(h/t Exile): Wall Street Journal today is running a piece by Daniel Schwammenthal on the banning of the S.I.O.E demonstration. In it, Schwammenthal interviews Mayor Freddy. (the WSJ article is behind a subscriber only wall, but more snips are available from Brussels Journal

Yet you don’t have to sympathize with the speakers to believe in free speech. Beyond that, banning the protest partly out of fear of violent reactions from Muslims would seem to bolster the protesters’ point. If Muslim radicals decide the level of debate about Islam in Europe, doesn’t it show that “Islamization,” the erosion of traditional European liberties, is a reality? Mr. Thielemans did not address that irony. He said instead that he’s not only worried about Muslims reacting violently to a SIOE march. “A number of democrats announced that they’d react too,” he said, along with “NGOs that are in favor of peace and integration.” It’s difficult to see how people who threaten to disrupt a demonstration can be called “democrats” or “in favor of peace.” Pressed on the point that the organizers should not be limited in their democratic rights due to what their opponents might do, Mr. Thielemans eventually agreed. In fact, if the counterprotesters were his only worry, he said, he’d probably let the demonstration go ahead. What really concerns him, the mayor said, is the possibility of violent racists infiltrating the protest, mingling among peaceful demonstrators and provoking and attacking foreigners. The mayor says that police have discovered extremist Web sites calling on their followers to join the protest and cause trouble.

Unfortunately, many demonstrations contain the possibility of turning violent and some in the end do so. It is the job of the police to nip such violence in the bud and arrest troublemakers. The pre-emptive strike of banning the entire protest seems justified only if the threat to public safety is significant.

“NGOs” in favor of “peace and integration”? NGOs like the Antifa which the Gates of Vienna has documented so well? Essentially, Mayor Thielemans is admitting here that it is the organizers of the demonstration he has banned who are the only ones who have steadfastly abjured violence. The violent leftist “NGOs for Peace and Integration” have threatened violence, Islamist activists are a risk for violence, and racist fascists would have to “infiltrate” (an indication that they are not welcome by the demonstration’s supporters) to cause trouble, but they could be violent. It is only the demonstration he has banned that has said racism is stupid, that those who attempt to disrupt the demonstrations peaceful message will be pointed out by wardens and turned over to police, and has worked with Belgian law enforcement to insure safety.
The WSJ piece closes with the hopes that Belgium’s high court will recognize that free speech can not be held hostage by those who would use violence to prevent it. We hope so too.

Update: From SIAD Blog:

Today, Dr. Ulfkotte Sioe’s representative met with lawyer Senator Hugo Coveliers, of the Raad van State (Council of State) the only Belgian institution that can annul Mayor Thieleman’s ban on the SIOE demonstration.

The meeting got underway at 12.00 today, Tuesday 28th August.

SIOE has appealed about Mayor Thielemans’s decision and has received help from Belgium’s most respected lawyer, Senator Hugo Coveliers, who has taken up the case in the Raad van State.

Senator Hugo Coveliers expects an 80% chance that the Raad van State will support SIOE and declare Thielemans’s prohibition illegal.

SIAD promises updates as soon as they become available so check back from time to time to find out the latest.

Update: SIOE Blog says, “No Decision”:

Belgium has three official languages, Flemish (Dutch), French and German.The SIOE appeal against Brussels Mayor Thielemans’s ban of the 11th September demonstration, Stop Islamisation Of Europe was presented to a Dutch speaking court.

Senator Hugo Coveliers outlined SIOE’s reasons for having the outrageous ban overturned and arrived at an outrageous decision.

Or more accurately, a non-decision.

After listening to the case for two hours those in judgement smiled and said something along the lines of “This is not a matter for us, take it to a French speaking court”.

They also suggested that Udo Ulfkotte could not possibly represent 20,000 demonstrators and that perhaps it would be necessary for each of the 20,000 persons to attend a hearing separately!

Some buck passing by the Dutch speaking court. Stay tuned.