Earlier…

1. Facts Part 1: Intro: The Counterjihad Brussels 2007 Conference

2. Facts Part 2: Belgium: Filip Dewinter and Vlaams Belang (audio and print interviews) and country report, to provide specific background to the Flemish Independence movement and the history of the party, as well as its current policies and actions.

3. Facts Part 3: Belgium: 3 Cases in Orwellian Justice

Today:

4. Facts Part 4: Belgium: Evidence refuting allegations relating to “White Power” flags and “Vlaams Belang flags”

A well-read U.S. blog has stated the following about Vlaams Belang, showing the photo below:

“Exhibit 2: a White Power flag at a Vlaams Belang rally this month. The other flags are Vlaams Belang.”

European commenters at The Brussels Journal and Gates of Vienna researched this statement and found that the photo in fact comes from another group’s rally.

First, the comment in entirety from Brussels Journal (we delayed posting this because I could not replicate his information on the picture file metadata - clearly beyond my tech specs):

The picture might have been

Submitted by Emigrantus on Sat, :49.

According to metadata saved in the picture, it has been taken on July 10th 2006. More specifically, I think it was taken in Bruges and that it’s related to these guys:

Then, another European commenter at Gates of Vienna was able to validate this information and provide further analysis:

Cincinnatus said:

[…] one of their key “evidence” is that photo of a “white power” flag at a “Vlaams Belang rally”, the top picture of
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=27674_About_Vlaams_Belang_and_Sweden_Democrats&only
Odd that they can’t identify it better. Well, I can. This rally is actually a VJW (Youth of West Flanders) rally in Brugge, a town of 120,000 in the West of Flanders. See the 5th picture of
http://nieuw-solidarisme.blogspot.com/2007_07_01_archive.html ,
on which you can see the same background (red umbrellas below a green awning) as in the LGF picture. Note at the top of the page the flag-in-a-circle — it is the same “white power” flag […]

[…] VJW is a repulsive mix of nationalism, socialism, anti-Israel and anti-USA (lots of burning USA flags), but mostly, as far as I can see, it is a bunch of twenty-eens who haven’t outgrown the leftist education which was pumped into them in high school. Still, their pages have moments of high comedy, see (seriously, don’t miss this one) the excellent comic of Asterix halfway down the page of
http://nieuw-solidarisme.blogspot.com/2007_06_01_archive.html

An important point is that the VJW is no fan of the Vlaams Belang! See, for example, the 14 January 2007 entry on
http://nieuw-solidarisme.blogspot.com/2007_01_01_archive.html
which reads “Vlaams Belang wants to recruit new Flemings” and states that Vlaams Belang is recruiting among the Muslims!! This is much to VJW’s disapproval. Actually, I think the article is nutty (as VJW is nutty), but it is difficult for me to read. Maybe a Belgian can give the full sense, but the article concludes (sarcastically), “We wish the Vlaams Belang much success with their open door politics”.

Update: November 2, 2007

Also from Cincinnatus, commenting at Gates of Vienna:

Just to clarify, that festival at Brugge seen on
http://nieuw-solidarisme.blogspot.com/2007_07_01_archive.html
is not a VJW rally, but an annual holiday celebration at which a few (unwanted) VJW-ers appeared. The pictures focus on their flagholder. Their text reads:

“As in every year, to the annoyance of many, VJW participated in the Flemish holiday… of 11 July. Surely 25 VJW members were present. (My note: usage of this phrase indicates there were in fact less than 25). Was it a bad thing that VJW was seen with (Flemish) lion flags? The attending VJW-ers were quickly noticed by the police there. The scowls from the uniformed (police) side eventually settled down. Was our presence so unappreciated? By the police, certainly. You call that tolerance? There is none for our VJW flag. They forbade it. Other people were very glad to see us there. Well! Their intimidation didn’t work. As if we would abandon the memorial? They told us we could display just one flag. So, 25 VJW-ers, armed with just one little flag, participated in the laying of the wreath on the war memorial. Afterwards we returned to the town centre along with everyone else. But what we hadn’t anticipated was that the police accompanied us, in a march-stepping manner. What were they expecting, anyway? A revolution? We hope the police remember that VJW always stands for law and order. Free Flanders!”

*******************************

In summary:

The photo does not show a Vlaams Belang rally. Therefore, the association of Vlaams Belang with the white power flag is not factual.

Coming Up:
5. Facts Part 5: Sweden: Evidence on policy positions concerning Israel, antisemitism and Sweden Democrats Party, and why their support is increasing so rapidly

6. Facts Part 6: Sweden: Evidence refuting allegations concerning photos attributed to Sweden Democrats

7. Facts Part 7: Analysis of European situation

Listen to The Gathering Storm Radio Show, which WC and I cohost. The show broadcasts live every Friday for one hour at noon, Pacific Time. 

The call-in number is (646) 915-9870.  Callers welcome!

Friday, November 2: Three interviewees, LA Sunsett of Political Yen/Yang: Balanced Commentary for Political Centrists, Karridine, and Simon of Power and Control, will be joining us for this week’s show.

Karridine, one of our interviewees at the top of the hour, recently released the song “Wanna Go Home (GI’s Lament),” honoring our men and women in our military. You can read the lyrics HERE and hear a clip HERE. Karridine views this moving piece of music as his contribution to the Fighting Forces protecting America and freedom, in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the world. “Soldier’s Lament” has always been I Wanna Go Home, WHEN I’ve done an honorable job for my nation, family and friends. We are going to play the song on the air and discuss its message and origins.

Karridine was referred to The Gathering Storm Radio Show by Simon of the Power and Control blog. Simon and Karridine have been online buddies for several years. Simon, who believes that “Wanna Go Home” is the song for the Iraq War, has a background in both computer and radio technology and will also be joining us at the top of the hour.

LA Sunsett is our interviewee for the second half of the hour. According to his profile, LA is a political independent that belongs to no political party. I base my political ideology solely on principle, and not by daily talking points…. He blogs a variety of topics. We plan to discuss with LA our foreign policy toward Iran and his concerns about the Patriot Act.

If you are unable to listen live to the radio show, you can listen to recordings of the radio broadcasts later by CLICKING HERE.

Story here.

(…) According to the investigation performed by the cyber investigations unit of the Northeast Intelligence Network, English speaking Muslim college students in western countries, especially inside North America, have signed on to hack and deface open source news sites first. Concurrent with that endeavor, the hackers will attempt to strike government sites and online sites of importance to our infrastructure, from utilities to banks. As many of these hackers are in the United States and Canada, many who attend our universities and are adept at hacking skills, this most recent virtual jihad could well cause interruptions; system administrators should be vigilant in the upcoming days and weeks to potential vulnerabilities.

Hey, if you feel inclined to dismiss this, imagine how you’d have felt on 9/11 after, on 9/10, having been provided with warning information of intent by malevolents to attack us… and dismissed it as “conspiracy theory”?

Hmm… I just had a thought… been bouncing around inside my head awhile now… the words, “conspiracy theory”… why are they used so much as a weapon of ridicule, no matter how credible and evidence-based a “theory” might be? You know, this “conspiracy theory”, as the Left would derisively call it, is actually far more credible than “anthropogenic global warming” and “impending catastrophic climate change”. Why? Because we understand how it can happen, know who would do it and know that they fully plan to do it. This is a clear and present danger which we cannot ignore. So to dismiss it as a mere “conspiracy theory” is proof positive that those who would dismiss it are utterly without any argument against the warning’s legitimacy. It’s the same as when the Left calls those opposed to illegal immigration “racist”… the Left cannot make its case for breaking the law, for opening American borders without restriction to any who wish to enter for any purpose, so they pull out the “racist” knife and thrust it forward. Same thing as hurling the closed-minded, knee-jerk dismissive label “conspiracy theory” onto anything they don’t want to believe might be possible, regardless of evidence and reason.
“Conspiracy theory” is therefore a meaningless label used as a rhetorical weapon by the losing side in any issue/argument.
 

