A minority within a minority: Dutch-speaking women and the legal profession in la place juridique de Bruxelles
Dutch-speaking women in the legal profession in la place juridique de Bruxelles
Introduction
The topic of this blog is Dutch-speaking women and the legal profession in la place juridique de Bruxelles. In this post we will start with the case of Marie Popelin, a key figure when it comes to women’s rights in Belgium. Followed by an overview of the legal framework and ending with my concrete findings about the Dutch-speaking women in the legal field in Brussels.
Notwithstanding the fact that women (‘s rights) in the labour market is an often-discussed topic, there was not much research done about women in the legal profession in Belgium. When looking at women in the legal profession, research is often done from a purely historical or sociological perspective within the framework of gender studies. This blog will give its perspective from a legal history point of view.
Marie Popelin
The facts
On the 16th of December 1846, Marie Popelin was born in Schaarbeek as one of four kids in a middle-class family. She started her career as a teacher and thaught at the first secondary school in Belgium for girls. Cours d’Education pour jeunes filles was founded by feminist Isabelle Gatti de Gamond.[i] Her sister, Louise Popelin, also taught at this school and would later become the first woman to graduate as pharmacist.[ii]
The law granting access to higher education for women at university was approved in May 1876. This gave the thirty-seven-year-old Marie Popelin the chance to enroll in lawschool at the Université Libre de Bruxelles, after her career as a teacher. [iii] She graduated in 1888 with distinction and wished to become a lawyer. In order to do so, she had to take an oath before the Brussels Court of Appeal.[iv] Although there was no law that forbade women to become a lawyer, her application was rejected. She decided to take the case to court, together with her friend and lawyer (and feminist) Louis Franck.[v] Franck was a fellow student of Popelin's and devoted his career to defending women's rights. During his life, he wrote many famous works such as "La Femme avocat", "Essai sur la condition politique de la femme" and "Grand catéchisme de la femme".[vi] Franck later defended a similar controversial case in France, but this time with more success. Thanks to the Chauvin case, women in France had already gained access to the legal profession in 1900.[vii]
The trial
The Court of Appeal
Marie Popelin's application was received with great scepticism. The Attorney General Van Schoor quoted that
« tant que le Barreau conservera ses règles et ses traditions qui de tout temps ont fait sa grandeur et sa force ; tant qu’il constituera une corporation jalouse à juste titre de ses droits, de ses prérogatives et de son indépendance ; tant qu’il formera cet ordre glorieux, indissolublement lié à l’œuvre de justice, tel que les âges nous l’ont transmis, la femme avocat n’aura pas accès à votre barre ! »[viii]- As long as the Bar retains its rules and traditions which have always made it great and strong ; as long as it constitutes a corporation rightly jealous of its rights, prerogatives and independence ; as long as it forms this glorious order, indissolubly linked to the work of justice, as it has been handed down through the ages, the female lawyer will not have access to your bar!
