From women’s rights to human rights: how gender-neutral laws aid the deconstruction of gendered presumptions regarding partner violence in Belgium (1970s – today)
- Human Rights in Context
- 6 days ago
- 10 min read
Ms Laura Vanderhaeghen
Laura is a final-year law student specialising in international law and legal history. In 2022, she earned a master’s degree in contemporary history. Her academic background in both history and international law has shaped a strong interest in international human rights law, aspiring to dedicate her career to this field. In light of this, she is currently completing an internship at the Programme for Studies of Human Rights in Context.
Introduction
Less than a year ago, Belgium was gripped by a deeply disturbing case: a severely malnourished and wounded man escaped his home in the quiet town of Grobbendonk to seek help from his neighbours. The investigation revealed that he had been subjected to prolonged abuse by his 47-year-old wife, including acts of extreme physical violence such as having boiling water thrown over him and being forced to sleep in a faeces-covered doghouse shared with sixty chihuahuas. The woman was sentenced to seven years in prison (VRT, 2026).
This case appears to confirm some persistent stereotypes surrounding partner violence in Belgium, such as its severity, its escalation over time, and the dramatic nature of escape. At the same time, it unsettles deeply entrenched assumptions: the victim was male, the perpetrator female, and the context did not correspond to the often-invoked image of socio-economic marginalisation. By reversing expected patterns, the case exposes the limitations of gendered presumptions that continue to shape public and legal understandings of partner violence.
This post examines the evolution of the Belgian legal framework on partner violence from the late twentieth century to today. It argues that while early reforms were driven primarily by feminist mobilization and aimed at protecting women, the gradual adoption of gender-neutral legal concepts has contributed to a broader human-rights-based understanding of partner violence, one that recognises victimisation regardless of gender. However, the legal reality does not fully reflect the societal one, as stereotypes regarding the subject remain prevalent.
Note on terminology: because this post discusses historical legal and political developments, it necessarily relies on binary gender terminology as used in the relevant sources, which did not yet account for gender diversity beyond ‘men’ and ‘women’.
From behind closed doors to the streets: the feminist movement in the 1970s
For much of Belgium’s legislative history, domestic violence was not recognised as a public concern. On the contrary, the law explicitly tolerated violence within intimate relationships under certain circumstances. Article 413 of the Belgian Criminal Code, for instance, mitigated punishment for acts of violence committed against a spouse caught in the act of adultery (Decruyenaere, 2017). More broadly, society at the time considered what happened behind closed doors a family matter, one in which others – especially the government – should not interfere (Franck, 2018).
This began to change in the 1970s with the rise of second-wave feminism, when the international movement gained a foothold in Belgium. With the slogan “Je kan weg als je wil” (“You can leave if you want to”), the movement made tackling domestic violence its core objective. Violence against women was considered the ultimate oppression of women’s rights and an inevitable symptom of the patriarchal system (Roggeband, 2004).
Feminists criticised the inadequacy of the (scarcely available) institutional responses: assistance consisted mainly of medication, leaving the psychological consequences of the violence untreated (Franck and Simons, 2017). In response, the feminist movement took matters into its own hands by developing alternative forms of support, notably women’s shelters or refuge homes. The concept originated in the United States and sought to enable victims to live independently from their abusers (Franck and Simons, 2017).
The activism increased the visibility of the issue of violence against women, bringing it from the margins of society into the political arena in the 1980s. Yet, the framing remained narrow as attention was almost exclusively focused on physical and sexual violence experienced by women in intimate relationships (Pieters et al., 2010). This left other forms of violence and other victim groups largely unseen.
The first political and legal attention in the late 1980s
In 1988, under the guidance of the State Secretary for Social Emancipation, Miet Smet, Belgium conducted its first national prevalence study to map the nature, extent, and consequences of physical and sexual violence against women, enabling policies to be effectively tailored to address this issue (Vandeweghe et al., 1988). The study revealed the extent and severity of the problem. The shocking findings led to the organization of several campaigns aimed at destigmatizing the subject, and the appointment of provincial coordinators tasked with implementing a policy on violence against women. However, in practice, these initiatives lacked sufficient resources and failed to bring about structural change (Franck and Simons, 2017). Additionally, the study only looked at aggression towards women, because of which the lived realities of male victims remained unknown to the legislators and the public alike.