We know that it’s possible for terrorists and other malevolents to commit a cyberattack.  

After all, it’s a given that the way wars are waged necessarily changes technology, strategy and tactics… that each subsequent war is always different and more sophisticated than the previous, given the same or substantially the same player(s). The ignorant person expects the next war to be like the last, failing to realise that the players involved know that they need to adapt and change so as to keep the enemy guessing, to have the element of surprise, to make it difficult to launch an effective, prompt defence, etc. So we must expect the unexpected (but, actually, a cyberattack is expected! In fact, Communist China has already successfully hacked even the Pentagon’s computer network and may very well have advised the Islamic terrorists as to how to carry out their own!)
 

I‘ve been reading stuff online in recent days about how terrorists are planning to use the internet to attack our information systems grid, in addition or alternative to the possible and feared use of an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) bomb to fry our power and information grid, rendering us back into the 19th century in so many ways, thus virtually defenceless (much of our military technology is now computer/information based, and to have it rendered useless by frying its circuits via an EMP blast would therefore have us at a horrific disadvantage with respect to national defence) against an unaffected enemy… and I personally suspect that it’s not just Islamic terrorists who would be involved… it sounds as if (most likely) some Communist regime or regimes working together in an axis group would be using the Islamists as foot soldiers not only as they’re useful and expendable, but also so that the Communists could claim plausible deniability should the attack(s) fail. It could be another proxy war, or proxy war attempt, with success degree determining whether the larger, more powerful and advanced enemy might choose to launch an attack against us.
 

Be vigilant.

Earlier….

1. Facts Part 1: Intro: The Counterjihad Brussels 2007 Conference

2. Facts Part 2: Belgium: Filip Dewinter and Vlaams Belang (audio and print interviews) and country report, to provide specific background to the Flemish Independence movement and the history of the party, as well as its current policies and actions.

Today…..

3. Facts Part 3: Belgium: 3 Cases in Orwellian Justice

Case #1: 2004: Vlaams Blok won the election with the largest percentage of the vote. What to do? The ruling elite resorted to criminalizing the entire party.

In 2004, Vlaams Blok (the predecessor party to Vlaams Belang) was declared a criminal organization under Belgium’s Anti-Racism Act. That tale helps set up the next chapter in 2005, when a resolution allegedly about the Holocaust was actually intended to restrict constitutional liberties. And then in 2006, when party leader Filip Dewinter was prosecuted for using the word “Islamophobe.” Prepare yourselves for the Orwellian universe that is Belgium - and by extention, the European Union, and if we’re not careful, the U.S. - in the 21st century…

From what we have seen, from their words and their deeds, Vlaams Belang (previously Vlaams Blok) are not only NOT racists, but in fact support Israel and oppose anti-semitism more than the other political parties in Belgium. Like most European conservative political parties, they are also a mix of factions across the right side of the political spectrum. They have kicked out the extremists, an ongoing struggle in all right-wing parties on the continent, and a welcome trend as numerous parties redefine themselves to take on the dual challenges of Islamisation and EU authoritarianism. But the anti-racism laws in Belgium are so intolerant, they could be used to indict any of us of racism at the whim of the ruling bureaucrats…As noted in this analysis of the Belgium Anti-Racism Act (emphasis mine):

Contrary to the European anti-discrimination treaties, the Belgian bill (art 1) not only prohibits distinctions that have restrictions as their aim or consequence, but also distinctions that may have these restrictions as their consequence. Note also that the Belgian bill does not speak of race but of so-called race. According to the politically-correct politicians who wrote the bill, human races do not exist. Racists, however, do exist. According to art 3, everyone who “cooperates” with them (in whatever way), is a racist too.
The Court of Appeal in Ghent convicted three constituent organisations of the Vlaams Blok (a party representing twenty percent of the Flemish electorate) on the basis of this article 3, because of texts published by local chapters of the party between 1996 and 2000. This conviction is a precedent allowing the prosecution of every politician, even every member, of our party.

The verdict of the Court of Appeal in Ghent (21 April 2004) states literally: “By ‘belonging to’ a group or society is meant that the culprit […] is a part of the group or society […]. It is not necessary for him to have conducted any activities within the group or society. Similarly, ‘cooperating,’ by which is meant any form of support for the functioning of the group or society, does not imply the execution of criminal acts. The punishability of ‘belonging to’ and ‘cooperating’ follows from the mere knowledge that the group or society, to which one belongs or with which one cooperates, […] commits discrimination.” The aim of the verdict is to kill the Vlaams Blok. This, too, is stated explicitly in the verdict: “Rendering punishable every person who belongs to or cooperates with a group or society […] serves as an efficient means to suppress such groups or societies, as the lawmaker intended. Rendering punishable the members or collaborators of the group or society inherently jeopardizes the continued existence or functioning of the group or society […].”

The Belgian Anti-Discrimination Act
The Belgian Anti-Discrimination Act of 2003 broadened the concept of criminal “discrimination” (same definition as above) to every “discrimination” on the grounds of “gender, so-called race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin, sexual preference, marital status, birth, wealth, age, religion or philosophy, present or future state of health, handicap or physical characteristic.” Moreover, it reverses the onus of proof. The complainant does not need to prove that the accused “discriminates” or propagates “discrimination;” it is up to the latter to prove that he does not.

Sound like something out of George Orwell’s 1984 or Kafka? The law was used to criminalize any participation in or association with Vlaams Blok, the party that had received almost 1 million votes in the earlier election, and had received 24% of the votes in Flanders, the most of any party….So what was in those texts that justified this action by judges appointed by Vlaams Blok’s political opposition? Frank Vanhecke of VB explains in detail:

Judge Smetrijns “proved” that we are “racists” by quoting from a selection of excerpts provided by the CEOFR. These excerpts were taken from an anthology of no more than 16 different texts published by various local Vlaams Blok chapters between 1996 and 2000. Though many of these texts simply quoted official statistics on crime rates and social welfare expenditure, they were, according to Smetrijns, published with “an intention to contribute to a campaign of hatred.” One of the texts, which dealt with the position of women in fundamentalist muslim societies, was written by Belkiz Sögütlü, a female Turkish-born Vlaams Blok member from Aalst who had herself been raised in such an environment. The court said the Aalst section of our party published her story “not to inform the public about the position of women in the islamic world, but to depict the image [of non-indigenous people] as unethical and barbarian.” This accusation is disgraceful. The court cannot know what our intentions are in publishing a true story nor in quoting official statistics. How can one be a criminal by telling people the truth?

And the real agenda of that anti-racism bill, besides chilling any free expression, since any statement about anything could be interpreted as discriminatory? It’s simple disenfranchisement of any critics of Islamisation or advocates of Flemish independence:

On 7 May 1998, after new electoral victories of the Vlaams Blok, all parties except the Vlaams Blok voted the requested constitutional change, and an addition to the Anti-Racism Act. The added article 5bis allows the courts to deprive “racists” or those “cooperating” with them of their political rights. This means that they will no longer be able to vote or to stand for election.