Officially, there was no explicit legal provision preventing women from entering the bar and the judiciary, but in practice this was the tradition in almost all European countries. Only on the other side of the ocean in the United States, women were allowed to become a lawyer.[ix] Popelin and Frank's strategy was based on the argument that the Napoleonic statutes did not exclude women. It rejects the argument that the legal profession is a public service. Even if an attorney is a civil servant, no legal provision excludes women from public office. Another argument is the scope of the law of December 14th 1810 on the exercise of the legal profession. In order to be appointed to a chair, it was sufficient to have a law degree.[x] These arguments were rejected, the Court of Appeal answered with (only) extrajudicial arguments that women are not capable of practising the profession of lawyer, because of their natural weakness and the demands that motherhood have on them. According to the Court of Appeal, the evidence was such that an express, prohibition of unfitness to practice was only necessary to exclude women from the bar.[xi] A final argument used, was in reference to the inferiority of women (married women in particular), and the marital power in a marriage, which could be found al throughout Belgian civil law. To be clear, Popelin was not married. Despite the impertinence of the argument, the Court still relied on it on several occasions.[xii]
In the judgment of December 12th 1888, the Brussels Court of Appeal refused to allow Marie Popelin to take the oath before practicing the profession of lawyer. The Court's argument, largely derived from that of the Attorney General, would not hold today. Three ideas form the basis of the refutation of the legal argument for the non-existence of a text formally excluding women from the Bar:
- The tradition, which we do not hesitate to trace back to Roman law;
- The absence of the term woman in the law of 1810;
- And above all the spirit of civil law. Always the same reference to the sacred civil code in which the incompetence of women is considered the rule.[xiii]
The Court of Cassation
Despite this failure, Marie Popelin decided to continue the battle. The arguments of the Court of Appeal were mainly about the fate of a married woman. Represented by Émile de Mot, she filed three grounds of cassation in the Court of Cassation on 12 March 1889.[xiv]
Advocate General Bosch began his argumentation by saying that
« Dans tous les temps sous la loi romaine comme sous l'empire des coutumes du moyen âge, la profession d'avocat a été considérée comme un office viril, impliquant dans une mesure plus ou moins large la participation aux fonctions judiciaires, et, partant, non destinée aux femmes, non pas à raison de leur incapacité, mais à raison de leur mission sociale différente de celle des hommes et des exigences particulières de leur sexe … C'est une raison de pudeur ... pour seconde raison les ménagements que l'on doit avoir pour la complexion de ce sexe qui doit se réserver à des occupations plus douces et plus tranquilles. »[xv]- "At all times under Roman law as well as under the customs of the Middle Ages, the profession of lawyer has been considered as a manly office, involving to a greater or lesser extent participation in judicial functions, and, therefore, not intended for women, not because of their incapacity, but because of their different social mission from that of men and the particular requirements of their sex... This is a reason of modesty... the second reason is the consideration that must be given to the complexion of this sex, which must be reserved for gentler and quieter occupations. "
- The tradition in Roman law
- The meaning of the word “avocat” mentioned in the law of 14 December 1810 in its historical context (solely masculine)
- It must be legislation to grant women access to the bar, not the Court through case-law.[xvi]
What happened next?
The Popelin case gathered enormous media interest in Belgium and abroad. The case showed that education alone is not enough to erase gender inequality and that change is needed. Marie Popelin and Louis Frank, together with other leading activists such as Isala van Diest, Emile Vandervelde Henri La Fontaine and his sister Léonie La Fontaine, founded La Ligue du droit des Femmes.[xvii]
 |
| La ligue du droit des Femmes (source: UGent) |
 |
| Le Patriote Illustre |
 |
| Actes de Congrès Féministe International de Bruxelles 1897 (source: UGent) |
She was also the president of the National Council of Belgian Women, a supra-political organisation that aimed to bring together women of different political affiliations.[xx]
Emile Vandervelde, who was also one of the founding members of the League of Women's Rights, would later become one of the most important socialists in Belgium. On January 24th 1901, he made a first proposal on the issue, but it was rejected. In 1920, after much agitation from Catholic parties, he submitted the proposal that was to form the basis of the law of 7 April 1922 as Minister of Justice. This granted women the right to become a lawyer[xxi]
This means that Marie Popelin unfortunately never witnessed the admission of women to the bar, because she passed away in 1913.[xxii]
Legal framework
As already mentioned, the law of April 1922 paved the way for women to enter the legal profession. By imposing a proposal for the second time, Emile Vandervelde implemented the marital permission clause.[xxiii] This means that a married woman must obtain her husband's approval in writing in order to practice law. This provision is not new in Belgian law, since the Commercial Code already stipulated in article 9 that « la femme ne peut être marchande publique sans le consentement de son mari »[xxiv] - "a woman cannot be a public merchant without the consent of her husband". He knew that this was the only way to convince his opponents (namely the Catholics).[xxv]
 |
| Act of April 7th 1922 |
