The right to non-discrimination

The Belgian legislative framework on anti-discrimination was considered good and wider than EU-level rules. According to the participants, inadequate implementation of this legislation was the issue, and they therefore proposed monitoring the application of anti-discrimination laws. In terms of participation in decision-making process, participants felt that consultations on anti-discrimination issues took place when decisions had already been made, no follow-up was provided and CSOs' opinions were not really listened to. The funding system for CSOs was considered very weak, since funds could easily be withdrawn. Participants regretted that CSOs were put in competition with one another to obtain funding, hampering the possibility for cooperation among them. Belgium's institutional system featuring multiple political entities was identified as a major source of problems by the participants, who criticised the "compartmentalisation" of issues and the lack of exchanges among different levels of administration. They called for anti-discrimination subjects to be more streamlined across all government's departments, demanded more diversity in public administrations and sanctions for failing to respect diversity criteria. Participants explained that the multiplication of bodies dealing with anti-discrimination at different territorial levels made it difficult for citizens to understand to which institution address their complaints, especially in cases of intersectional discriminations. The Belgian authorities affirmed their engagement to improve coordination among different anti-discrimination entities. Participants explained that gender equality laws were in place and had been extended in their scope multiple times to include, among others, gender identity and sexist behaviour in public spaces, including online. It was reported that a draft law to protect individuals who defended another person from discrimination, for example by launching a complaint, was under discussion. Modernising the criteria to take into account new and multiple forms of discrimination was considered crucial. Hate speech against LGBTIQ people was prosecuted, with aggravated penalties imposed for discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Participants reported that a law respecting self-determination of people was in place, but there was no provision to "de-gender" administrative forms. They asked for a ban of non-consensual surgeries performed on intersex people, including children. Participants felt that Belgium had persisted in not respecting the rights of asylum seekers and refugees, despite being condemned multiple times over their reception. According to them, the 2015 law to remove Belgian citizenship ended up stigmatising people of certain nationalities. Participants pointed out discrimination in accessing employment opportunities for people of foreign origin and double standards between the treatment given to Ukrainian refugees and to asylum seekers from other countries. Issues affecting foreigners in the health sector were also mentioned, for example access to healthcare for undocumented people and the difficulty of providing linguistic assistance. The Belgian authorities explained that migration policy was a split competence, with the federal government managing residence permits, regions in charge of issuing labour cards, and communities responsible for schooling and education; and efforts were ongoing to improve links between the different administrative entities. Progress had been made on the integration of Roma pupils in schools, but the COVID-19 pandemic had halted the positive trend. Participants reported that barriers to the inclusion of Roma people still existed, especially with regard to their employment. Through projects, Roma adults could receive coaching to enter adult education and vocational training or have access to internships, but it was often difficult to convince employers to accept Roma candidates. With regard to racism, regional action plans were in place, but the country lacked a comprehensive inter-federal plan. Participants felt that the issue of racism was given different levels of priority in society, while some political forces were avoiding this topic as a whole. They added that police violence and Islamophobia were very sensitive topics. Participants appreciated the recent introduction of the first inter-federal plan dedicated to persons with disabilities, but expressed the struggle to find open and suitable job opportunities for such people, explaining that the quotas for their employment were rarely met and no sanctions were foreseen. From the participants' perspective, ageism was present, but often invisible. They advocated more support from the EU to develop awareness-raising campaigns on ageism both at national and EU level. Participants were concerned that people above 65 years of age did not have access to an integration allowance for assistive devices. In their view, the government was ignoring this issue, even though the Constitutional Court had declared it as a form of discrimination in 2022.