How did a Scientology-linked campaign secure a stand at a Brussels-funded festival?

The distinction between funding the festival and approving every exhibitor matters. According to the office of City of Brussels culture alderwoman Nawal Ben Hamou, as quoted by RTBF and BRUZZ, Scientology’s presence did not form part of the project submitted to the municipality. The office said permission to occupy Place de la Monnaie would not have been granted had the stand disclosed that identity. The incident is due to be considered in the City’s evaluation of the 2026 festival.

That means the available evidence does not show that the Ville de Bruxelles knowingly subsidised Scientology. It shows that a municipally supported organiser failed to identify the institutional affiliation of one participant. It remains unclear what documents the stall submitted, whether any written exhibitor agreement was used, and whether future funding will be affected.

Green municipal councillor Lotte Stoops intends to raise the matter in the Conseil communal or gemeenteraad, BRUZZ reported. She also told RTBF that Scientology-linked representatives had appeared at least twice at the Afrodisiac Festival in the Bois de la Cambre or Ter Kamerenbos. Those reported appearances reinforce the governance question: should publicly supported events require every stallholder to disclose parent bodies, sponsors and campaign affiliations?

This is not the first time Belgian authorities have examined Scientology’s use of organisations associated with apparently separate social causes. In its 2011 annual report, the State Security Service identified “Oui à la Vie, Non à la Drogue” as one of the entities connected to Scientology and described it as working in drug prevention. The same report discussed other affiliated initiatives concerned with human rights, humanitarian work and personal development.

That historical record does not establish that every leaflet distributed at Percusounds was unlawful or medically inaccurate. Nor does an organisation’s controversial reputation remove its rights to expression, religion and association. Belgian law focuses on harmful or illegal conduct rather than treating an unconventional belief, by itself, as an offence.

The legal history also demands precision. Scientology is not one of Belgium’s officially recognised religions, but “not recognised” does not mean “banned”. A long-running Belgian prosecution ended in 2016 without convictions after the Brussels court ruled the proceedings inadmissible. The outcome was procedural and should not be represented either as a conviction or as judicial approval of all Scientology practices.

Belgium established CIAOSN by federal law in 1998 after a parliamentary inquiry. The centre studies potentially harmful sectarian organisations, maintains a public documentation service and directs people towards appropriate assistance. The State Security Service’s legal definition, meanwhile, concerns religious or philosophical groups whose organisation or practices cause harm, engage in damaging illegality or violate human dignity; officials assess conduct against several indicators rather than applying a simple blacklist.

Start by looking beyond the stall’s trading name. Check its website footer, privacy notice, company or ASBL number, sponsors and links to a parent foundation. Belgian legal entities can be searched in French or Dutch through the Banque-Carrefour des Entreprises or Kruispuntbank van Ondernemingen. A campaign may be entirely lawful while still presenting information from a religious, commercial or ideological perspective that visitors would reasonably want disclosed.

For questions about possible sectarian influence, contact CIAOSN/IACSSO through ciaosn.be; its public documentation centre is at Rue Haute 139/Hoogstraat 139 in 1000 Brussels and works in Belgium’s institutional language context. French-speaking residents may use CIAOSN, while Dutch-language searches should use IACSSO. The service provides information rather than automatically declaring every unfamiliar group harmful. Suspected fraud or another offence should instead be reported through the appropriate police or consumer-protection channel; immediate danger belongs with emergency services.

For organisers, the useful response is procedural: require the legal name and enterprise number of each exhibitor, record sponsors and parent organisations, check public-facing material before issuing accreditation, and make neutrality rules explicit in both French and Dutch where the audience requires it. Volunteers should have one named person to escalate doubts to during the event.

Percusounds plans to seek new local and regional funding in October, according to BRUZZ. The City’s evaluation and any debate in the municipal council should show whether the lapse produces tighter conditions. Until then, the central unanswered question is not whether the stall existed—it did—but how a recurring, publicly documented affiliation escaped scrutiny at a festival that says it does not admit religious or philosophical campaigning.