You are here

Those tolerant, worldly-wise Europeans ...

are continuing to reinvent the people’s democracy: Belgium declares major political party a criminal organization because it’s not PC enough. Meawhile, the English vindicate their reputation for free speech, fair play and proper conduct by throwing trash and threatening with imprisonment the head of a major party of another European state, because he might say something that upsets people.



The issue at hand in Belgium is considerably more complex than Stephen Pollard makes it out to be.

In fact, as far as I can see, he seems to have taken most of his article almost verbatim from the party in question’s own website at

Some clarifications: the party isn’t banned, it’s three organisations that surrounded the party between (I think) 1997 and 2001. Those organizations were not banned because they weren’t PC enough, they were banned because they manifestly, openly and repeatedly violated the law.

Stephen Pollard has closed the comment facility and removed the comments from the two entries he posted on the issue, by the way.

Yay for free debate! :)

Mr. Vuijlsteke writes, in his log entry of 26 April (“Goeie help”):

“Het hangt het er natuurlijk van af wat ‘conservatief’ is. Zeker sinds 1987 heeft dat woord bij ons een negatieve connotatie, waardoor geen enkele partije zichzelf nog conservatief noemt, maar dat wil niet zeggen dat er geen conservatieve partijen meer zijn. Voor mij persoonlijk, en zonder negatief oordeel overigens, zijn CD&V-NVA en VLD conservatieve partijen.” ( )

What happened in Belgium in 1987 that created this situation where “no party is willing to call itself conservative”?

When the Vlaams Blok had its first major electoral success, the other political parties fell over themselves condeming them and *all* they stood for.

The Flemish to the North are somewhat more “conservative” (traditionally the Christian Democrats are the largest party) than the Walloons to the South (with a Social Democrat majority), and when you realise about six governments need to be formed at various state and federal levels, you can see there’s quite some room for political games here.

So the moment any party (especially a Flemish party) dares to say there’s some merit to any of the VB’s positions, other parties (espeically the Walloons) tend to jump up and accuse them of either padering to the VB or to their voters.

Which means that for years now it has been impossible to have a serious debate about things like crime, immigration, and the relation between the two.

Oh yes, about Islam: just as with the Bible, you can find justification for just about anything anything in there—especially if you interpret those documents both over a thousand years old, with today’s sensibilities.

Just like the US it’s inciting hatred/violence that’s forbidden in Belgium, which obviously has freedom of religion and expression just like the US has.

If the law we have is a safeguard against hate crime, against church burning, against violence against abortion activists or doctors, then that’s a price I’m more than willing to pay.

Another thing: I live in Fladers, roughly spoken the northern half of Belgium. There are six million inhabitants in Flanders. We have at least six independent high-quality newspapers, with political opinions ranging from left to right. We have TV stations from perhaps ten different countries. I’d be very hard pressed to find someone who doesn’t speak at least three languages.

All that is a far greater guarantee for free speech and freedom of opinion than any law could ever give you.

[erm, sorry about this, meant to react to a different site, so feel free to delete. The other site is —]

Is it really the existence (until now) of one political party that has suppressed discussion of immigration in Belgium? Here in America we don’t have any discussion of immigration either. Also, since people in Belgium speak all those languages and watch TV from 10 countries it’s not clear why fear and hatred of Vlaams Blok would be so decisive. If it was just that one contingent factor that suppressed discussion in Belgium, why wouldn’t the discussion be going on in neighboring countries, which have the same immigration situation as Belgium but no Vlaams Bloc, and so be immediately available to the Belgians?

“The Fulford File,” James Fulford’s semi-regular feature at , also has an extremely interesting discussion of this affair today:

What happened in Belgium is very, very serious — assuming the accounts of it which we’ve been getting have been accurate. The other side — the left — appears simply unable to grasp the concept of allowing free expression of ideas (they who are constantly yapping about “tolerance”!). One can only wonder in drop-jawed astonishment what they can possibly think of the word “totalitarian.” What must be their concept of that word’s meaning?

The left just dumbly pushes, and pushes, and pushes…

Why the Vlaams Blok party in Belgium is it condemned to be disbanded and will (for the next five years) all of their actual members be forbidden to be re-elected again? Is it secession or racism?
In a normal country, I suppose most left-wingers would like to abolish their local far right European party, but in Belgium there is the additional unison support of 38% French-speakers for that project, because these people get each year between 5,2 billion to maximum 11 billion (according to the source) Euro of financial transfers under circumstances that are shrouded in mystery and deceit

Mr. Van Beek’s letter is a stark reminder of exactly how unacceptable is that which has just happened in Belgium, a great country (yes, make no mistake: though small, Belgium is great, with a great history, greater even than most Belgians themselves appreciate — and it happens to be a very important country in today’s Europe): the leftists, as they themselves freely, brazenly admit, went from judge to judge with their complaint until they found one willing to outlaw a legitimate political party, one with significant parliamentary representation. This is very grave — far graver than the Pim Fortuyn assassination, grave as that was.

