organization’s official statement, issued by its spokesperson Carole Poncin to de Morgen, defends the right to satire, beyond the specific subject matter: “It is important that the public prosecutor’s office investigates and that Mr. Brusselmans can defend himself, but it appears from his hearings that he did not act with malicious intent. We have concluded that there are insufficient legal grounds for us to bring a civil action. The column certainly contains violent and antisemitic images, but the constitution amply protects satire and the press.”“UNIA will not bring a civil action against writer Herman Brusselmans,” La Libre, March 3, 2025.
This position, which effectively protects someone who made antisemitic remarks, is somewhat mysterious: on what basis can it be concluded that there was no “malicious intent” in publicly declaring that one wanted to stab every Jew one came across in the throat? And what kind of intent was it then? Here we come close to what remains the great unspoken aspect of Unia’s position, and a major source of the unease characterizing the fight against antisemitism in Belgium: the relationship between antisemitism and anti-Zionism.
As we pointed out in the first part of this investigation, Patrick Charlier is fully aware and clear-headed about the link between October 7 and the explosion of antisemitism: “After October 7, we know that Jews in Belgium are in a fragile and threatening situation. They are systematically suspected of being accomplices or responsible,” he comments. The director of Unia cites a striking example of the consequences of October 7 for the Jewish community’s relations with the rest of Belgian society: “Schools no longer dared to visit the Jewish museum. People are afraid to talk about the conflict in the Middle East. This is a very concrete impact of October 7.” As for what explains this suspicion surrounding Belgian Jews, as well as the normalization of their marginalization, the mystery remains intact, and the means to oppose it remain unclear.
On the one hand, Unia notes that there is a link between October 7 and the rise of antisemitism. But when it comes to explaining this link, which would require at least questioning the role played by anti-Zionism, the explanations become muddled. In fact, whenever the question of Unia’s position on the relationship between antisemitism and anti-Zionism is raised, the discomfort is palpable. This is evident first of all in the fact that, when we ask him about this issue, director Patrick Charlier wishes to respond by stating his opinion, but strictly on a personal basis: “On a personal level, I heard a French speaker develop this question of ‘is anti-Zionism automatically antisemitism’ and I found it quite convincing… saying that there is nevertheless a presumption of antisemitism in anti-Zionism, and that this somehow shifts the presumption. But that’s just my personal opinion, I’m not saying that this is something that is shared here in the organization.”
This restraint and lack of clarity on the institution’s position are quite curious for an organization recognized for its expertise in anti-racism. The repercussions in terms of consistency in the fight against antisemitism are clearly expressed by Patrick Charlier on the subject of the slogan “From the river to the sea”: “Indeed, if this expression is used to say that we no longer want any Jews or Israelis on this earth, it is clearly a form of antisemitism. But some people use it to refer to a binational state. I have heard this in Belgium, particularly from pro-Palestinian Jews. We have neither the legitimacy nor the mandate to say anything about the State of Israel. From the moment we talk about anti-Zionism, by definition we are talking about something that goes beyond our mandate. Perhaps that is where the discomfort lies.
Ultimately, Unia, or at least its director, does not seem to know what to think about anti-Zionism. There is undoubtedly some antisemitism involved at times. But that is undoubtedly not always the case. Can we say anything about it? That would be to venture into a minefield, so it is probably better to remain silent. In short, to hold this kind of position, you have to decide that you don’t want to know what you think about contemporary antisemitism, which is regrettable when you are a key player in the fight against it…
We learn in passing that the initial decision to file a complaint against Brusselmans was not without causing some discontent. “You should know that on the day we filed the complaint against Herman Brusselmans, we received around 40 or 50 reports,” comments Patrick Charlier. He then goes on to describe the nature of the reactions received. Some were legal in nature: “If we convict someone for making such statements, it is a far too significant infringement on freedom of thought.” Others were political or ideological accusations: “You are in the pay of Jewish organizations. It’s totally scandalous. He had the right to criticize what’s happening in Gaza. And as soon as you criticize Israel, it’s turned into a form of antisemitism.” Patrick Charlier reassures us, however, that none of these reactions influenced the Board of Directors’ decision.
The ambiguous position taken by Unia necessarily affects its ability to combat antisemitism. As of May 12, 2025, the word “antisemitism” cannot be found on the Unia website’s home page[4]. Here is a quick guide to finding the relevant page: click on the “racial criteria” section (the word ‘antisemitism’ does not appear in the category description, so it is unclear which category to choose), scroll down to the “forms of racism” section, and then click on “antisemitism.” It’s as easy as pie.
Four definitions of antisemitism are given: that of the IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance), that of the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA), the Nexus document, and that of the ECRI (European Commission against Racism and Intolerance) of the Council of Europe. Two of these are contested by Unia.
The first is that of the IHRA, which is commented on the website as follows: “This definition is still controversial today. This is partly because criticism of the policies of the State of Israel can be considered antisemitic under this definition.”[5]
“One wonders,” asks Joël Kotek, who represents the Wallonia-Brussels Federation on one of the IHRA commissions, “whether the drafters of this text have even read the definition proposed by the intergovernmental organization.” Indeed, on the IHRA’s home page, we read: “Antisemitism can manifest itself in attacks against the State of Israel as perceived as a Jewish collective. However, criticism of Israel as a state is not, in itself, antisemitism.”[6].
