Belgian Court Rules Magnette Could Call Think Tank Far-Right

A Belgian court has dismissed a defamation lawsuit brought by the Institut Thomas More against Paul Magnette, the president of the Belgian Socialist Party (PS), ruling that the politician had a “sufficient factual basis” to describe the conservative think tank as “far-right.” The decision, handed down on May 18 by the Court of First Instance of Hainaut in Charleroi, represents a significant legal defeat for the institute and a victory for freedom of expression in political debate.

Background: The Evras Controversy

The case stems from the heated debate surrounding Evras (Education à la Vie Relationnelle, Affective et Sexuelle), a mandatory program for sexual and relational education in French-speaking Belgian schools. According to RTBF, the program became the target of criticism from Muslim organizations and conservative groups in 2023, with the Institut Thomas More actively campaigning against the educational guide.

In April 2025, during an interview on the Belgian news channel LN24, Magnette described the Institut Thomas More as “extrême-droite proche du RN” (far-right, close to the French Rassemblement National). The institute subsequently sued Magnette for defamation, seeking a symbolic €1 in damages and arguing that his statements had “seriously discredited” and “damaged” its reputation.

The Court’s Ruling

The court ruled entirely in Magnette’s favor, finding that he had “clearly expressed himself within the limits of the rights conferred to him by freedom of expression.” As Het Laatste Nieuws reported, the judge relied on European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence, affirming that freedom of expression protects even statements that “shock or offend.”

Crucially, the court did not definitively rule on whether the Institut Thomas More is actually far-right. Instead, it found that Magnette had “sufficient factual elements” to make the connection. The judge enumerated specific facts supporting this view: the background of the institute’s founder, former French Defense Minister Charles Millon; the identity of certain members, including director Aymeric de Lamotte, a former candidate of the Listes Destexhe; and the institute’s backers, including billionaire Pierre-Edouard Stérin.

As La Libre Belgique noted, the court stated: “The numerous and consistent elements presented in this case could have formed in him the opinion that Paul Magnette expressed.”

Reactions and Implications

Jacques Englebert, Magnette’s lawyer, welcomed the ruling, telling 7sur7 that “this kind of decision has already been made often at the European level. This judgment doesn’t revolutionize anything but it gives a lesson, it doesn’t bypass any rule, and it is very well-documented.”

The Institut Thomas More has not yet announced whether it will appeal the ruling. The institute maintains that Magnette’s statements seriously damaged its reputation. The think tank, which describes itself as a conservative institution, had argued that being labeled “far-right” had “strongly discredited” its work and undermined its ability to participate in public debate on education policy.

Legal Significance

While Magnette’s lawyer acknowledged the ruling does not break new legal ground, it carries significant weight for several reasons. The court reaffirmed the broad protection of freedom of expression under European jurisprudence, particularly for statements made in the context of public debate on matters of general interest. By actively participating in the Evras controversy, the Institut Thomas More opened itself up to robust criticism — a principle the court emphasized in its reasoning.

The ruling also established a clear “sufficient factual basis” standard: a public figure may characterize an organization as far-right without facing defamation liability if they can point to concrete facts supporting that characterization. The court itself enumerated the facts it considered sufficient without needing to definitively rule on whether the institute IS far-right — a distinction that preserves the court’s neutrality while protecting political speech.

Broader Political Context

The ruling comes at a time of heightened political tension in Belgium regarding the classification of “far-right.” The PS, led by Magnette, is leading an initiative to update the “Charter of Democracy,” which enshrines the cordon sanitaire — the political agreement to exclude far-right parties from governing coalitions. The liberal MR party, led by Georges-Louis Bouchez, has refused to participate in this initiative, arguing it should also address far-left and communitarian parties.

In June 2025, Bouchez threatened legal action against anyone who would describe his party or its members as “far-right,” adding another layer of complexity to the ongoing debate.

What’s Next

The ruling may have broader implications for political discourse in Belgium. By reaffirming the broad protection of freedom of expression in public debate, the court has established that characterizing an organization as “far-right” can be protected speech if the speaker has a sufficient factual basis. This could potentially discourage similar defamation lawsuits from conservative groups and embolden supporters of the Evras program.

The Institut Thomas More still has the right to appeal the ruling, and its decision on whether to do so will be closely watched by observers of Belgian politics and legal affairs.