Report – Muzzling Associations: When Belgium Follows France’s Bad Example

How can civil society organisations be silenced when they represent an inconvenient counterbalance to power? For Belgium's federal government, the answer is simply to copy and paste the policies pursued in France in recent years. This is the conclusion highlighted in a report by the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, a partnership between the FIDH and the OMCT, written in collaboration with Liga voor Mensenrechten and the Ligue des droits humains.

Brussels, 28 October 2026. Belgium is following France's footsteps when it comes to restricting freedom of association. Stigmatising rhetoric targeting associations and collectives, draft legislation aimed at dissolving them or banning their activities, financial pressure, and so on. These measures have consequences that could prove equally damaging to civil society and the democratic debate.

This report, published by the Observatory and its Belgian partners, draws on several months of monitoring and information gathering, as well as a comparison with the situation in France, which the Observatory has analysed over the past two years .

Four French-Made Tools for Restricting Freedom of Association

1. Hostile rhetoric. This is the most emblematic example in France: in 2022, former Interior Minister Gérald Darmanin labelled opponents of the Sainte-Soline mega-reservoirs "eco-terrorists". The term entered public discourse and took hold. A similar shift occurred in Belgium a few years later: in July 2025, a federal MP from CD&V (the Flemish Christian Democratic party) likened the Code Rouge collective - which advocates civil disobedience to raise awareness of climate issues - to jihadist extremism. As for anti-fascist movements, the president of the MR regards them as "the greatest threat to our democracy". This rhetoric helps discredit civil society actors by portraying them as enemies of the state rather than as essential pillars of a democratic society. At the same time, it helps legitimise repressive policies against them.

2. Legislation designed to silence civil society organisations. In Belgium, the Quintin bill has evolved over recent months. Initially intended to dissolve organisations deemed radical, the revised bill would instead allow the administrative banning of activities carried out by associations or collectives that pose "a serious and current threat to national security". The bill bears many similarities to France's "separatism" law, adopted in 2021. Like the Quintin bill, it was intended to combat "radicalisation and terrorism". It also grants extensive powers to the executive at the expense of the safeguards associated with judicial proceedings. Similarly, it relies on vaguely defined concepts that can encompass very different situations. Evidence of this can be seen in the associations targeted under the French law: several Muslim religious organisations, environmental protection movements, collectives supporting the Palestinian people, and anti-fascist organisations. Initially presented as a tool to combat "separatism", the law has become an instrument used against a wide range of forms of dissent. Since 2017, around 40 administrative dissolutions have been ordered in France, with the pace accelerating in recent years.

   In Belgium, several official bodies, including the Federal Institute for Human Rights, as well as NGOs such as the Ligue des droits humains (LDH), have issued unfavourable opinions on the revised version of the Quintin bill. They have reiterated that it risks having a chilling effect on civil society as a whole, potentially leading organisations - as seen in France- to moderate their positions or scale back their activities.

3. Financial retaliation and pressure. More insidious than the first two tools, financial retaliation can exert considerable pressure on the voluntary sector, which depends on public grants - sometimes barely surviving on them - among other sources of funding. In France, the separatism law introduced a "Republican Commitment Contract". When applying for grants, associations must agree to respect general principles such as equality and human dignity, as well as to "refrain from any action contrary to the law or detrimental to public order". The vagueness of these provisions has allowed several municipalities to interpret these concepts very broadly to silence critical associations, while extending the reach of their authority to include the allocation of public grants. Financial pressure is also being used in Belgium. Last year, in Flanders, the regional government cut funding to certain associations despite positive assessments from the competent authorities. Their support for Code Rouge was enough to trigger sanctions. In Brussels, the regional government also made grants to two environmental organisations conditional on their dropping legal challenges against certain government measures. In the French Community of Belgium, the government wants to end funding for associations considered too closely aligned with certain political parties. In both Belgium and France, associations are therefore forced to choose between complying with the executive's demands and giving up one of their main sources of income.
4. The closure of spaces for dialogue. Belgium is often seen as a country built on consultation, yet the space for dialogue between civil society organisations and public authorities is gradually shrinking. Associations are still sometimes consulted by Parliament, but they feel they are not being heard. This points to a gradual erosion of their ability to influence decision-making processes and public policy. They also frequently fear that they are being used as political instruments.

For the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), Liga voor Mensenrechten and the Ligue des droits humains, the French experience, analysed in a report published last year , serves as a warning that Belgium would do well to heed. All these restrictions undermine freedom of association, which is protected under international and European law.

The NGOs are calling on the Belgian authorities to recognise the risks these measures pose to civil society and to protect democracy in Belgium by refraining from adopting laws and measures that could restrict or weaken freedom of association. In particular, they call for the withdrawal of the Quintin bill and urge the authorities not to use the granting (or threatened withdrawal) of public subsidies as a means of exerting pressure.

Find the full report here in English, French, and Dutch.

Media contact
OMCT: [email protected]