A more decisive legal shift occurred with the law of July 4 1989, which criminalised rape within marriage. Previously, rape was a crime that could only occur outside of marital relations. Sexual intercourse within marriage, regardless of consent, was considered to be intended for procreation and therefore not made punishable (Vandaele, 2015). Additionally, the legislator did not provide an exact definition of rape. Legal doctrine described it as “having normal but unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman who resists or does not validly consent to it” (Bulthé and Remouchamps, 1979). Thus, only women could be victims of rape, while male victims were excluded by definition. Moreover, the crime of rape covered only penile-vaginal penetration. Consequently, other sexual acts did not constitute rape, nor could a person be raped by someone of the same sex (Vandaele, 2015).
Gradually, society came to see rape as a violation of the right to sexual self-determination. The legal reform of 1989 recognised bodily integrity as a fundamental right and made consent the constitutional element of the crime of rape. The law expanded the scope of the legal definition of rape to cover a wide range of non-consensual acts, regardless of the means by which they were committed. In addition, the definition became gender-neutral, contrary to common assumptions about the gender of perpetrators and victims (Hutsebaut, 1990). The legislator thus recognized the possibility of men being the victim of such crimes, as well as the occurrence of such crimes within same-sex relations. By criminalizing marital rape, the legislator took an important step in the further development of the legal framework surrounding partner violence.
A feminist objective, a human rights outcome: the law on partner violence of 1997
In September 1995, Belgium participated in the Fourth World Conference on Women organized by the United Nations. While decisions made at such conferences are not binding, they carry significant moral authority (Brems, 2004). The participating governments committed themselves to condemning violence against women, providing victims with access to justice, and tightening legal standards for dealing with perpetrators. The conference explicitly recognized the problem as a violation of human rights, thus imposing an obligation under international law on participating States to address this problem (Brems, 2004). Yet, as the title of the conference suggests, it was still considered an issue faced by women, not men.
Following the conference, four female senators proposed a bill to address partner violence in Belgium. Adopted swiftly in 1997, the bill introduced four regulatory changes, both in substantive criminal law and in criminal procedure law:
First, partner violence was not established as a separate offence but as an aggravating circumstance for existing crimes such as intentional assault and the administration of harmful substances. Aggravating circumstances are factors that can lead to a more severe punishment, i.e., a punishment that exceeds the maximum for the basic offense or that increases the minimum punishment for the basic offense (Arnou, 2002).
Secondly, the law repealed Article 413 of the Criminal Code, thereby abolishing the exemption or mitigation of punishment for violence committed against a spouse in cases of adultery. Parliament explicitly rejected the moral justifiability of such exemptions for serious crimes (Brems, 2004).
Thirdly, the law provided for the extension of the investigative powers of the public prosecutor and his assistant officers.
Finally, the law enabled associations dedicated to combating domestic violence to initiate legal proceedings with the victim’s consent on their behalf.
The travaux préparatoires reveal that the Parliament’s main concern remained the protection of women as the primary victims of partner violence. Statistical research from this period supported the notion that for women: “[male] partners are the most dangerous perpetrators (…) they are overrepresented in cases of moderate and major violence” (De Troy, 2004). The limited research of that time seemed to find that female perpetrators were responsible for only a negligible proportion of cases of domestic violence.
Yet, despite this, the law was worded gender-neutrally:
When tackling the problem, it is essential to ensure that men and women are treated equally: the remedies considered must be gender-neutral. Even though it is still too often women who are the victims of inequality, whether in terms of physical strength or economic dependence, violence can be perpetrated by either spouse. (Draft bill on Partner Violence, 1997).
This wording signalled a conceptual shift: violence was no longer legally tied to a specific gender, even if political discourse remained gendered.
An evolving legal landscape: the start of the millennium
In the following years, increased media attention and research led to further legal and policy developments. In 1998, the Criminal Code was amended to include offences of psychological violence and moral harassment, recognising the seriousness of non-physical harm (Law on Criminalisation of Harassment, 1998). While not solely tied to partner violence, recognizing the gravity of incorporeal harm was instrumental in the destigmatization of partner violence suffered by men, since this form of violence is most often suffered by men (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights et al., 2024).
At the policy level, the government introduced thematic Nationale Actieplannen (National Plans of Action, NAPs). These policy documents are aimed at outlining an appropriate approach to a specific problem, in this case, gender-based violence. The first plan, the “National Plan to Combat Violence against Women”, was adopted in 2001. Its two objectives were to combat violence within the family and human trafficking (NAP, 2001). While legislative measures were consistently gender-neutral, political discourse continued to prioritise violence against women. The concrete impact of the NAPs over the years remains unclear and warrants further research.
