For a proper understanding of the defence made before the correctional court in Bruges on Thursday 18 January 2024 in defence of Youtuber Acid, herewith the "headlines" of the plea:
1/ Belgium's constitution provides for the fundamental right to freedom of expression. The legislator wanted dissident opinions to be able to be expressed at will. Indeed, during the Dutch Reign (1815-1830), criticism of the government and its institutions was forbidden.
2/ The same constitution of Belgium also stated that in case the government wanted to criminally prosecute someone for spreading their opinion through a printing press, this could only be done before the assize court, i.e. before a people's jury. This principle was to ensure that professional judges -who are paid by the government- were not allowed to administer justice because they might side with the criticised government. The constitution-maker called this principle a fundamental charter for democracy. Meanwhile, the printing press was traded in for digital forms of mass communication.
3/ The European Convention on Human Rights, created in 1950, just after WWII, similarly formulated the fundamental right to freedom of expression in its Article 10. This right should only be restricted if necessary for democracy. Opinions may shock, disturb and even brutalise. Only when the freedom rights of society itself are threatened should restrictions be allowed, and they must also be proportionate.
4/ The direct summons emanated from one Giant Gummer, who, together with his parents' company, took Acid to criminal court. The public prosecutor's office, which is supposed to monitor citizens' compliance with the country's laws, did not prosecute Acid, never even investigated him.
So a criminal investigation did not exist. Not one official report was made, Acid was never interrogated. But since he was never interrogated, he was also never given the right to have investigative acts conducted on his own, in his discharge. He did have those rights had he been the subject of a traditional criminal investigation. This distinction in rights makes an unjustifiable distinction between two types of suspects. Fodder for the Constitutional Court to answer such questions.
5/ Acid, in his YouTube video, addressed the collective indignation of a large section of the population, which questioned the rancid ideology of the Giant Gum Club, the inhuman horror of its baptismal rituals and the heavy moral responsibility of Giant Gumers who may not have been physically there that night of the deadly baptism but had set up the ritual and, especially via chat traffic, had left traces of the torture practices. In addition, questions were raised about the "double standards culture" attached to the arbitrariness of the classical media in not naming those involved, including those morally responsible.
In awarding community service sentences, Acid made the link to the elite background of the parents of the sorority members and dropped the word "class justice".
These items were and are part of the collective memory surrounding the avoidable death of a young student.
Expressing one's opinion on this should not lead to punishment because it does not compromise democracy.
Banning this opinion, on the contrary, does just that.
Walter Van Steenbrugge
20 January 2024
