WHEN THE LAW REFUSES TO BE COWED: BELGIUM’S COURTS REJECT THE HECKLER’S VETO
Brussels, 27 January 2026.
In a judgment of uncommon clarity and constitutional seriousness, the French-speaking Court of First Instance in Brussels has formally condemned the Commune of Saint-Josse-ten-Noode for its unlawful attempt to prevent the National Conservatism Conference (NatCon) from taking place on 16–17 April 2024. The ruling marks the culmination of a protracted legal dispute and confirms, without ambiguity, that fundamental freedoms in Belgium may not be curtailed by executive decree, administrative expediency, or ideological hostility.¹
The case was brought by MCC Brussels, the conference organiser, following the issuance of an emergency police order by the commune’s mayor. In a detailed 26-page decision, the Court did not confine itself to procedural correction but delivered a substantive rebuke of censorship presented under the guise of public-order management.
Background and Administrative Overreach
On the opening day of NatCon 2024, the mayor of Saint-Josse-ten-Noode, Emir Kir, issued a ban on the event, citing generalized security concerns and the possibility of protest. Police were deployed, access to the venue was restricted, and the conference was effectively shut down. The move triggered immediate domestic and international criticism, including from Belgium’s then Prime Minister, Alexander De Croo, who publicly affirmed that freedom of expression and peaceful assembly must be upheld even where the views expressed are controversial.²
Organisers sought emergency relief before the Conseil d’État, Belgium’s supreme administrative court. In an extraordinary late-night ruling under extreme urgency, the court overturned the ban, allowing the conference to proceed. A subsequent judgment on the merits in 2024 confirmed that the mayoral decree lacked any lawful basis.³ The January 2026 ruling now completes that judicial trajectory.
A Clear Rejection of Censorship
The Court of First Instance dismissed all procedural objections advanced by the Commune—many of which were characterised as dilatory—and aligned itself explicitly with the Dutch-speaking chamber of the Conseil d’État. At the heart of the judgment lies a decisive affirmation of constitutional principle: public authorities are subject not only to a negative duty to refrain from interference, but to a positive obligation to secure the peaceful exercise of fundamental freedoms.⁴
Rather than assessing and deploying the resources necessary to maintain public order, the Commune opted for a blanket prohibition. The Court found no evidence of any concrete impossibility to safeguard security and therefore held that the ban constituted an unlawful interference with constitutionally protected rights.
No Place for a “Heckler’s Veto”
Of particular significance is the Court’s explicit rejection of the logic commonly described as the “heckler’s veto.” The judgment confirms that the anticipated reaction of third parties—however hostile—cannot justify the prior restraint of lawful speech. In the absence of evidence linking the event itself to violence, the duty of the authorities was to protect the conference, not suppress it.⁵
This reasoning places Belgian jurisprudence firmly within the broader European constitutional tradition, which consistently rejects preventive bans based on speculative disorder and insists on necessity and proportionality in any restriction of fundamental rights.
Responsibility and Moral Harm
The Court went beyond annulment. It held that the ban amounted to a civil fault, directly attributable to the mayor and the Commune. Symbolic damages of one euro were awarded to MCC Brussels, together with procedural costs. While nominal in financial terms, the judgment expressly recognised the existence of moral harm arising from the violation of fundamental freedoms and clearly established legal responsibility.⁶
A Rare Institutional Consensus
Belgium’s constitutional order is marked by linguistic, regional, and judicial complexity. It is therefore of particular importance that both French- and Dutch-speaking courts—across emergency, administrative, and civil jurisdictions—have now spoken with one voice. From the Conseil d’État to the Court of First Instance, the conclusion is consistent and unmistakable: censorship, even when presented as administrative necessity, has no place in a democratic society governed by the rule of law.
Why This Judgment Matters
The attempted suppression of NatCon exposed a growing temptation within Western democracies to treat controversial ideas as security problems rather than speech to be protected. This ruling decisively resists that drift. By affirming positive state obligations, rejecting preventive bans, and repudiating the heckler’s veto, the Brussels Court has strengthened not only Belgian constitutional law but the wider European understanding of civil liberty.
In an age when executive authorities are increasingly encouraged to pre-empt dissent, this judgment reasserts an older and sterner principle: the law exists to restrain power, not to validate its fears.
¹ Belgian Constitution, arts. 19 and 26, guaranteeing freedom of expression and the right of peaceful assembly.
² Public statements by the Belgian Prime Minister, April 2024, condemning the municipal ban as incompatible with constitutional freedoms.
³ Conseil d’État (Belgium), emergency ruling under extreme urgency, April 2024; judgment on the merits, 2024, annulling the Saint-Josse-ten-Noode police decree.
⁴ European Convention on Human Rights, arts. 10–11; consistent Strasbourg jurisprudence on positive obligations to protect lawful speech and assembly.
⁵ Court of First Instance of Brussels (French-speaking), judgment of 27 January 2026, rejecting preventive restrictions based on anticipated protest.
⁶ Ibid., recognition of civil fault and moral harm with award of symbolic damages.
RELATED ARTICLES
Latest ARTICLES
- Abandon the Desire for Conflict: Power, Peace, and the Resurrection in the Easter Message of Pope Leo XIVOn Easter Sunday 2026, Pope Leo XIV urged global leaders to renounce desires for conflict and power, emphasising moral transformation over political strategy. His message, rooted in Christian tradition, critiques the pervasive idolatry of power and calls for a fundamental change in human will, asserting that true peace arises from a commitment to justice and self-gift, epitomised by the Resurrection.
- The Inflation of Sanctity: Canonisation, Credibility, and the Crisis of AuthorityThe article discusses the rising number of Catholic canonisations, particularly recent popes, suggesting a shift in the Church’s discernment of sanctity. It highlights concerns regarding the credibility of the process and its potential convergence with ecclesial governance, raising questions about the true nature of sanctity in a time of institutional fragility.
- Today’s homily: Easter TuesdayThe message emphasises living the Resurrection received through faith, integrating it into daily life. It highlights the transformative power of grace, urging believers to see challenges through the lens of divine wisdom, extend Eucharistic presence beyond the church, and embody a life reflective of Christ’s love and holiness.
- Today’s Mass: April 7 Easter TuesdayEaster Tuesday commemorates the Mass “Aqua sapiéntiæ potávit” at St. Paul-Outside-the-Walls. It reflects on Paul’s announcement of Christ’s Resurrection and highlights the significance of both sacramental and spiritual Communion. The day’s scripture readings affirm the core Christian belief in the Resurrection and the necessity of preaching repentance and forgiveness to all nations.
- Sermon for Easter TuesdayThe Easter message highlights Jesus’ resurrection, affirming Christian hope in the bodily resurrection rather than mere survival after death. Unlike other beliefs, Christianity emphasises a transformative promise of eternal life where sin and death are ultimately defeated. Jesus’ resurrection serves as the first instance of this future reality for believers.
Leave a Reply