However, the most important policy decision was made by the Minister of Justice and the College of Prosecutors-General. To fine-tune criminal policy and prosecution, the College issues circulars containing binding guidelines for all members of the public prosecutor's office. In 2006, the College issued two circulars. The first circular governs how the police should identify and register cases of domestic violence and, more importantly, how the phenomenon is defined (COL 3/2006). The definition introduced a broad, gender-neutral definition of domestic violence, encompassing physical, sexual, psychological, and economic harm. The second circular governs how police should deal with partner violence specifically (COL 4/2006). These two documents are the leading regulations governing the prosecution of domestic violence to this day. Police are thus actively instructed not to operate from a gendered assumption, but utilize gender-neutral guidelines in the field, as partner violence is since regarded as
any form of physical, sexual, psychological, or economic violence between spouses or persons who live together or have lived together and between whom a lasting emotional and sexual relationship exists or has existed (COL 4/2006).
The gradual recognition of non-female victims
Over the following years, the scope of policy initiatives expanded beyond only female victims. As such, the name of the NAPs changed from “National Plan to Combat Violence against Women” to “National Plan to Combat Gender Based Violence”. The Minister of Work and Equal Opportunities at the time clarified that NAP deliberately broadened its scope to accommodate the finding of men being victims of the crime of partner violence (Senate Written question, 2010). This shift was thus driven largely by empirical research. As researchers and policy-makers required more accurate figures on the phenomenon, it became clear that not just women were victimised by their partners.
The most striking evidence of this came in 2024, when a European survey on the prevalence of gender-based violence was published (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights et al., 2024). On the topic of partner violence, the survey revealed that 31.3% of Belgian women surveyed indicated that they had been victims of some form of partner violence. For men, the percentage is even slightly higher, at 33.1%. However, the types of violence that men and women most commonly experience differ. Men are more frequently victims of psychological violence, whereas women are more likely to endure physical and sexual violence than men. This is even more true for the potentially most serious incidents, resulting in disparities observed in partner femicides.
However, these alarming figures likely still underestimate the true prevalence of partner violence. Experts acknowledge that research on this topic masks a significant ‘dark number’ because several cases go unreported. Supposedly, over 56% of men who have been the victim of partner violence do not speak about what they have suffered to anyone, let alone seek help from a healthcare professional or make a report to the police. Reasons for this include: stigma still surrounds the issue, particularly for male victims, fear of the perpetrator, religious beliefs, and the desire to protect children from harm (IGVM, 2010). The destigmatization of men being the victims of their violent partners still has a long way to go, despite efforts from lawmakers. Moreover, data on non-heterosexual and non-binary relationships remains scarce, highlighting the need for further research.
Conclusion
Despite decades of legal reform, the misconceived notion that women are the main – or even sole – victims of partner violence is persistent in European society. Yet the statistics show that both genders are victimized by their partners just as often, despite them suffering different types of violence. The evolution of Belgian legislation on partner violence illustrates how gender-neutral law-making can potentially help gradually dismantle such assumptions.
The impact is twofold. First, using gender-neutral legal language upholds the principle of gender equality, a fundamental element of democratic societies. Second, it enhances visibility for victims of violence who are often overlooked and challenges existing stereotypes about gender. While early reforms were driven by feminist advocacy and focused on protecting women, the resulting legal framework has supported a broader, human-rights-based understanding of partner violence.
Although law-making alone cannot transform social attitudes, it plays a crucial role in legitimising new understandings of violence and victimhood. In this sense, the Belgian case study demonstrates how feminist objectives can produce lasting human rights outcomes that extend beyond their original scope. While the stigma still persists, significant efforts have been made to show that anyone – regardless of gender – can become the victim of partner violence.
The Human Rights in Context Blog is a platform which provides an academic space for discussion for those interested in human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. We are always interested in well-written and thoughtful comments and analyses on topical events or developments. Scholars from all disciplines, students, researchers, international and national civil servants, legislators and politicians, legal practitioners and judges are welcome to participate in the discussions. We warmly invite those interested in writing a post to send us an e-mail explaining briefly the relevance of the topic and your background as an expert. We will get back to you as quickly as we can. All contributors post in their individual capacity, and their opinions do not necessarily reflect the official position of Human Rights in Context, or any organisation with which the author is affiliated.
