The Reuzegom case pushes so many buttons at the same time that there is almost no escape from a layer of unease that never gets old. Only: are we asking the right questions about this verdict?
Rarely have the reactions been as sharp as after the verdict in the Reuzegom case. “The predominant feeling”, so penned The morning-journalist Douglas De Coninck boils it down to one thought, is that “something inappropriate happened” during the trial. Behind the hashtag #JusticeForSanda there has been a big question mark since Friday, on a roof near the Leuven station it says ‘FOK GIANT GOM’ in large letters.
It is striking that the dismay within the Dia family corresponds moderately with the dismay within public opinion. The first grafts itself mainly on the lack of answers – for example: who served the fish sauce? – then the second is mainly focused on the inadequate penalty. A fine of 400 euros and up to 300 hours of community service is, according to many, too lenient, according to some even an example of class justice.
It is not surprising that lawyer Kati Verstrepen, president of the Human Rights League, is not surprised that the verdict is stirring up emotions. “It is very easy to take a sharp stand on this matter,” she says, “because there are so many social fault lines converging.”
The popular frame is that of a black boy (structural racism) from a working-class family (inequality of opportunity) who was victimized by white rich sons. That automatically leads to a frequently asked question on social media: what if the situation were reversed? Had the perpetrators got off so ‘cheaply’?
Similar case
There is plenty of online fencing with more severe punishments, often for theft, traffic violations or drug crimes. Liberal philosopher Lode Cossaer notes, however, that the penal code “attaches great importance to the intention to do something” and that the penalty is therefore not necessarily linked to class. He points out that a similar case in Wallonia, where the elitist element is absent, recently led to a similar verdict.
Verstrepen also thinks that the judgment “maps out all the elements fairly well”. Her organization has been arguing for a ‘softer’ approach to punishment for some time: more attention to prevention, less to repression. Dutch research shows that those who receive a community service order recidivate 47 percent less than a prisoner with a short sentence.
According to church jurist Rik Torfs, former rector of KU Leuven, public opinion is moving in the opposite direction with a “call for stricter punishments” and a “great retribution urge”. The latter makes itself felt on social media: for those who want to know the names of the Reuzegommers, a simple search will suffice.
Torfs sees “similarities between the left and the right” in that area. A distrust in the judiciary becomes politically instrumentalized on both sides. If PVDA is strongly present at the silent demonstration against the verdict in the Reuzegom case, Vlaams Belang puts its hands together at its protest meeting by stating that some men with a migration background had to write “just an essay” after a gang rape.
The nuance, such as the fact that in 2021 those same men received a suspended sentence of up to five years in prison, is quickly snowed under. “We have entered an atmosphere of polarization, in which we want to see perpetrators convicted not only legally but also morally,” says Torfs.
That moral component is certainly a driving force in the current indignation, also sees cultural philosopher Simon Truwant (KU Leuven). “There was no sense of guilt throughout the process. Morally, the accused have placed themselves outside society.”
Truwant sees “beyond the legal framework” a laundry list of things that go against the grain. The omerta among Giant Gommers. The absence of some defendants in the verdict. The choice of media to preserve anonymity. “It still feels like the Giant Gommers’ hand is being reached while they keep theirs in their pocket.”
The battle
On Facebook writes author Jeroen Olyslaegers, who wrote an impressive account of the trial There: “If I had not experienced the Reuzegom case in court, I would now also have shouted with many that no justice has been done.” Asked about what the verdict does stir in him, he says reservedly that this opinion is “still fermenting”, partly out of reluctance to be placed in a camp.
The latter is happening all the time and, according to Torfs, is a very annoying issue. “It is good that the public is involved in the debate, but if we only start to play judge out of anger and indignation, we stand in the way of a thorough discussion.”
No one disputes that this discussion is relevant. Also about possible class justice. It’s just, all the experts say, maybe we’re asking the wrong questions.
Cossaer, about the army of top lawyers on the side of Reuzegom: “You can hardly blame them for reaching for the best legal assistance. How can we ensure that everyone has access to it?”
Verstrepen, about the choice for a community service order: “Perhaps the question is not whether the judgment has been too lenient here, but whether imprisonment is taken too quickly in other cases?”