The League of Human Rights (LDH) has conducted a first analysis of the coalition agreement of Belgium's government by focusing, initially, on three areas: economic, social and cultural rights; justice; and security. Although a thorough analysis of these areas - and others as well - will be conducted in the coming weeks, the first analysis by LDH leads to the following conclusions: the government appears to oppose good judgment and common sense, and, contrary to what has been announced, many reforms lack imagination and furiously backtrack through a recipe book of laws that have already proven to be ineffective.

Some measures, including some new justice reforms, are notable exceptions. LDH can indeed be satisfied that reforms announced in the field of justice could lead to an improvement in its application. The announced establishment of two multidisciplinary commissions - finally! - for the revision of the Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure is a difficult but necessary task that needs to be welcomed.

Other developments in this area also appear encouraging. The implementation of alternatives to imprisonment, the fight against financial crime, the search for alternative forms of dispute resolution, such as mediation in criminal cases, or the full implementation of the law concerning prison administration and the legal status of the prisoner, would represent significant progress.

These positive steps seem to be less measures of common sense than corrective measures, even more essential now that certain issues, such as court backlog and support for detainees, in terms of infrastructure, monitoring and care, have been repeatedly condemned by the European Court of Human Rights.

Blur and anxiety

But it is clear that many other measures focused on issues faced by the top and bottom of society, raising legitimate concerns that they prey on some segments of the population, such as prisoners and the homeless. But a government that divides is not a government of common sense or a government for all.

Concerning justice, if the government is committed to strengthening legal aid, it says it will do it "within a specific closed budget" by introducing a co-payment and encouraging private insurance. We can therefore legitimately question how the government will achieve its goal to increase access to justice, and, by extension, the future of justice. In this respect, the foundation of the plea agreement - which raises questions about the equality of persons – is not questioned and only its evaluation is considered.

The coalition agreement also provides for an accelerated "simple cases" procedure while also providing "the necessary guarantees." If this measure gains support, the lack of precision in its implementation brings the prospect of a return of summary justice, which LDH has previously attacked in the Constitutional Court and which was cancelled following the appeal.

Based on the old recipe of good judgment, which has proven ineffective and unproductive, the establishment of security penalties, including preventing parole and the proposed expansion of prison facilities, forces LDH to question the ability of the policies to take into account past experiences and recommendations of professionals, even though the agreement acknowledges that "the fight against overcrowding in prisons cannot be limited to an extension of the number of places." LDH will be particularly attentive to the other measures to be taken up to solve this tragic problem.

Security and police violence

Concerning security issues, it must first be noted that the interior minister also becomes minister of security. This highlights the strengthening of the security apparatus of the government.

The coalition agreement further strengthens the separation between violence against police and police violence. If the first event is unacceptable and must be fought resolutely, the fact remains that the first assessment of the Observatory of Police Violence demonstrates the need for authorities to urgently focus attention on the violent actions committed by a few fringe members of law enforcement forces. The government ignores this reality by not addressing this issue and notes only the fight against the violence directed toward police.

Worse still, the government is being particularly vague when it says that it "looks for a solution to clearly unjustified complaints against police personnel," and is posing a veiled threat to the victims of police violence that their complaint would be dismissed. This situation is exacerbated by the challenge of identifying violent police officers, which implies a certain risk of impunity.

LDH will be attentive to this situation with the hope that the "solution" is not considered as a measure to intimidate witnesses and victims who wish to file a complaint against unlawful violence from the police. That would be a shame, as the government also announced an agreement to protect whistleblowers.

The introduction of temporary or permanent inadmissibility to the state territory in asylum cases looks very much like the return of double punishment, and the return of zero tolerance for consumption and possession of drugs gives a taste of a return to prohibition. In terms of original and comprehensive reforms, there is enough to stay hungry.

Toward the re-criminalization of poverty?

Finally, among the many measures undermining the economic and social rights of the lower and middle classes - the time limit of unemployment benefits, redefining the term "decent employment," restriction of the right of work integration allowance for youth, restrictive redefinition of emergency medical assistance, etc. - LDH would like to point out its concern about the government's approach to the issue of homelessness.

In addition to revising the regulations on squatting to accelerate the expulsion of homeless people, the declaration mentions the establishment of "a legal framework for the strengthening of local authorities following a multi-sectorial approach." Although the definition of this framework has yet to be detailed, LDH is concerned that the logic of "good sense" would lead to a re-criminalization of vagrancy and begging. If this is confirmed, it would be a step backward and represent an intolerable re-criminalization of extreme poverty.

The misleading good sense

As this early analysis suggests, the coalition government agreement reflects, on justice and security, only partially the will for reforms that the “Swedish coalition" (a name given because of the blue and yellow colors of the main parties) had prided itself on, and it addresses issues with predictable responses that have proven ineffective. At the end of the day, it seems that the agreement offers few carrots and many sticks.

As common sense can be misleading, LDH hopes that the government, in preparing a more expansive government platform, will take into account essential issues such as the respect for fundamental rights of all citizens, without exception.