So, Vlaams Blok appealed the verdict to the Supreme Court, lost the case, disbanded and formed Vlaams Belang as a new political party. Leading us to Case #2:

Case #2: January, 2005: The newly formed party Vlaams Belang supported Israel and opposed Islamisation, whereas the mainstream parties opposed Israel and supported Islamisation. What to do? The old bait and switch. (H/T Brussels Journal) What effrontery to the politically correct ruling elites, that VB would reform as a new party and still be pro-Israel! So on January 27, 2005, these dignitaries forced a vote in the European Parliament on a Resolution in remembrance of the Holocaust, antisemitism and racism. No problem, right? Except that Resolution included this section:

>6. Welcomes the declared intention of the Luxembourg Presidency to restart the stalled discussions on the proposal for a Council Framework Decision on combating Racism and Xenophobia, and urges the Council to reach agreement on a ban on incitement to racial and religious hatred throughout the EU while preserving legitimate free speech;

So free speech is preserved as long as it is….. “legitimate”…and just what is this Council Framework Decision on combating Racism and Xenophobia?

Certain forms of conduct outlined below committed for a racist or xenophobic purpose will be punishable as criminal offences:
* public incitement to violence or hatred;
* public insults or threats;
* public condoning of genocide or crimes against humanity as defined in the Statute of the International Criminal Court;
* public dissemination or distribution of tracts, pictures or other material containing expressions of racism and xenophobia;
* directing of a racist or xenophobic group (by “group” is meant a structured organisation consisting of at least two persons established for a specific period).

[…] In all cases, racist or xenophobic motivation will be considered as an aggravating circumstance in determining the penalty to be applied to the offence.

There are provisions in this bill of special interest to bloggers and online publishers of political commentary :

Therefore, it is intended that when establishing its jurisdiction over the offences based on the territoriality principle in paragraph 1(a), each Member State ensures that its jurisdiction included cases where:

a) the offender commits the offence when physically present on its territory, whether or not the offence involves racist material hosted on an information system on its territory. For example, a person in a Member State placing racist material on a website located on the territory of a third country.

b) the offence involves racist material hosted on an information system in its territory, whether or not the offender commits the offence when physically present on its territory. For example, a person placing racist or xenophobic material on a website hosted on the territory of a Member State from the territory of a third country.

Note that specific mention was made “public insult,” the terms used by Islamists to describe any political criticism, expression or opinions held by non-Muslims (like the Danish cartoons). So Vlaams Belang had an ethical choice: they could vote for the entire resolution, in remembrance of past anti-semitism - or they could vote against the resolution, and take a stand against future anti-semitism perpetrated by Islamists. They chose the future, voted against the resolution, and were immediately labeled (according to plan) racists, Holocaust-deniers and anti-semites.

In response, the next day, the Flemish Parliament had its own vote in remembrance of the Holocaust, this time without the “poison pill” legislative language that would chill all future speech against radical Islamism. Dewinter wrote in a letter published that day to the Jewish community:

[…]The political embrace of the Holocaust leads to a banalization of the facts.

The shameless political abuse of the eradication of millions of victims awakens fellow Jewish citizens to what they can only disapprove of and blame.

It is also a striking point that every reference to it has kept out and steered clear of the Islamic and Arab anti-Semitism in the resolution.

[…]

In recent years I had the pleasure to learn to know several venerable and leading members of the Antwerp Jewish Community. Their battle for the maintenance of the Jewish identity and cultural uniqueness and their persisting efforts to preserve Israel as the outpost of the free Western made a big impression on me.

Obviously the enemies of the state of Israel, who are politically rather on the left than on the right side, will apply all resources to compromise and knock down all the allies of Israel who warn of the danger of Islam and Arabic radicalism. I’m convinced of the fact that the Jewish community will quickly expose the transparent attempts to knock down the Vlaams Belang.

Case #3: December, 2005: Vlaams Belang continues to gain support. What to do? Criminalize any speech by VB leader Filip Dewinter. (H/T Brussels Journal)

Dewinter gave an interview to the New York magazine Jewish Week (and which he put on his website).

“In our view, Judaism and Islam are absolutely not two of the same kind. On the contrary, they are foes. One has to choose sides. Which side are you on in the war on terror? The side of Western democracy and Western civilization, with its Judeo-Christian roots, or the side of radical Islam? The side of Great Britain, America and Israel, or the side of Iran, Sudan and the Taliban?”

Asked about those who say that Jews should not vote for a party that espouses xenophobia, Dewinter replied: “Xenophobia is not the word I would use. If it absolutely must be a ‘phobia,’ let it be ‘Islamophobia.’

“Yes, we’re afraid of Islam. The Islamization of Europe is a frightening thing. Even distinguished Jewish scholars as Bat Ye’or and Bernard Lewis warned of this. If this historical process continues, the Jews will be the first victims. Europe will become as dangerous for them as Egypt or Algeria. So, I return your question. Should Jews vote for a party that wants to stop the spread of Islam in Europe?”

Because Dewinter used the word “Islamophobia,” under Belgium’s anti-Racism law (see above), he had committed a criminal offense. Two leftwing political groups then filed a complaint, demanding that Dewinter be convicted for “incitement to racist hatred” and that his party be deprived of its funding. In Belgium, political parties are almost entirely government-funded, as accepting private donations is mostly illegal.

*************

In summary, three points.

1. They have a political presence. As the political party that receives at 24% the largest number of votes in Flanders, which has 60% of Belgium’s population, Vlaams Belang is an effective opposition party.

2. Vlaams Belang continues to support Israel and oppose Islamisation. They do this in the face of threats of personal imprisonment and financial sanctions. They do this at the risk of having their party banned again. They are representative of a trend in European right-wing parties to support Israel and oppose anti-semitism. They are representative of a trend in the last ten years for European far right wing parties to split off their extreme factions, and move to the center to become more effective. Their policies on immigration, once marginal, are beginning to be the mainstream norm in countries such as Denmark and France.

3.Europe is anything but static. Political parties can change by becoming more centrist; national policies can change by controlling immigration, rejecting EU directives against constitutional freedoms and national sovereignty; public opinion can change, as leaders resist against EU authoritarianism and Islamisation, and people see that resistance is possible.

Coming up:

4. Facts Part 4: Belgium: Evidence refuting allegations relating to “White Power” flags and Vlaams Belang (more than you ever thought you would need to know about the flags of Belgium….)

5. Facts Part 5: Sweden: Evidence on policy positions concerning Israel, antisemitism and Sweden Democrats Party, and why their support is increasing so rapidly

6. Facts Part 6: Sweden: Evidence refuting allegations concerning photos attributed to Sweden Democrats

7. Facts Part 7: Analysis of European situation

I know this is late and I apologize, but the good folks who stood the line at the San Fran Civic Center last weekend deserve a post. It was a small and impromptu counter-demonstration, but they came in style, and with a positive message of victory. As usual, the radical left and the pro-jihad elements were out in full force, and of course with the obligatory Che picture. The Media Coverage was slanted,(video link) but they couldn’t ignore that there were folks who stood up against surrender. We do owe some people thanks, In particular Move America Forward,and Foundation for Defense of Democracies, the College Republicans and 9/11 NeoCons. MC, whose pictures you’re looking was absolutely instrumental, as were her friends at East Bay Patriots. Thank you to everyone who helped get the word out that we were going to do this. Thank you to Vigilant Freedom California Chapter head Kuchuklambat, and thank you to Rex, from RexMundi. And a very big, and very special thank you to Carolyn, our CVF member in San Francisco whose email started all of this. Someone has to be the one to say, “No, it won’t go unanswered.” And last weekend it was Carolyn. So a special thank you goes out to her. I also want to point out that the decision to organize an event, no matter how small, does help encourage others. On account of the emails flying around in preparation last week, I got an email from a leatherneck in Los Angeles, and although it was too late to put something together there, we’re in contact now, and I’m already looking forward to next time.

Story here.  See also  Canadian Sentinel.

 Emphasis mine.

One thousand students, spread over two campuses, from kindergarten through twelfth grade, are enrolled in a Saudi sponsored school in Fairfax County. The school adheres to the educational model followed in Saudi Arabia. And even though some modifications have been made to the curriculum this is a school that preaches and teaches hatred of Jews, Christian and all Muslim non-believers.

