The Court gives AVIQ a booster shot of reality

PRESS RELEASE / LA ZONE LIBRE vs AVIQ

The Brussels Court of Appeal has just ruled against AViQ.

The citizens’ collective Free Zone (La Zone Libre) campaigns for democratic values and ensures respect for fundamental rights and freedoms.
During the COVID crisis, it fought, without violence, against the introduction of the covid safe ticket (“le passe, on s‘en passe” — “we’ll pass on the pass”) and against the discriminatory regime introduced between vaccinated and unvaccinated people. It took a particular interest in the vaccination of children.

In order to encourage the population to get vaccinated, the Walloon health agency (AViQ) had a website created, which it put online at www.jemevaccine.be.
The collective immediately denounced the poverty of the message, which tends to present vaccination as a trivial act, whereas reflection is needed so that each citizen, duly informed, can take a free decision.

The collective therefore created a site, www.estcequejemevaccine.eu, a nod to the official site.

RTBF published a report on the collective’s site. Accepting neither the substance (fake news) nor the form (parody), the public broadcaster (largely financed, as we know, by taxpayers’ money) was extremely critical. That was all it took to arouse the anger of the minister and her administration, who tried to censor the collective’s site.
The Brussels Court of Appeal has just ruled against AViQ.

While the administration invoked its copyright on the official site against the collective, the judges of the Court of Appeal accepted the parody exception put forward by Me Étienne Wery, partner at the ULYS firm (Brussels), who defended the collective.

The Court of Appeal goes over the constituent elements of the two sites and notes that “the expression of humour or mockery […] is reflected (i) in the title of the site, which, through its interrogative form, subverts the statement expressed by the name of AViQ’s site, (ii) in the use of the slogan ‘j’ai eu ma dose’ (‘I’ve had my dose’), which, while referring to a dose of vaccine, plays on the ambivalence of this expression, which in everyday usage means a feeling of being ‘fed up’, or (iii) in the fact that the eyes of the face shown on the disputed site are covered by plants, which may suggest blindness.” 

The Court adds, for the attention of the first judge, who had convicted the collective on the grounds that its site was not funny, that “the informative nature of the disputed site does not preclude a humorous or mocking tone on the home page in question”.

This is an important ground of the judgment, notes Étienne Wéry, the collective’s lawyer: “Parody is an autonomous concept of European Union law, which certainly refers to humour, but also to mockery, offence, ridicule or criticism. Limiting parody to the end-of-year blooper reel is a serious mistake that undermines freedom of expression. It is fortunate that the Court of Appeal emphasises this”.

For the collective La Zone Libre, the administration’s legal action sends a bad signal. Spending public funds in the name of copyright (which, moreover, does not exist), when in reality the aim is to silence dissenting voices, is behaviour that has no place in the democratic society that the collective promotes. The very existence of this legal action shows that the collective is more necessary than ever.