“We no longer want to be confronted with opinions we don’t like."

On Friday 20th September, the Free University of Brussels (VUB) will gather at the Royal Circus for the Celebration of the Open Mind. This event marks the start of the academic year, celebrating the core values that the university steadfastly supports: critical thinking, freedom of expression, self-determination, solidarity, and community. The programme boasts an impressive line-up of guest speakers, each sharing their reflections on what free thought means to them, either through short speeches or performances. One of the confirmed speakers is Tom De Cock, a well-known radio host, television presenter, and writer, who recently stirred up controversy with a fiery opinion piece regarding the Pope’s visit.

What does ‘open mind’ mean to you?

“The absence of fear, inhibitions, prejudice, dogma, or censorship... It’s the ability to speak and act according to one’s own understanding. But true freedom of thought requires a lot of conditions to be fulfilled.”

Was your upbringing a hindrance or an encouragement to think critically and express yourself freely?

“I learned to speak up at home. My parents were intellectual people who wanted to raise their daughter and son in an open environment. They were incredibly busy with the bakery, but Wednesday lunchtime was sacred. What started as a casual chat about school would often flow into a heated debate about the socialists, climate change, or colonialism. By dinner, we were still at it. Even on our annual family weekends in the Ardennes, it’s the same. My husband and my sister’s husband look on with either open mouths or fearful eyes. We stop just short of throwing crockery, but we always part in peace.”

Have you ever held back from expressing yourself due to self-censorship or external pressure?

“No way. I fully expected my open letter about the Pope’s visit to spark negative reactions and the inevitable death threats. What surprised me was that I was the only one speaking up. Afterwards, many people sent me personal messages saying they were glad someone had the guts to speak out. Some of them were academics, which I found odd. They hold secure positions and are expected to think critically and voice their opinions. So why don’t they speak out publicly?”

"We no longer accept that free expression is 'messy'. It will always be messy, dirty, and imperfect—just like democracy itself."

Should people be able to demand, for religious reasons, that certain things aren’t said?

“You can demand it, but I wouldn’t dream of giving in. Everyone has the right to choose and incorporate a religion into their life, but keep it private and don’t restrict other people’s freedoms with it. A strict separation between church and state is essential to protect democracy and individual freedom. Religion belongs at home.”

Should anyone’s ability to express themselves be denied because of their opinions?

“No! I find what Herman Brusselmans wrote to be absurd and disgusting, but the fact that he wrote it should be perfectly fine. If we silence him, you or I might be next. It’s outrageous that his column was removed from the internet, as it prevents proper analysis and public debate.”

Is freedom of expression under threat? What do you see as the greatest danger?

“We no longer accept that free expression is ‘messy’. It’s always going to be messy, dirty, and imperfect—just like democracy itself. Democracy is a constant discussion between conflicting opinions, resulting in an ugly compromise. But at least we don’t have to bash each other’s heads in. If you don’t accept this, you end up with the American situation: two camps that can’t even celebrate Christmas together anymore, refusing to listen to each other. That’s probably the greatest threat to freedom of expression—that we no longer want to be confronted with opinions we find uncomfortable.”