 (…)

The School is called The Islamic Saudi Academy. Defenders of the Academy claim that only about 28% of the student body is Saudi, but make no mistake about it, those 28% along with the remaining 72% are all getting a true Saudi/Wahabi education. This is definitely a Saudi school. The chairman of the school board is Turki Fasial al Saud, the Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the United States. Despite the alterations made to the school curriculum, the school’s website still emphasizes the fact that, in general, The Islamic Saudi Academy located in Fairfax County, Virginia, one of the proud 50 states, still follows the curriculum of the Saudi ministry of education.

We all know that there are religious schools in this country. We know that there are private, special interest schools in this country. The problem with The Islamic Saudi Academy is that it takes educational preaching and moralizing to the extreme. Students are not taught simply to hate non-believers, they are taught extreme hatred. The hatred the students are exposed to goes beyond the typical hatred that Muslims in other schools are taught for Jews and Christians. At The Islamic Saudi Academy students are taught that Jews came from apes and that Christians came from swine. They are taught that once upon a time Jews were believers, but now they do not believe.

(…)

Ninth and twelfth grade curricula heavily emphasize the concept of Jihad, of holy war, and the obligation to fight and destroy the enemy and the non-Muslim. There are no grey areas in Saudi schools, it is all black and white and it is all reinforced in classroom assignments, papers and homework.

Mr. Bush, shut this school down!

Facts Part 2: Filip Dewinter and Vlaams Belang

Earlier….

1. Facts Part 1: Intro: The Counterjihad Brussels 2007 Conference

Today….

2. Facts Part 2: Belgium: Filip Dewinter and Vlaams Belang (audio and print interviews) and country report, to provide specific background to the Flemish Independence movement and the history of the party, as well as its current policies and actions. The Vlaams Belang party has grown from 10% support in 1999 to 25% support in 2005, and support from one third of voters in the largest city, Antwerp. It is the largest single party in Flanders today.

Undoubtedly I’m missing a few interviews or articles, and your suggestions (with links please) are most welcome.

1. First, the best book on the history of Flemish independence - A Throne in Brussels by Paul Belien of The Brussels Journal. It explains the causes of the collapse of Belgium and the implications for Europe. A must-read.

2. An introduction to Flemish Independence issues from Vlaams Belang, and Filip van Laenen’s site with additional analysis.

3. The Vlaams Belang “Manifesto” (party platform)

4. The official Vlaams Belang website

5. 2/05 Dewinter Interview with NY Times

6. 9/05 Dewinter Interview with Jewish Week Magazine

7. 12/05 Dewinter Interview with Jewish Week Magazine

8. New Republic Interview with Dewinter (early 2006?)

9. 8/06 Wall Street Journal editorial

10. Washington Post editorial on Vlaams Belang, related issues (2007)

11. 10/07 Dewinter presentation at Counterjihad Brussels 2007 Conference

12. Videos: Dewinter and Van Hecke in Washington, D.C. - WORTH YOUR TIME!

DeWinter Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzR57N15os8

Dewinter Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvSMAY8hJ70

Dewinter Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZGoeEqlMeU

Dewinter Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aue0lFI5etc

Dewinter Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6zAV_1LU4c

Van Hecke Part 6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-XD0sSo3tM

Van Hecke Part 7: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0btg_cz-nw

13. Videos referenced in criticisms of Vlaams Belang

Family discussion video

Speeches at Rally

Another Speech at Rally (1991)

***************

UPDATE: October 30, 2007

A speech in support of Vlaams Belang by Roger Scruton, 2006

An interview by Shire News Network with Filip Dewinter, October 2007 (h/t LGF)

UPDATE: October 31, 2007

National Public Radio article on Vlaams Belang, 2006

Coming up…

3. Facts Part 3: Belgium: Evidence refuting allegations related to the 2005 Holocaust resolution and Vlaams Belang (a story worthy of Shakespeare or better yet, Stendhal)

4. Facts Part 4: Belgium: Evidence refuting allegations relating to “White Power” flags and Vlaams Belang (more than you ever thought you would need to know about the flags of Belgium….)

5. Facts Part 5: Sweden: Evidence on policy positions concerning Israel, antisemitism and Sweden Democrats Party, and why their support is increasing so rapidly

6. Facts Part 6: Sweden: Evidence refuting allegations concerning photos attributed to Sweden Democrats

7. Facts Part 7: Analysis of European situation
Summary Analysis of the Debate so far…

The Counterjihad Brussels 2007 conference is the subject of a vigorous debate on a couple U.S. blogs, because of the attendance of two political parties, Vlaams Belang (Belgium, specifically Flanders) and the Sweden Democrats. Three brief points on this:

1. Great Debate: This bracing debate’s benefits far outweigh the costs of having to correct misinformation, because we have the opportunity to get the word out about European political parties who are helping to define a wide variety of pro-human rights, pro-Israel, pro-national sovereignty, pro-democracy and anti-Islamisation policies. Europe is facing multiple threats at once - failing demographics, the destruction of national self-determination by the EU, and Islamisation. The need for political initiative is urgent.

2. Best is Yet to Come: It’s a net positive also for the organizations and blogs who attended the Counterjihad Brussels 2007 Conference. Our membership has increased significantly over the last week, and we appreciate the added donations and all the emails of support. Several blogs participating in this debate have also seen increased readership and support. We therefore look forward to the debate continuing until all issues have been raised and answered, and the truth about these political parties is presented completely and accurately, with all misinformation corrected - not just about Vlaams Belang and Sweden Democrats, but several more political parties opposing Islamisation that we will discuss in the coming weeks.

3. Many paths, no gates: Critics of Vlaams Belang, and of similar political parties with anti-islamisation platforms, state that the ” European anti-Islamization movement is making a mistake by allowing this group to participate.” We see it differently; that the citizens of every country have a right to self-determination, and that many of these groups have been actively working to preserve civil society against Islamisation for years. A two-day limited participation conference, however successful, is not a “European anti-Islamization movement.” Members of the dozens of political parties in each country will take whatever positions they choose to take on anti-Islamization and pretty much anything else. Far from being a single movement, anti-islamisation is a broad and widely diverse cultural and political response to the destruction of democratic human rights and freedoms by both assertive jihadists like the Muslim Brotherhood, and authoritarian multiculturalists like the European Union. Importantly, anti-islamisation includes Muslim reformers- several in Europe - who risk their lives by publicly opposing the imposition of shariah law, Islamic Imperialism and apartheid.

One might as readily say, of an earlier time, “the European enlightenment movement is making a mistake by allowing those followers of Locke (or Voltaire, Spinoza, Kant or any of those other extremists - Paine, Jefferson, Franklin) to participate.” We are not the gatekeepers of any movement; to our knowledge, there is no gate, and there are many movements, not one, working to protect western culture, laws and freedoms. You don’t have to apply to be part of history; it’s an open-admissions institution.

(Reposted from Refugee Resettlement Watch):

October 27, 2007, 6:29 pm

Part 1: Prefatory Remarks

In the week following the October 18-19 Counterjihad Brussels 2007 Conference, a number of factual errors have been published about some of the participants. These errors have revealed the large numbers of people, both in the US and Europe, who labor under a misapprehension regarding right wing politics in Europe. We respect the people making what we consider errors, but we retain the right to present the facts.