If I know Flanders and the Flemings — and I think I do — this complete and utter outrage will not be taken lying down and those on the left who thought they were so clever to have pulled it off will end up the losers. But that doesn’t change the fact that there is lots of very tough slogging ahead for Flemish patriots.

As for “racism,” it’s not “racist” to wish to preserve one’s race, language, and ethnoculture from deliberately-planned extinction at the hands of ethnic, political, or religious enemies or uncaring, uneducated, uncultivated, rootless, and often criminal (in both the moral AND legal senses) capitalists. If it’s “racist” to wish that, then the word “racist” is meaningless — exactly as is most of the left’s other claptrap.

The Belgian royal family are French speakers among themselves, I believe, so the possibility of their principled intervention in this disastrous affair is probably too much to hope for. In a story that deserves to be far better known (it’s little known even in Belgium), Baldwin, the late king, once refused to sign a bill legalizing abortion, indicating he was prepared to abdicate the throne if necessary but he could not in good conscience approve of abortion. This was one of the greatest gestures of any European monarch of the past few centuries, yet such were Baldwin’s integrity and dignity that it was completely without fanfare of any kind. His little brother Albert, who sits on the throne now, is not quite up to Baldwin’s standard, I don’t believe.

Might I ask Mr. Vuijlsteke and Mr. Van Beek — and any other Flemings, or any Walloons or Eastern Canton Belgian Germans, who may read this — if the possibility of prosecution in Belgium for “hate speech” or “incitement to racial hatred” keeps them from expressing themselves fully in any way, here at this web-site? (If it does, they must of course know about using pen names for posting comments at forums such as this one.) (Mr. Vuijlsteke wrote, for example, that “…for years now it has been impossible to have a serious debate [in Belgium] about things like crime, immigration, and the relation between the two.”)

Looking on for articles about King Baldwin’s refusal to sign a bill legalizing abortion in Catholic Belgium — a bill which the Belgian parliament had already passed, which the King was strictly obligated also to sign, as a formality — I could find only the three completely inadequate references below. Baldwin’s absolutely firm refusal to sign the bill — a refusal based on his unshakable belief that abortion was murder of the unborn — had the potential to create an extremely serious parliamentary, governmental, and royal crisis. Not signing meant the shocking; meant the unthinkable; meant the unprecedented: he would have to abdicate his throne. Understanding full well the stark implication of his stance, he indicated unhesitatingly his intention to do exactly that — he solemnly indicated he would give up the throne and not sign the bill. When they saw their King absolutely would not budge, half-frantic ministers, royal advisers, legal experts, and government officials finally concocted a way based on some very obscure loophole or other in some statute or tradition or whatever, by means of which the King could both avoid signing the bill and not have to abdicate the throne. This principled stand on protection of the unborn which was taken calmly, quietly, and without fanfare by King Baldwin was in my opinion the greatest, noblest gesture of any European monarch certainly in the 20th century and I’d say in the past few centuries. That almost no one knows it happened is something that should be rectified: all the world remembers how King Edward volunteered to give up his throne in order to marry twice-divorced fortune-hunting commoner Wallis Simpson, but the gesture of the king who volunteered to give up his throne in order to defend the lives of the unborn is consigned to oblivion. Below are the only references to this great gesture of a great, noble Catholic king that I could find on google:

16. We may call to mind the poignant gesture of King Beaudoin, who chose to lay down his crown rather than sign the law of his country’s parliament concerning abortion[…].

[Scroll all the way down — it’s the last footnote at the bottom of a very long page.]


Wikipedia has an English-language summary of the life of Baldwin/Baudouin/Boudewijn, including this incident:

[If I may, here’s my paraphrase of Mr. Van Beek’s interesting letter, above, with some of the English smoothened out a bit and a bracketed footnote by me at the end:]

Why has the Belgian “Vlaams Blok” party been condemned to be disbanded and its present members of parliament forbidden to be re-elected to office for the next five years? Is it because it supports either racism or the secession of Flanders from Belgium?

I’d suppose that in the typical European country most left-wingers would like to abolish the country’s “party of the European far right.” Belgium is no exception. Furthermore, in Belgium the project of abolishing what is considered Belgium’s “party of the European far right” has the unanimous support of the French speakers, who make up 38% of Belgium’s population — and the reason it has their unanimous support is the French speakers receive between 5.2 billion and 11 billion euros a year in transfer payments (according to sources) under circumstances that are shrouded in mystery and deceit

This is the “loophole” by which abortifacient politicians got around the crown:

“He was a very religious man. In 1990, when a law liberalising Belgium’s abortion laws was approved by parliament, he refused to give his signature so that the bill could become law — an unprecedented act in Belgium, as the royal signature has always been considered a mere formality. The government had to declare him unable to reign on April 4, 1990. The Belgian constitution provides that, if the king is incapable to reign, the government as a whole will fulfil the role of head of state. All members of the government signed the bill, and the government declared that Baudouin was capable of reigning again the next day, on April 5, 1990.”