Marcelle Renson, born in Brussels in 1894, started lawschool at the ULB. However, because of the war, she had to finish her studies in Paris. As a member of the National Council of Belgian Women, she chaired the law commission. She became the first female lawyer in Belgium and was part of the bar in Brussels. In her career she worked a lot with Georgette Ciselet, who also played an important role in a later stage.[xxvi]
After the Second World War, Georgette Ciselet became the first female liberal senator in 1946 and increased the pressure on the Ministry of Justice. In 1947, women could be appointed as lawyers to the Court of Cassation[xxvii], the highest court in the Belgian legal system, but they still could not 'speak' the law. Tensions rose, especially when neighbouring countries started to allow female magistrates in the regular courtrooms.[xxviii] The Senate pointed out that it was too early to grant women access to the judiciary and stated in the last paragraph of article 1 of the 1922 law that « Les femmes avocats ne peuvent être appelées à suppléer les magistrats. » -"Female lawyers cannot be called upon to substitute for magistrates".[xxix]
The debate was therefore reopened. A powerful speech was given by the attorney general Delwaide before the Court of Appeal of Liège. The most striking passage is found in his conclusion:
“Pour me résumer, j’estime que, sauf de rares exceptions (et on ne légifère pas pour des exceptions), la femme convient moins bien que l’homme pour les fonctions judiciaires. Psychiquement, son tempérament est subjectif, émotif et primesautier ; elle manque donc de la sérénité nécessaire. Physiquement, ses forces sont moindres, et ses troubles périodiques et la ménopause, ainsi que son rôle normal de mère de famille, sont de graves empêchements dans une carrière qui nécessite des prestations régulières et absorbantes. Son introduction dans le personnel de la Justice ne peut qu’en diminuer le prestige ; il est, de plus, de nature à y amener des complications regrettables "[xxx]
– “To sum up, I believe that, with rare exceptions (and one does not legislate for exceptions), women are less suitable than men for judicial functions. Psychologically, her temperament is subjective, emotional and impulsive; she therefore lacks the necessary serenity. Physically, her strength is less, and her periodic disorders and menopause, as well as her normal role as a mother, are serious impediments in a career which requires regular and absorbing performance. Its introduction into the personnel of the Justice system can only diminish its prestige; it is, moreover, likely to bring about regrettable complications.”
 |
| Procureur général L. DELWAIDE, La femme magistrat ?, Mercuriale prononcée lors de l’audience solennelle de rentrée de la cour d’appel de Liège, 16 septembre 1946 |
Although the 1922 Act represented a step forward for women in the legal profession, this must be seen in perspective. Even if, as in the case of access for becoming a lawyer, there is again no specific legal provision prohibiting access to the judiciary. It feels like the clock is set back exactly fifty years, and here again, historical arguments and arguments about the nature of women are invoked.[xxxi]
In February 1948, the law giving women access to the judiciary was finally approved, once again with a marital permission clause.[xxxii] The marital permission was only abolished with the revision of the civil code. It took two proposals and a study commission on the real rights and duties of spouses to free women from the dependence of their husbands.[xxxiii]
The law of 30 April 1958 also gave women access to the profession of notary and completely abolished the incompetence of married women.[xxxiv]
The position of dutch-speaking women in Brussels today
This section will examine the current situation of women in the legal sector, particularly in Brussels. A division will be made between the profession of lawyer and the judiciary, other legal professions will not be mentioned. Only for the fact that of the 23 459 people working in the Belgian legal field, the trend of feminization continues with women taking up 54%.[xxxv]
Since 2013, The majority of the judiciary exists out of women. From the 177 female magistrates that were active in 1979, to the 575 in 1995 to 57% female magistrates in 2019 , we can say that the balance clearly shifted.[xxxvi]
 |
| Total of female magistrates in Belgium between 1961 and 2017 |
Compilation of numbers provided by A. Scheppers “De vrouw aan de Balie”; E. Schandelvyl “Geen recht op rechtspraak” and Justitie in cijfers 2015-2019
At the moment there are 241 dutch-speaking magistrates active in Brussels, from whom 37,1% are male and 62,9% are female.[xxxvii]
It is striking that the highest positions are still very male-dominant.[xxxviii] This is due to the fact that these positions are occupied by more experienced magistrates and are now occupied by the 'older generation', this implying male magistrates. It is expected that the feminization of the higher courts will continue in the future, with more women being appointed.[xxxix] This was also confirmed by the women I interviewed. It is also interesting to note that in 2019, Beatrijs Deconinck became the first ever female president of the Court of Cassation.[xl]
 |
| Beatrijs Deconinck |
https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2019/04/24/nieuwe-voorzitter-cassatie/
If we look at female lawyers, both Dutch and French speaking in Brussels, we can see that there was an increase over the years. In the French-speaking Brussels Bar, 47% of lawyers are female. The percentage of trainees is much higher, around 65%.[xli] We see a similar trend in the Dutch-speaking Bar. There is a similar male/female ratio of 60/40. Again, we find that more women start their traineeship. This percentage is approximately 57%, which is slightly lower than that of the French-speaking Bar. The secretary of the Dutch-speaking order made the same remark as I did when looking at the figures.