Because our response requires showing evidence, the posts are long. We are being asked to prove a negative - that Vlaams Belang and Sweden Democrats political parties are not racist, or Neo-Nazi, or anti-semitic. We have divided the response into seven parts for your convenience:

1. Facts Part 1: Intro: The Counterjihad Brussels 2007 Conference

2. Facts Part 2: Belgium: Filip Dewinter interviews (audio and print) and country report, to provide specific background to the Flemish Independence movement and the history of the party, as well as its current policies and actions

3. Facts Part 3: Belgium: Evidence refuting allegations related to the 2005 Holocaust resolution and Vlaams Belang (a story worthy of Shakespeare or better yet, Stendhal)

4. Facts Part 4: Belgium: Evidence refuting allegations relating to “White Power” flags and Vlaams Belang (more than you ever thought you would need to know about the flags of Belgium….)

5. Facts Part 5: Sweden: Evidence on policy positions concerning Israel, antisemitism and Sweden Democrats Party, and why their support is increasing so rapidly

6. Facts Part 6: Sweden: Evidence refuting allegations concerning photos attributed to Sweden Democrats

7. Facts Part 7: Analysis of European situation
Basic Refutations

For the best analysis of what is occurring in Europe, we recommend the analyses of the European speakers at the Counterjihad Conference (http://counterjihadeuropa.wordpress.com ). Presenters are getting in their final drafts, and we will keep posting them as they are emailed. The Conference topics covered many aspects of the current transition from an initial stage of exposing the threat of Islamisation in blogs, conferences and books, to the next stage of organizing a pragmatic political resistance. The speakers at the conference have taken on those difficult real-world tasks of moving to this next stage. Change is not easy, and the mere fact of engagement and compromise with real political parties in the complex coalitions of parliamentary politics may be unsettling for many people especially in the more virtual world of the blogosphere.

We’ll simply state one fundamental refutation of factual error: None of the participants at the conference was a Nazi, crypto-Nazi, neo-Nazi, white supremacist, racist, anti-semitic bigot, or any of the other terms being applied. Nor were any of them “Neo-Nazi sympathizers.” They were instead some of the leading activists in Europe who are working to support Israel, oppose anti-semitism and oppose the Islamisation of European society. Their goal is to mount a resistance to Islamisation through the work of legitimate political parties and legislation, in spite of extraordinary political repression by European Union regulations, and in many countries by their own governments.

The political organizing in Europe against Islamisation will continue regardless of how it is characterized or for that matter regardless of our own efforts. CVF is just not very important; but the people engaged in a political struggle for liberty and Western values in Europe are important, and we will keep supporting them in any way we can.

Another statement of the obvious: Most political parties in Europe from left to right have extreme factions, past histories of individual Communists or Nazis or anarchists or even royalists. History happened in Europe, and history will continue to occur. Parties evolve and individuals evolve, just as the Democratic Party in this country evolved one generation ago from a party dedicated to racism and segregation - or three generations ago from a party that supported lynching - or six generations ago from a party that supported slavery. History happened here as it did in Europe, and parties and individuals evolved. We could support the Democratic party too, if only they would oppose Islamisation and support free speech and Israel’s right to exist. Perhaps someday. And if we did support them, we don’t think that would make us sympathizers with racism, lynchings or slavery.

Participants at the Conference have worked hard to counter these errors and to present the truth about the participants who have been maligned. We are grateful to the analysts in individual countries who have volunteered to fact-check what is being said, and to provide inter-cultural analysis which helps explain the erroneous statements that have been made. They have posted in several places, including blogs and blog comments, and this is a collection of those responses in a single location. We undoubtedly have missed some, and appreciate suggestions to help fill gaps in the refutation of these arguments.

The Challenge of International Fact-checking

Two groups and their leaders stand out in this conflict of ideas:

1. Filip Dewinter and Vlaams Belang (Flemish Independence) party in Belgium, and

2. Ted Ekeroth and the Sverigedemokraterna (Sweden Democrats) party in Sweden.

It is good the errors published about these parties came to light since they give us direction and focus for steps that need to be taken to correct misunderstandings and present the facts. We sympathize with those who have researched these matters and drawn conclusions that we consider to be completely wrong-headed. This is a complicated subject. Obstacles arise from the need to research information in other languages and other countries. The complexities of other political cultures are numerous.

In addition, there are two problems: one is disinformation used by opposing parties, which involves the task of separating myths generated on the Internet from factual data, and another is the lack of adequate machine translation for Flemish and Swedish .

We look forward to an ongoing discussion about the strengths and weaknesses, the opportunities and threats presented by political organizations who have the ability and the will to oppose Islamisation. It is vital to have a “big-tent” approach, but for us that tent does have some boundaries, to wit:

• we urge support for those groups who defend constitutional liberties and human rights,

• who defend national sovereignty and the rule of law,
• who support free speech,
• who support Israel’s right to exist with defensible borders,
• who oppose anti-Semitism,
• who support the integration of immigrants into Western laws and values,
• who want a right to control immigration for national objectives,
• who oppose terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, and
• who oppose Islamisation, jihad and the imposition of shariah law.

This is a reasonable list, but a lot of mainstream political parties in Europe are far too politically correct to make the cut. Ask for a position against Islamisation, for Israel’s right to exist and for free speech, and you have eliminated many political organizations in European countries.

Helping Each Other

This task of political coordination and resistance to Islamisation is urgent.

This week, Anders Gravers and his colleagues, of the Danish party SIAD, the founders of the Stop the Islamisation of Europe (SIOE) movement, were viciously beaten by political opponents prior to a peaceful demonstration against Saudi influence.
Obviously, with this going on, we need to develop a support system for one another wherever possible. Groups across Europe who oppose Islamisation are forming a variety of coalitions:

• ad-hoc and permanent coalitions,
• decentralized and networked,
• on single issues and bundles of issues,
• within countries and across borders .

The role of the Center for Vigilant Freedom in this is very modest. At the moment, the organizational design that seems to be emerging is a robust, distributed one, with dozens of organizations and leaders and a multitude of experiments opposing Islamisation. None of us can predict what approaches will work, so why not welcome the broad portfolio of local and international efforts? The sheer variety will increase our chances of success.

Next: Facts Part 2: Belgium: Filip Dewinter interviews (audio and print) and country report, to provide specific background to the Flemish Independence movement and the history of the party, as well as its current policies and actions

From Atlas Shrugs…pictures from the talented Rufus of London, and news of a successful rally:

ANOTHER STEP FORWARD BY SIOE - and please read about the next rallies at Dutch consulates worldwide on November 2, in commemoration of the death of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh

There was a demonstration today in London organised by Anders Gravers and Stephen Gash of SIOE I managed to take a few pictures. Stephen Gash in the brown jacket is being guarded by 3 British policemen !

Aeneas became an honorary Israeli for the day !

Anders Gravers had recovered enough from his recent attack to travel to London

2 German men travelled to London to inform everyone that they did not want to become Dhimmis

Vigilant Freedom California and other patriots have been organizing a counter-protest to the ANSWER/United for Peace and justice, Anti-War/Anti-America/Pro-Jihad Crowd. The anti-America leftists will be gathering at the San Francisco Civic Center beginning at 11am, and eventually marching to Dolores Park. Vigilant Freedom is calling all pro-troops pro-mission,

For Immediate Release: 25 October 2007

At Monday’s full meeting of Newham Council (29 October) Cllr Alan Craig, leader of the Christian Peoples Alliance group, will challenge the executive Mayor of Newham, Sir Robin Wales, to arrange compulsory purchase of the Olympics mega-mosque site at West Ham.

Cllr Craig will propose that, in view of Islamic sect Tablighi Jamaat’s troubled track record of irresponsibility and illegality at the site, the Mayor should liaise with the relevant statutory authorities with a view to bringing the site into community ownership as soon as possible.

Cllr Craig will further propose that the 18 acre site should then be cleaned of contamination and developed as an Olympic legacy location containing an attractive community leisure facility along the lines of Atlanta’s 21 acre Olympic Park & Fountain of Rings.

