The Raad voor de Journalistiek has recently ruled on a high-profile complaint involving Herman Brusselmans, a well-known Belgian author and columnist. The complaint, lodged against a controversial column published in the magazine Humo, was declared unfounded on 2025-06-19 22:49:00. This decision highlights the challenges of balancing freedom of expression with concerns over potentially offensive content.
- De Raad verklaart klacht tegen Brusselmans ongegrond
- Column past in satirische, provocerende stijl
- Klacht focuste op antisemitische passage
- Raad oordeelt geen antisemitisme of discriminatie
- Groep Herinnering keurt antisemitisme af
- Brusselmans eerder vrijgesproken antiracisme-wet overtredingen
The complaint was submitted by Groep Herinnering vzw, a Belgian organisation dedicated to fighting racism and antisemitism. It focused on a provocative passage in Brusselmans’ column, where he expressed extreme anger in a satirical manner. The Raad emphasized that the column fits Brusselmans’ typical style, known for its satire, provocation, and exaggeration, and found no evidence of antisemitism or calls for discrimination.
How should Belgian media navigate the fine line between provocative opinion and ethical journalism? What does this ruling mean for future columns that push boundaries? The Raad voor de Journalistiek’s decision offers clarity on these questions.
This ruling raises important considerations about journalistic ethics and freedom of speech in Belgium. Does satire have limits when addressing sensitive topics? The Raad’s decision underscores that:
- Context matters: provocative statements must be read within the full text.
- Satirical style is recognised and protected under journalistic norms.
- Both parties condemned antisemitism, reflecting shared values despite disagreement.
- Clear labelling of opinion pieces helps maintain transparency with readers.
As Belgian media continue to evolve, this ruling invites readers and journalists alike to engage critically with provocative content while respecting ethical boundaries. Will future complaints reshape editorial approaches? Staying informed and involved remains essential.