"Wat mij echter het meeste zorgen baart, is de omgekeerde man/vrouw verhouding bij de stagiairs aangezien in 2020 53,37% van de stagiairs vrouwen zijn. Die cijfers tonen dus aan dat hoewel de initiële instroom van vrouwelijke advocaten groter is dan die van mannelijke advocaten, meer vrouwen dan mannen de balie na de stage verlaten. Ik heb geen sluitend bewijs over de precieze oorzaken daarvan maar het dwingt m.i. in ieder geval tot nadenken over de vrouwvriendelijkheid aan de balie zowel qua werkomstandigheden als qua carrièreopportuniteiten."
- That being that it is striking that a large proportion of the women leave the counter early. We can deduce this from the fact that the average age of the men is higher than that of the women. We do not know exactly what the cause is, but it forces us to think about the friendliness of women at the counter, both in terms of working conditions and career opportunities.[xlii]
From the women I interviewed, I could conclude that there are indeed still some issues. One example is the high-work pressure, especially for lawyers. This is the reason why one of the judges that I interviewed, and many of her colleagues, chose to switch careers and join the judiciary. There is a clearer work schedule which makes the combination work-family is more manageable.
Another explanation came from a young lawyer, she told us that she and her husband both followed the SALDUZ-training to support people that are being questioned about offences and are possibly being detained. She noticed that both the alleged criminals, police officers and other actors in the process took her husband more seriously in several occasions.
I also asked them if there is or was a distinction between French and Dutch speaking colleagues. In the last 20 years most of the people working in the legal field in Brussels do not make a difference between the Dutch or French ‘label’, this is collected by the fact that everyone is (almost) perfectly bilingual in the legal field.
Conclusion
We can conclude that women and men like Marie Popelin, Emile Vandervelde, Marcelle Renson, Georgette Ciselet, and many others were of great importance for the battle of granting women access in the legal field. There is no denying there, but can we still speak of a Dutch-speaking female minority in Brussels? I think not. The differentiation between Dutch and French speakers is mostly reduced by the fact that almost everyone on the work floor is bilingual. This problem was probably more actual in the heat of the so called ‘taalstrijd’.
The bigger problem is the less women-friendly work environment. Despite the higher number of female employees in the legal profession, it is still concerning that so many women leave the bar at a younger age. Often this is because they cannot combine work-family life and that they are not taken as serious as men on some occasions. Sadly this is not reduced to the field of law, but it can be seen on several occasions in the daily life of our modern day society.
Is there still a remnant of the mindset on the different social mission for women, do we have to take action to change the situation, or will it just change overtime?
Saffron Dhaens
VUB 2021-2022
[i] K. WILS, "Science, an Ally of Feminism? Isabelle Gatti de Gamond on Women and Science", Revue belge de Philologie et d'Histoire 1999, afl. 77-2, 416- 439.
[ii] https://www.bestor.be/wiki_nl/index.php/Popelin,_Louise_(1850-1937)
[iii] A. SCHEPPERS, "De vrouw aan de Balie", RW 1894, afl. 29, 1937.
[iv] M. DE BROGNIEZ, "Le fabuleux destin de Marie Popelin et Jeanne Chauvin ou l'histoire de l'accès des femmes au barreau en droit belge", Rev.dr.ULg 2016, afl. 1, 192.