“Over recent years Tablighi Jamaat have flouted planning regulations, breached building control, broken a formal Memorandum of Agreement and failed to deal adequately with the health and environment risk from the highly contaminated soil,” said Cllr Craig.

“They have a lamentable track record of irresponsibility and illegality. Clearly Tablighi Jamaat are not fit to build and manage a major landmark mosque - or indeed any other large building.

“Newham is the lead Host Borough for the 2012 Olympics when the world will be coming to east London.” continued Alan Craig. “The Council should take the lead on this key site which stands beside a major access point to the Olympic stadium.

“By 2012 the site should be a place which brings communities together and which can be used by people of all backgrounds and faiths both during and after the Olympics.

ENDS

Editors Notes:

(i) Queries: Cllr Alan Craig

(ii) Full text of Cllr Alan Craig’s Question to the Mayor, Sir Robin Wales:

Question: The mega-mosque site at West Ham

The trustees of the site of Tablighi Jamaat’s proposed mega-mosque at West Ham have:

· Erected buildings on site without planning permission and in breach of building control, despite serious and clear warnings from Council officers;

· Almost entirely failed to fulfil the terms of the five year Memorandum of Agreement solemnly entered into with the Council;

· Until forced by my Freedom of Information request of July 2007, failed to publish or warn the public about their March 2007 Waterman Environmental contamination survey which alarmingly indicated the environmental risk of the site as “medium/high”, and the risk to current site users from the highly contaminated soils as “potentially significant”;

· Continued to use the site on a daily basis despite the expiration twelve months ago of their temporary planning permission.

In view of this track record of irresponsibility and illegality, does the Mayor agree that the trustees have demonstrated that they are not fit to erect and manage a large landmark mosque or indeed any other major building?

Does he further agree that the Council, in conjunction with the ODA, the LDA and the LTGDC as appropriate, should now become directly involved with the future of this key 18 acre site by immediately preparing a masterplan for the site as a community leisure facility that will be a lasting legacy of the Olympics along the lines of Atlanta’s 21 acre Olympic Park & Fountain of Rings, and/or for residential, recreational and retail purposes, with a view to the site being compulsorily purchased as soon as possible?

Listen to The Gathering Storm Radio Show, which WC and I cohost. The show broadcasts live every Friday for one hour at noon, Pacific Time. 

The call-in number is (646) 915-9870.  Callers welcome!

Friday, October 26: Two interviewees, Mr. Ducky and Hanther of Tandra Dot Com, will be joining us for this week’s show.

Mr. Ducky, our interviewee at the top of the hour, is a frequent commenter at my blog and at the blogs of some of my blogger friends. In his own words, I am a leftist who is trying to understand the right. There is a pretty severe disconnect in areas of the arts, religion, economics, politics.

Hanther, our interviewee at the bottom of the hour, is an author and illustrator. According to this page of the web site: Hanthercraft International is a multi-media company dedicated to the development of new standards for the presentation of visual narrative….Tandra is character driven sci-fi biased heroic fantasy adventure set in an alternate universe. Hanther also writes commentary, such as this one which directly pertains to the theme of The Gathering Storm Radio Show.

If you are unable to listen live to the radio show, you can listen to recordings of the radio broadcasts later by CLICKING HERE.

Statements by the Sweden Democrats political party on affiliations with extreme right wing groups, Israel, Hamas and related topics, translated by Ted Ekeroth.

1.

From the Sweden Democrats webpage, on questions of nazism and racism.

http://www.sverigedemokraterna.net/asikter_skolwebb_fragor.php?action=fullnews&id=248

Claim: “SD has a dark history, your party was formed by racists/Nazis. How does that feel?”

SD was not created by Nazis, it is furthermore not a direct continuation of BSS (Keep Sweden Swedish) that some people claims. […] We are sadly aware of that a few members, like in other parties, had said and done things that do not comply to the party politics. […] But from the start the party has withheld it’s democratic, peaceful and non-racist ways which easily can be checked by reading the older party programs. The risk of getting people with extreme political views is always the greatest in the beginning when the party is small and hasn’t had time to build a party structure and get organized. We haven’t had such problems for a long time.

SD is an open anti-Nazi party which can be read in the old party program from 1999:

“The Sweden Democrats rejects Nazism, who’s lead motive is the “Führer”, “racial superiority” and aggressive war […]”

The party action program for democratic development reads:

“Just as the name implies, the Sweden Democrats hails democracy as a form of government and firmly rejects antidemocratic movements, such as Nazism, Fascism and Communism.”

If you look at history you can see that the Sweden Democrats does not have a worse history than other political parties in Sweden, on the contrary:

A large number of people who formed the Christian Democrats were fascists and Nazis; their former press spokesperson Per Lennart Aae was later a party ideologist in the “skinheadparty” NDP. Another leading Christian Democrat with Nazi-connections was Folke Dahlström that previously was a member of the Swedish Nazi-party SSS and was also chief editor for the Nazi paper “Ungt folk” (Young People).

The Center Party party program read previously: “The preservation of the Swedish people against implication of less worthy foreign racial elements is a national task […]”. […]

The Social Democrats [ruling Sweden almost continuously for 70 years, my note] founded was running the Institute for Race and Biology [free translation, my note] where tinkers and handicapped was describes as “the scum of humanity”. Many leading Social Democrats openly argued for more racial awareness like Alva and Gunnar Myrdal that wrote the book “Crisis in the population” where they argued for imposed sterilization as a good method for “cleaning of highly incapable individuals”. Later the married couple received high ranking posts within the Social Democrats. Gunnar became Minister of Trade and Alva was a consultative cabinet minister .

The Social Democrats realized their racial ideas by forcibly sterilizing mentally handicapped up an dtill 1975. Ragnar Edenman was the Social Democratic Minister of Education and Religion and a former member of the Fascist organization “Förbundet nya Sverige” (The association of new Sweden).

The party “Moderaterna” [now in government in Sweden, my note] then called “The Right Party” had a electorate cooperation with the Nazi party SSS in the election 1938 and shared mandates with them […].

—————————-

There are numerous more examples of political parties with a dark past and as you can see they are much worse than the Sweden Democrats which never had any racial agenda.

2.

Björn Söder is the party secretary for the Sweden Democrats.

http://www.bjornsoder.net/artiklar.php?action=fullnews&showcomments=1&id=

Sweden should take a stance for Israel

The Swedish government should take a stance for Israel and give her its support. The Israeli attack on Lebanon is nothing else than a defensive war against terrorist in Hizbollah and Hamas. When Palestinians kidnap Israeli soldiers and Hizbollah attacks army posts on Israeli soil it is clear that Israel should have the right to defend it self according the principle of self defense.

This is also supported but the professor of international law, Ove Bring, former deputy general secretary in the UN Hans Corell.

Israel is the only democratic state in its area and should receive full backing from other democratic state in the West. It is a shame that the social democratic government in Sweden, with the foreign minister Jan Eliasson taking the lead, criticizes Israels self defense. But I am not surprised since the social democrats has given its unreserved support to Palestinian terrorists for decades and is now backing Islamic organizations in Sweden through its “Brotherhood”-movement.

Hamas and Hizbollah are terrorist organizations and in Lebanon the Lebanese government has let Hizbollah act with impunity and allowed them to carry out terrorist attacks again Israel. Tragically the Swedish socialist government has a hard time understanding how it is to live with such a situation, a situation that the Israeli citizen lives with every day.

3.

