We were walking down the right hand flank of the historic stock exchange, heading towards the front face of the building where the demonstration was taking place. Almost in a flash, six police officers on bicycles pulled up to us and swiftly formed barricades with their bikes forcing us into a tight space. “This scarf is not allowed, you should take it off” one officer said referring to my Kiffiye, “please put the flag away” they told my friend Céline. “We only want to make sure it doesn’t spark any violence, it’s for your protection”.

It was the 18th of October, and the nightly protest at Bourse was only on its second night. The day before, on the 17th, the occupation military had struck the Al-Ahli Baptist Hospital in Gaza massacring at least 470 patients, medical staff, and refugees taking shelter at the hospital, Thus kicking off the daily demonstrations in downtown Brussels. We had attended the protest the night before, and had also been harassed by the police for our scarves. These protests continue nightly until now, but have been moved to Central Station to make way for the christmas market (glaring irony).

Exceptions to the protected freedom can exist as outlined in Art. 19, “Freedom of expression can be limited by law in certain, strictly defined ways and under specific circumstances.”. However this also insists on the limits to restrictions themselves, “Restrictions on the exercise of freedom of expression may not put in jeopardy the right itself”. In turn Art. 20 presents a three-part cumulative test for restrictions, three principles are employed; the principle of legal certainty, predictability and transparency, the principle of legitimacy, and the principles of necessity and proportionality. It is within these principles we can find the root of the logic the police officers approached us with. Part 2 of Art. 20 implies that expressions which might threaten “public order” are subject to restriction. However, the same article provides the clincher, Art. 20 is presenting a cumulative test consisting of three parts, and so part 2 is not enough to constitute a cause for restriction if the expression does not also violate both parts 1 and 3. A restriction must also “be provided for by law” (part 1) and “proven necessary and as the least restrictive means” (part 3) to be deemed valid under the 2014 Guidelines. 

The police had no right and no power in that moment on the street to decide that my kiffiye constituted a threat to public order or a violation of national security, article 17 explicitly strips them of this capacity. Even if they wanted to completely ignore Art. 17, Art. 20 further states that even if my kiffiye did constitute a threat to public order, their reasoning for asking me to remove it should have also been supported by a “law, which is clear and accessible to everyone”. Their request and reasoning seemed ludicrous to me now after having looked over the document. The articles I’ve highlighted here are only a few of many which reaffirm my rights to free expression.