[v] F. DE BUEGER-VAN LIERDE, "A l'origine du mouvement féministe en Belgique. «L' Affaire Popelin»", Revue belge de Philologie et d'Histoire 1972, afl. 50(4), 1129.
[vi] J. CARLIER, "Mannen, mannelijkheid en vrouwenrechten in de Belgische belle époque", Tijdschrift voor genderstudies 2012, afl. 1, 8.
[vii] A. BOIGEOL, "Les femmes et les cours. La difficile mise en oeuvre de l'égalité des sexes dans l'accès à la magistrature", Genèses 1996, afl. 22, 108.
[viii] Conclusions du procureur général Van Schoor devant la Cour d’appel, Journal des tribunaux, 1888, col. 1465
[ix] F. DE BUEGER-VAN LIERDE, "A l'origine du mouvement féministe en Belgique. «L' Affaire Popelin»", Revue belge de Philologie et d'Histoire 1972, afl. 50(4), 1129.
[x] F. DE BUEGER-VAN LIERDE, "A l'origine du mouvement féministe en Belgique. «L' Affaire Popelin»", Revue belge de Philologie et d'Histoire 1972, afl. 50(4), 1130.
[xi] I. RORIVE, "Lutter contre les discriminations" in C. BRICTEUX en B. FRYDMAN (eds.), Grand défis du droit global, Bruxelles, Larcier, 2018, (30) 34.
[xii] F. DE BUEGER-VAN LIERDE, "A l'origine du mouvement féministe en Belgique. «L' Affaire Popelin»", Revue belge de Philologie et d'Histoire 1972, afl. 50(4), 1131-1132.
[xiii] J. NANDRIN, La femme avocate : le long combat des féministes belges (1882-1922) In: Hommes et normes : Enjeux et débats du métier d'un historien, Bruxelles, Presses de l’Université Saint-Louis, 2016, 497-509.
[xiv] F. DE BUEGER-VAN LIERDE, "A l'origine du mouvement féministe en Belgique. «L' Affaire Popelin»", Revue belge de Philologie et d'Histoire 1972, afl. 50(4), 1135.
[xv] Bruxelles, 11 novembre 1889, Pas., 1889, I, p. 10
[xvi] Bruxelles, 11 novembre 1889, Pas., 1889, I, p. 15.; F. DE BUEGER-VAN LIERDE, "A l'origine du mouvement féministe en Belgique. «L' Affaire Popelin»", Revue belge de Philologie et d'Histoire 1972, afl. 50(4), 1136.
[xvii] E. SCHANDEVYL, "Geen recht op rechtspraak" in D. DE RUYSSCHER, P. DE HERT en M. DE METSENAERE (eds.), Liber amicorum Michel Magits, Mechelen, Kluwer, 2012, 570.
[xviii] J. CARLIER en C. JAQUES, "Popelin, Marie (1846- 1913) and the Belgian League for Women's Rights", The international Encyclopedia of Revolution and Protest 2009, 1.
[xix] E. GUBIN, V. PIETTE en C. JACQUES, "Les Féminismes Belges et Français de 1830 à 1914 Une Approche Comparée.", Le Mouvement Social 1997, afl. 178, 54.
[xx] E. GUBIN, "Du politique au politique. Parcours du féminisme belge (1830-1914)", Revue belge de Philologie et d'Histoire 1999, afl. 77(2), 372, 379.
[xxi] E. SCHANDEVYL, "Geen recht op rechtspraak" in D. DE RUYSSCHER, P. DE HERT en M. DE METSENAERE (eds.), Liber amicorum Michel Magits, Mechelen, Kluwer, 2012, 571
[xxii] J. CARLIER en C. JAQUES, "Popelin, Marie (1846-1913) and the Belgian League for Women's Rights" in I. NESS, The international Encyclopedia of Revolution and Protest, 2009, 2722.
[xxiii] Art. 2 Loi du 7 avril 1922 permettant aux femmes munies du diplôme de docteur en droit de prêter le serment d'avocat et d'exercer cette profession, M.B., 21 avril 1922, Pasin., 1922, 65.