The Church of Sweden has long been an anti-israeli institution, kidnapped by those who wish Israel harm. The Sweden Democrats party secretary submitted this motion to the church meeting in 2006 in defence of Israel and to thwart the anti-israeli position of the Church. Here is a short background on each of the two motions and then Mr Söders motion against them.

http://www.bjornsoder.net/artiklar.php?action=fullnews&showcomments=1&id=

Regarding motion 2006: 17 and 2006: 41 on the church meeting…I oppose both motion 2006:17 and motion 2006:41 because they do not reflect an accurate depiction of the historical events and does not take into consideration the never-ending violence directed against Israel.

For starters it is my opinion that the background text is not acceptable. The text does not take into account the fact that Jordan was a part of the Mandate of Palestine and that hinders a further understanding for the events in the region and the responsibility that lies in the first Arabic state in the former Mandate of Palestine.

Furthermore I find it deceitful that it is not clearly expressed that the four “big wars” was initiated by the Arab states in an attempt to wipe out the State of Israel along with its population – a goal that still is sought after today.

Regarding motion 2006:17 it should be clear that the so called “Palestinians-arabs” is not protected by the Geneva Convention as it refers to states. Since it doesn’t exist and never has existed a “Palestinian” state those rules are not applicable. The Arabs on the other hand violate all rules of war that exist by, among other things, fighting without a uniform, by hiding in civilian areas, by using children in warfare and the use of terrorism. It is my firm belief that Israel has a clear right of self-defense when faced with this kind of violence according to the principle of self defense.

The “borders” of 1967 isn’t borders, merely where the fighting stopped when cease-fire came into effect. The writers of the motions has to ask themselves why they claim that the area that Jordan and Egypt occupied in the war of extermination they started in 1948 should be the base for the second Arab state in the formed Mandate of Palestine. If they really wanted a “Palestinian” state they should have created it in 1948 but instead they tried to destroy Israel. Israel has, again and again, tried to make peace with its neighbors but always got the same reply. In the Israeli declaration of independence it says “WE EXTEND our hand to all neighboring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighborliness”. The Arabs invaded shortly thereafter. Why, if the conflict was about Judea and Samaria and Gaza? All logic and all history clearly show that their ambition is not another Arab state but one Jewish state less. Therefore it is pressing to discuss if it is sensible with another Arab state in Judea/Samaria and Gaza.

To treat terrorist, that knowingly and willingly ignore and break all rules of war, in normal courts or even military courts (where prisoners would be treated according to the Geneva Convention) would be very strange. To give the terrorists protection that the West has set up for those who fight in accordance with the rules of war when the terrorist themselves doesn’t have any ambition to follow the very same rules would be immoral and hypocrisy. Since the terrorist doesn’t follow the rules of war they cannot be protected by them and not be classified as prisoners of war. The US term of “illegal combatants” is therefore a correct description.

[…]

Regarding motion 2006:41 I feel that the Church meeting can make a statement but in that case in support if Israel and its people.

[…]

4.

Björn Söder is the party secretary for the Sweden Democrats. Press release 20 april 2004, regarding the Hamas visit to Malmo, Sweden.

http://www.bjornsoder.net/artiklar.php?action=fullnews&showcomments=1&id=

The Sweden Democrats party secretary Björn Söder is very critical of the visit:

- The Swedish government should repudiate the visit and see if there are any legal means to stop a representative from a terror movement such as Hamas to set foot in Swedish soil. Hamas refuses to recognize Israels right to exist and is working to destroy the country. The movement is also behind acts of terror and murder. Sweden must be on the side of the democratic states in the fight against Islamism. That we do by supporting the right of Israel to exist by refusing Islamic terrorist to visit Sweden.

5.

Björn Söder is the party secretary for the Sweden Democrats. Press release 1 December 2005, regarding the anti-Semitic audi tapes sold in the Stockholm mosque.

http://www.bjornsoder.net/artiklar.php?action=fullnews&showcomments=1&id=1097836665

“The government must choose on which foot to stand on” – Muslim immigration leads to increase anti-Semitism in Sweden

Researchers now say that anti-Semitism is increasing in Sweden and that threats and harassment emanates from Arab and Muslim immigrants. It is primarily from Muslim youths from segregates suburbs according to Swedish Radio. At the same time, investigations show that the Jewish communities in Sweden spend ¼ of its member ship fees on security and safety measures.

The Sweden Democrats party secretary, Björn Söder, says that the government must choose in which foot to stand on.

-          The parties in parliament and primarily the socialist government has been partly responsible for the increase anti-Semitism by allowing and supporting Islamism and the mass immigration of Muslims to Sweden, says Björn

-          Lena Hallengren, minister that handles religious affairs and youth questions, claims willingness to deal with the problems but that is not trustworthy while here party leader, Göran Persson, more or less promises state funding for mosques and therefore sanctions the hatred that spreads from there. It is in the mosques that the hate is taught and growing, says Björn and points to the latest revelations about the largest mosque in Sweden selling anti-Jewish audio tapes.

According to Swedish Radio, the tapes features a man that, in Arabic, says that Jews are a disease, that they are brothers to “monkeys and pigs” and asks God to exterminate them.

-          It is time for the government to choose which foot to stand on. They can hardly keep the Muslim immigration to Sweden at its current pace and at the same time claim willingness to fight anti-Semitism in the country.

Here is an earlier interview from December 2005 with Filip Dewinter that provides some clarity on positions that are often presented askew in leftwing blogs: Some background first from the Militant Islam Monitor….and then the interview with Dewinter:

Leader of Vlaams Belang interviewed in New York based magazine Jewish Week.

———-

Q: There are those who fear that first you will go after the Moroccans and
then the Jews. How do you respond?
A: This is ridiculous. You could say the same about president Bush or Tony
Blair: “First they are going after radical Islam, then they will go after
the Jews.” As if Judaïsm were an extension of Islam. In our view, Judaïsm
and Islam are absolute not two of the same kind. On the contrary, they are
foes. One has to choose sides. Which side are you on in the “war on terror”?
The side of western democracy and western civilization, with its
Judeo-Christian roots, or the side of radical Islam? The side of
Great-Britain, America and Israel, or the side of Iran, Sudan and the
Taliban?

Q: There are those who say Jews should not be voting for a party that
espouses xenophobia. Your reaction?
A: “Xenophobia” is not the word a would use. If it absolutely must be a
“phobia” let it be “islamophobia”. Yes, we’re afraid of Islam. The
islamisation of Europe is a frightening thing. Even distinguished Jewish
scholars as Bat Ye’or and Bernard Lewis warned for this. If this historical
process continues, the Jews will be the first victims. Europe will became as
dangerous for them as Egypt or Algeria. So, I return your question. Should
Jews vote for a party that wants to stop the spread of Islam in Europe?

Q: Last year your former party was banned by the Supreme Court for racism.
People say that you have just changed the name of your party, that little
else has been changed and that many of the same people are in it. Is that
true?
A: Yes, that is true. We have not changed so much since our conviction.
Indeed, we were convicted. But the conviction was a sham. It was a political
process, aimed at curtailing an opposition party. In the United States,
judges are independent. Even the president himself could not influence a
judge, let alone the Supreme Court. But in Belgium the judiciary is a tool
in the hands of the government. All judges are appointed by the three
political parties that govern the country since World War I. Some judges are
strong enough to shrug off the political pressure, but that’s exceptional.
The separation of powers is just fiction. The laws used in this conviction
were specially concocted to eliminate our party. In the United States, we
would have been acquitted under the First Amendment protecting free speech.
Stephan Pollard, one of Tony Blair’s Jewish advisors wrote a very good
column about this juridical sham: “I’ve seen the future, it’s scary and it’s
Belgium.” In the Cour the Cassation the judiciary discovered the dossier
with the indictment had disappeared. Not just one document, but the whole
indictment. Hundreds of pages. They had lost it. In a constitutional state,
the conviction should have been reversed for matters of procedure. In
Belgium, there was no problem. This conviction proves another thing: the
plaintiffs had gone over all our publications with a fine-tooth comb: each
article in our party magazine, each political flyer, each book, each essay,
looking for forbidden opinions. They accused us of inciting hatred towards
Muslims, Arabs, Turks. Of course, these accusations were unfair. But even
such biased opponents couldn’t find a single word that could be interpreted
as anti-Semitic. A so-called neo nazi-party that in twenty years never
utters one bad word against Jews. Is that possible? Yes, we are
right-wingers. Just as Ariel Sharon, Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher
are right-wingers. But this doesn’t mean they - or we - are anti-Semites.

