Facilitating the prostitution of minors, equating prostitution with a public service mission, affiliating pimps with the FEB (Federation of Belgian Enterprises)…Will this destroy 30 years of progress in combating human trafficking?
By Charles-Eric Clesse, Anne-Sophie Charle, Sophie Jekeler, board members, and Sandrine Cnapelinckx, director of the Samilia Foundation (1)
The reform of the criminal code provisions on “sexual matters,” carried out hastily and in near-total secrecy by the Minister of Justice, is about to be approved by the De Croo government.
The text of this reform raises alarming concerns regarding the fight against human trafficking and the protection of minors.
In terms of process, field organizations were not consulted. The wording of the text is indecipherable for anyone who is not a legal expert. It even incorporates concepts from the draft of the new Criminal Code, which has not yet been voted on.
In substance, the reform makes deep changes that dramatically weaken Belgium’s legal arsenal against human trafficking.
The main legal tools available to magistrates to protect victims and prosecute perpetrators of human trafficking are being repealed
- Pimping is decriminalized, replaced by a vague notion of “abnormal exploitation” of prostitution;
- The prostitution of minors aged 16 to 18 is permitted unless it can be proven that pimps or clients knew the person was underage;
- Advertising for sexual services on the Internet will be legal;
- The closure of establishments where sexual trafficking occurs will no longer be possible.
Decriminalization of pimping
Articles 380 to 382 of the Criminal Code are replaced by a single offense—deriving an “abnormal” advantage from sexual exploitation—reducing all harm to mere economic injury.
The pimp is thus turned into a respectable business owner.
No prosecution can take place if the profit is deemed “normal.” Dodo la Saumure, who unsuccessfully argued this point in court, must be rubbing his hands with glee.
A token safeguard is proposed in this unfair system: penalties will be aggravated if “abnormal profit” is obtained by exploiting the vulnerability of a poor person, an undocumented migrant, a pregnant woman, or someone with a mental disability, or in cases of violence or habitual activity. But that already falls under the definition of human trafficking — this reform thus risks depriving many victims of access to specialized shelters and support programs for trafficking victims.
Added to this is the difficulty of determining what constitutes an “abnormal” profit. Since 1995, a similar provision has tempered real-estate-related pimping, allowing sex workers to operate in sanitary conditions: renting premises for prostitution is permitted unless the rent is “abnormally high.” In practice, this benefits abusive landlords: without objective criteria, courts are powerless to assess what counts as excessive rent. Rents that appear “normal” are often topped up with under-the-table payments that victims dare not report, for fear of being blacklisted — especially in “visible” prostitution districts where municipalities impose quotas on window spaces.
The consequences of repealing pimping laws for the fight against human trafficking will be incalculable.
Investigations are long and complex; victims are often quickly moved out of reach and fear violent reprisals against themselves or their families. Trafficking networks constantly adapt, offering “win-win” deals to victims that allow them to keep a small share of earnings — just enough to dissuade them from filing complaints and to keep the “business” running.
In the absence of victim testimony, investigators rely on other charges such as pimping or money laundering. If these can no longer be used, the number of sexual trafficking cases will collapse, ensuring impunity for perpetrators and depriving victims of their rights.
Facilitation of child prostitution
According to the International Convention on the Rights of the Child, a “child” is any person under 18 years of age.
The prostitution of minors is equated with trafficking, whether or not the perpetrator used coercion or deception.
The current Article 380, §4, 6° — which criminalizes any sexual exploitation of a minor and imposes harsher penalties when the victim is under 16 — is being repealed.
The reform introduces a major change: an offense must now be committed knowingly and intentionally against a minor aged 16 to 18.
This explicitly facilitates the prostitution of teenagers, shifting the burden of proof: it will be up to the child or the public prosecutor to prove that the pimp or the client was aware of the victim’s age and intended to commit the offense. In other words: mission impossible.
Advertising sexual services on the Internet or social media
Article 380ter of the Penal Code, which currently prohibits any advertisement related to sexual services online — even when disguised through coded language — is being repealed. Advertising for “sugar dating” websites such as RichMeetBeautiful, which was convicted for promoting itself on the ULB university campus, will now be fully permitted.
Advertising for sexual services involving minors will remain prohibited, but only if it can be proven that the offense was committed knowingly and intentionally.
Closure of establishments and prostitution elevated to a public service mission
Article 382ter, combined with Article 433novies, which allows for the closure of establishments involved in human trafficking, will also be repealed. As a result, closing down such venues will become illegal in many trafficking cases under investigation, and defendants will be able to resume their “business activities” with impunity.
A new Article 433quater/4 authorizes the closure of establishments only in cases of “abnormal advantage,” except for establishments carrying out a public service mission. Does this imply that prostitution in Eros centers operated by municipal entities could be considered a public service mission?
What are the objectives ?
The rights of adult sex workers who engage in prostitution voluntarily are already protected: prostitution is not a criminal offense; one may operate one’s own salon; and self-employed status is available.
Case law currently recognizes the rights of sex workers under employment contracts, requiring their pimps to pay social security contributions despite the contract’s nullity.
So why repeal the provisions on pimping — which are the very foundation of legal protection for the most vulnerable, namely, victims of human trafficking?
The coalition agreement does not provide for the decriminalization of pimping. By adopting this reform, our elected officials will bear the responsibility of denouncing several major international conventions ratified by Belgium, including:
- The United Nations Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and of the Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others;
- The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW);
- The Convention on the Rights of the Child and its Optional Protocol on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution, and Child Pornography;
- The Palermo Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children.
Our current legislation has served as a model for the European Directive on combating human trafficking.
Soon, Belgium risks being listed among the underperformers of the European Union and the Council of Europe, both of which could remind it of its obligations in the fight against trafficking.
- The SAMILIA Foundation, a public-interest organization founded in 2007, works to strengthen the fight against all forms of human trafficking.
- Statement of reasons for the draft bill, p. 91.