[xxiv] Art. 9 Code de Commerce, révisé 1884
[xxv] E. SCHANDEVYL, "Geen recht op rechtspraak" in D. DE RUYSSCHER, P. DE HERT en M. DE METSENAERE (eds.), Liber amicorum Michel Magits, Mechelen, Kluwer, 2012, 568.
[xxvi] S. VAN ROKEGHEM, J. VERCHEVAL-VERVOORT en J. AUBENAS, Des Femmes dans l'Histoire en Belgique, depuis 1830, Bruxelles, Luc Pire Editions, 2006, 116.
[xxvii] Loi du 7 mai 1947 autorisant la femme à exercer les fonctions d'avocat à la cour de cassation, M.B., 24 mai 1947, Pasin. 1947 nr. I, 342.
[xxviii] E. SCHANDEVYL, "Geen recht op rechtspraak" in D. DE RUYSSCHER, P. DE HERT en M. DE METSENAERE (eds.), Liber amicorum Michel Magits, Mechelen, Kluwer, 2012, 574.
[xxix] RAPPORT DE LA COMMISSION DE LA CHAMBRE DES REPRSENTANTS de Loi du 7 avril 1922 permettant aux femmes munies du diplôme de docteur en droit de prêter le serment d'avocat et d'exercer cette profession, M.B., 21 avril 1922, Pasin., 1922, 75.
[xxx] Procureur général L. DELWAIDE, La femme magistrat ?, Mercuriale prononcée lors de l’audience solennelle de rentrée de la cour d’appel de Liège, 16 septembre 1946, 27.
[xxxi] M. DE BROGNIEZ, "Le fabuleux destin de Marie Popelin et Jeanne Chauvin ou l'histoire de l'accès des femmes au barreau en droit belge", Rev.dr.ULg 2016, afl. 1, 206-207.
[xxxii] Loi du 21 février 1948 sur autorisant l'accès des femmes à la magistrature, M.B., 5 mars 1948, Pasin 1948 nr. I, 100.
[xxxiii] E. SCHANDEVYL, "Geen recht op rechtspraak" in D. DE RUYSSCHER, P. DE HERT en M. DE METSENAERE (eds.), Liber amicorum Michel Magits, Mechelen, Kluwer, 2012, 576.
[xxxiv] Loi du 30 avril 1958 relative aux droits et devoirs respectifs des époux, M.B., 10 mai 1958, Pasin 1958, 562.; E. SCHANDEVYL, "Geen recht op rechtspraak" in D. DE RUYSSCHER, P. DE HERT en M. DE METSENAERE (eds.), Liber amicorum Michel Magits, Mechelen, Kluwer, 2012, 576.
[xxxv] https://justitie.belgium.be/nl/nieuws/persberichten/justitie_in_cijfers_2016_2020
[xxxvi] E. SCHANDEVYL, "Geen recht op rechtspraak" in D. DE RUYSSCHER, P. DE HERT en M. DE METSENAERE (eds.), Liber amicorum Michel Magits, Mechelen, Kluwer, 2012, 576.; Justitie in cijfers 2015-2019, 19; Justitie in cijfers 2015-2019, 19
[xxxvii] Mail advisor BONTE Thomas FOD Justitie, 24 maart 2022
[xxxviii] E. SCHANDEVYL, "Geen recht op rechtspraak" in X (ed.), Liber amicorum Michel Magits, Mechelen, Kluwer, 2012, 578.
[xxxix] Justice en chiffres 2015-2019, 20.
[xl] H. GOEGEBEUR, D. De Graaf, “Eerste vrouwelijke hoogste rechter van België: Beatrijs Deconinck is nieuwe voorzitter Hof van Cassatie”, VRTNWS, 26 april 2019. https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2019/04/24/nieuwe-voorzitter-cassatie/
[xli] M. FORGES, Rapport du Barreau Bruxelles 2018-2020, 39.
[xlii] V. FONKE, Verslag van de Secretaris van de Raad van de Orde, 16 juin 2020.
Comments
Post a Comment