—from the Wikipedia entry that should have been linked in the above post:

Tell me again why we’re supposed to export democracy…

I was wrong about there being a dearth of articles about the affair on Google — turns out I was spelling both the Dutch and French versions of his name wrong in trying to google the story. (Many thanks to Reg C

At the beginning of the thread Mr. Vuijlsteke wrote,

“Some clarifications: the party isn’t banned, it’s three organisations that surrounded the party between (I think) 1997 and 2001. Those organizations were not banned because they weren’t PC enough, they were banned because they manifestly, openly and repeatedly violated the law.”
In a forum at Mr. Vuijlsteke adds (in two separate posts of April 27: 01:43 AM and 03:19 AM; scroll down just a bit),

“The three organisations are the Nationalistische Omroepstichting, the Nationalistische Vormingsinstituut and the Vlaamse Concentratie. They violated article 3 of the 30 July 1981 law against racism and xenophonbic acts. The law they violated in short (relevant article 3 translated more or less in full):

“art. 1. You can’t incite discrimination, hate or violence of a person or group of person because of their ‘race’ (the law says ‘so-called race’), skin colour, national or ethnic origin.

“art. 2-2bis. You can’t discriminate because of ‘race,’ skin colour or origin when providing a service or in a professional context (job negotiations, training, hiring, firing, …).

“art. 3. Members of groups or associations that manifestly and repeatedly practice or preach discrimination or segregation, or people who aid and abet such groups or organisations, will be punished by imprisonment of no less than a month and no more than a year and/or will be fined no less than 50 franks and no more than 100 franks.

“art 4-5. More or less the same as art. 3, for civil servants for associations.”

Such laws, especially if interpreted the least bit broadly or loosely, inevitably spell the iron-fisted suppression of free expression relating to the things known as “races,” “ethnicities,” “nations,” “cultures,” and even “societies.” This much, at least, should be clear. Getting back to Mr. Vuijlsteke’s comment that “Those organizations were not banned because they weren’t PC enough, they were banned because they manifestly, openly and repeatedly violated the law”: given the wording of the law in question (a law whose biased spirit is revealed most glaringly, perhaps, in its placing of the word race in quotation marks?), how do we know in any given case that violation of it on the one hand, and merely “not being PC enough” on the other, aren’t one and the same?

Unfortunately, the statute doesn’t include religion. If it did, then Islam itself would be in violation of it.

Mr. Unadorned asks me whether or not there is self-censorship when I write my comments here and whether or not I write under my true name and if so why I don

Mr. Van Beek’s comment speaks for itself regarding free discussion of certain issues in Belgium:

“First you should know that, unlike the situation in Britain, in Belgium (because of the thought police of the ‘Agency for Equal Rights’) comments are first read by the [newspaper’s] editorial staff and only those that are [politically] approved are ‘published.’ Fortunately for me I have a good reputation so that 90% of my letters are published. There is confidence because [they’ve come to] expect me to write arguments with a sound foundation. I also take care not to accept any public function, so that I am not perceived by the thought police as

To note : a visit of the Belgian

We haven’t heard about the Sheriff of Temse over here in The States. What happened to him?

Now he (head of the local police is named in Belgium

More bad news from Belgium. Read today in the daily

For anyone who’s been following this “Vlaams Blok” outrage in Belgium but hasn’t seen the following two web pages, they’re worth a perusal: , .

I wonder if Mr. Van Beek sees any light at the end of the tunnel in all this, or is “anti-racism” an invincible force which spells the eventual destruction of Europe’s races, ethnicities, cultures, and nations? If “anti-racism” does not spell the ultimate destruction of all these things, what is it that will come along and save them from “anti-racism’s” constant attacks against them?

My faith in our good Lord Jesus Christ and my regular reading of the Bible gives me hope that the Evil and His lackeys won

Mr. Van Beek writes,

“Mind you, I would rather prefer doing other things!”

So would we all, Mr. Van Beek! But we feel so much outrage at what we see going on around us that we cannot keep silent.

“And because I don

Just fo rthe record, the website which is mentioned earlier is a site made by the Vlaams Blok, so I would not really call it unbiased…

Gijs, where do we go nowadays for news that’s guaranteed to be without bias? Do mainstream news organizations in Belgium necessarily report the goings-on relating to the Vlaams Blok in an unbiased manner? I would think the Vlaams Blok’s own web-site would be *one of* the first sources to consult for those wishing to put together as complete a picture as possible of what was just done to them by that biased French-speaking judge in Ghent.

Why is the Vlaams Blok “republican”? (Do they intend to arm every Fleming?) Nearly all the other stable, homogenous/homogeneous nations of northern Europe are monarchic. Is the present King alien to Flemings? Then why not elect another, as did Norwegians?

Is the Vlaams Blok website biased? I will give you a little point of reference.

See at: (I can send you the full text in Dutch by email — for those who don