Senator Viviane Teitelbaum asks: “Are Unia officials aware that the IHRA’s so-called controversial definition was adopted unanimously, with one abstention, by the Belgian Senate, not to mention the Council of Europe and the European Commission?” When confronted, the director of Unia replied that he particularly regretted the absence of a body responsible for interpreting the content of the IHRA definition. Unia incorporates it into its analyses, “without making it the be-all and end-all of the fight against antisemitism.” He added: “I have not found any analysis that claims to be neutral: either the texts push for its adoption or they call for its total rejection. We are caught up in binary thinking.”
This position does not satisfy Viviane Teitelbaum: “Since Belgian law does not define antisemitism, on what exact criteria does Unia base its judgment of cases of antisemitism?
Is another reversal on the cards? Patrick Charlier concluded the interview by telling us that he has undertaken to propose to the bureau—i.e., himself and his co-president—that Unia’s position on the Brusselmans case be reviewed by the board of directors. He remains skeptical about the outcome: ” Personally, I am not opposed to it. I say that it is perhaps legitimate to revisit the issue. But I am under no illusions that, given the debates we have already had on the board, Unia’s position will remain unchanged.”
Conclusion: what future for the Jewish community?
The Belgian Jewish community seems very alone. The lack of political or media reaction may be part of a local cultural context with which Belgian Jews are somewhat accustomed, but they are nonetheless shocked. Jérémie Tojerow speaks of the “double shock” of the Brusselmans affair: “Everyone is aware of Belgian law, but this is about stabbing someone with a knife. Jews have also discovered that this kind of language is acceptable in the Flemish press. Few were aware of this.”
Alone and divided? It must be said that the highly fragmented nature of the legal proceedings gives this impression. Joël Kotek qualifies this view: the Belgian Jewish community is not fractured, it is mainly small and disorganized. Belgian Jews lack resources. In fact, aren’t four legal proceedings a sign that the community is waking up and trying to take control? “We were also taken aback because we were stunned,” admits Joël Kotek, “but today everyone is talking to each other. It is Belgium that has acted badly, not the Jews.”
Should the legislation be changed? Senator Viviane Teitelbaum thinks so: “It is very difficult, as things stand, to prove intent to incite hatred. At the very least, the law needs to be reviewed. I have been calling for this for years.” In the same vein, we can note the intervention of MP Khalil Aouasti, who questioned the government on this issue, wondering whether legislative consequences should be drawn from the Brusselmans case[7].
We will follow developments in the courts with interest. There may be further case law developments. The head of Golem[8] Belgium points out that in 2015, in a decision upheld in 2017, the Liège Criminal Court convicted Dieudonné for a show that took place in Belgium, rejecting the argument based on artistic license with regard to hate speech: “This argument cannot be accepted. The law does not require that illegal statements take a specific form. It criminalizes discriminatory speech without distinction as to whether it is made in an affirmative, interrogative, aggressive, urban, playful, humorous, or purportedly humorous manner. The defendant cannot hide behind the argument that the show was supposedly humorous when his statements are clearly discriminatory. To accept such an argument would be to render the law meaningless. The court considers, as the European Court of Human Rights has just emphasized, that a clearly hateful and antisemitic statement, disguised as an artistic production, is as dangerous as a direct and abrupt attack. “Criminal Court of Liège, Liège Division, November 25, 2015.”</footnote>.
In any case, it would be beneficial for the Jewish community in Belgium if Brusselmans were finally held accountable for his remarks. In truth, this is not his first offense: Joël Kotek and Jérémie Torejow point out that, upon examining the comedian’s various novels and columns, it becomes clear that his antisemitism did not begin with Netanyahu’s murderous war in Gaza. One quote suffices to convince: “Big American companies are owned by Israelis, as are the big banks, the secret services, real estate, and practically the entire culture.” That’s a nice list of throats to slit.
When calls for violence are met with nothing more than shrugs, it means that the blade has already begun to cut into the fabric of democracy.
Rafaël Amselem
Notes
| 1 | It should be noted that Patrick Charlier struck us as a man of integrity, who answered all our questions, including the most difficult ones, and was sincere in his account. We have no reason to question him. We have no doubt that the majority that emerged was indeed in favor of not filing a complaint. However, from the point of view of democratic control, it is regrettable that there is no institutional means of verifying this version, other than to rely on Mr. Charlier’s obvious good faith. |
| 2 | UNIA, “Court of Appeal of Antwerp, April 4, 2025.” |
| 3 | UNIA, ”Court of Appeal of Mons, March 27, 2025“ |
| 4 | Noted on May, 12, 2025, at 10:10am – Unia.be website page: http://archive.today/0AKo5 |
| 5 | See: https://www.unia.be/fr/dossiers/antisémitisme-belgique |
| 6 | See: https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/definition-operationnelle-de-antisemitisme |
| 7 | See: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DIQMrg_t6lu/?igsh=MTk0aTQ4OTY0cGJ3dQ%3D%3D |
| 8 | Golem is a Jewish anti-racist association that mobilizes against antisemitism and racism through articles, activist actions, and demonstrations. |
Related article