Q: It is said that your party was founded by Nazi collaborators and
Holocaust deniers and that it still attracts Holocaust deniers. What is your
reaction to them in your party and the fact that it was founded by Nazi
collaborators?
A: Do we attract Holocaust deniers or nazi’s? Well, sometimes a decent women
attracts evil men, not because of her own deeds, but because her good name
has been blackened by slander. This is our problem too: all Belgium
governments have depicted us as nazi’s in their propaganda. Of course some
people believe this propaganda. And of course some youths with nazi
sympathies think we are their allies. But we are not. They are not welcome.
Such propaganda can be self fulfilling. There are some very small nazi
groups in Belgium, but they hate us. They say we are the accomplices of
international jewry and that we betrayed nationalism in return for jewish
money, that we kowtow for international Zionism, and so on. You certainly
know that kind of slander.

Our party was founded in 1978. It originated from the Volksunie. This was a
respectable party: in 1978 it took part in a Belgium government coalition.
Would our mainstream parties (social democrats and Christian democrats) make
coalitions with a party founded by Nazi collaborators? Many political
heavyweights in the liberal party and the Christian democrats began their
careers in the Volksunie. Not one of our “founding fathers” has collaborated
with nazism. Our founder, Karel Dillen was just seventeen when WWII ended.
He had not collaborated. As a political party, we have clean hands.

It’s is true however, that before WWII, all political movements in Belgium -
including the Flemish patriotic movement - have made fatal mistakes in
dealing with nazism. But before the war, before the truth about the shoah
became clearly visible, this was a mistake many people made. Before the war,
Flemish nationalism was politically divided. There were two parties, the VNV
and the Verdinaso. In hindsight, it’s easy to see that they made many
mistakes. Their most fatal mistake was their inability to discern the ugly,
totalitarian face of national-socialism. Another shameful weakness was their
indulgence towards the omnipresent anti-Semitism of the interbellum. This
was not the murderous, hateful anti-Semitisme of Goebbels and Hitler, but is
was bad enough. It was not typical for the Flemish movement either. That
low-level anti-Semitism was omnipresent. In France it was even worse. All
political parties in Belgium were more or less infected. Even the royal
family, even the socialists, even many of the resistance movements who
fought the German occupation. They were no Eichmans, but they didn’t like
the Jews.
We are not glorifying the VNV or the Verdinaso. But we can’t deny history.
They were our historical ancestors. Not our fathers, but still our
grandfathers. That doesn’t mean we will repeat their mistakes. When the
Germans invaded Belgium in May 1940, the Verdinaso leadership asked all
party members to volunteer in the Belgium army, and to fight the invaders
tooth and nail. Those men are our political ancestors too. Yes, it’s true
the VNV leadership collaborated with the Germans. But it’s also true the
Verdinaso leadership didn’t. The first truth is often used to discredit us.
The second truth is almost forgotten.
We can’t change the past. We can’t deny the dark spots in our history. But
we are not prisoners of that history. This bitter experience has been a
sobering lesson. We will never ever again believe the false promises of
totalitarism. One could only wish the left-wingers had learned that lesson
too.

In 2002, the Democratic Party celebrated the hundred-year old Strom Thurmond
and Trent Lott came under fire for having made some positive remarks about
Thurmonds political views. An evil interpretation could be that the
Democratic Party hasn’t changed a bit, that it’s still secretly supporting
segregation, and the Jim Crow-laws. Every American knows such allegations
are nonsense. Every American knows the Democratic Party has tremendously
changed since Strom Thurmond’s days. But that’s just the way mr. Marinower,
the left-wingers and the Muslims are making stupid allegations about us,
using seventy-year-old quotations to “proof” we are racists, anti-Semites or
even national-socialists. For this people, everyone who’s not a left-winger
is a fascist or a national-socialist. In their perverted view of history,
there’s no distinction between Eichman, president Bush, general Schwartzkopf
and Ariel Sharon. All damned nazi’s. Haven’t you Americans experienced the
same thing? Haven’t the Israeli’s experienced the same thing? The Democratic
Party in the South has changed. Well, the Flemish movement has changed too.
Even more so. The Democratic Party still exists. The old Flemish political
parties that became entangled in collaboration in WWII have ceased to exist.
Their Strom Thurmonds are dead. We are not even their political children. We
are their grandchildren at most. But for mr. Marinower, that makes no
difference. This is as stupid as identifying the Democratic Party with Strom
Thurmond.

Q: Mr. Marinower compares your party to the Ku Klux Klan and says your party’s
quest for votes based on protecting the Jews is comparable to the KKK
defending the Jews in America.
A: In the past the KKK was responsible for the killing of Afro-Americans,
and for inciting hatred towards Jews and even roman-catholics. If such
people would pretend to be “protecting” their former victims, this would be
in stark contradiction with their deeds and words in the past. No one would
believe this, and with good reason. Blood is thicker than water, and deeds
are stronger than words. If the deeds contradict the words, believe the
deeds, don’t believe the words. You can apply this to Arafat, the PLO, the
Palestinian Autority or the KKK. Look at their terrible deeds. But we haven’t
such a criminal record. We have never written anti-Semitic texts. You may
examine all our publications since the day our party was founded. You won’t
find any attacks against Jews or Judaism. On the contrary. Very often we
were the only political group defending Israel, both in publications and in
parliament.

Q: Your party proposed naming a street in Antwerp for one of the worst nazi
collaborators. Who was that and why do it?
A: It was not “my party” that took this initiative. It was a personal,
individual initiative of one of our local councillors. He withdrew his
proposal when he came to the conclusion that it was too provocative.

Q: You are said to have on your desk two pictures in which you are shaking
hands with Le Pen and Haider. Why display those two photos? What does it say
about you that you have selected those two pictures to highlight on your
desk?
A: Such photo’s exist of course. But they are not on display in my office.
We have contacts with Haiders en Le Pens parties. On issues as immigration,
we even have common ground. But we don’t like Haiders kowtowing for
dictators as Saddam Hoessein or Khadaffi. We don’t like Le Pens typically
French views of centralisation, we don’t like his anti-Americanism and we
absolutely don’t like his anti-Jewish provocations. Just as almost all
French politicians, he has this disastrous illusion that it’s France’s
destiny to have a special, privileged relation with the Islamic world. This
explains the French’s biased political position against Israel. This
explains their alliance with Saddam Hoessein, their support of Khomeiny when
he was preparing to topple the shah. Le Pen shares this views, and we don’t
like that at all. He is not the monster the leftists say he is. But I am not
identifying with him. We are certainly no holocaust deniers. In Belgian
parliament we supported the law who punishes holocaust denial. Recently we
even published an article in our party magazine about Raoul Wallenberg, who
saved ten of thousands of Hungarian Jews. In our party magazine, we
repeatedly denounced arsons against synagogues and violence and racist
insults against Jewish people, even when most of the mainstream press kept
silent about this, because the perpetrators were Muslim youths. That’s an
indication too: our party is very strong in Antwerp. We have more than 100
000 voters there. There were many attacks against Jews in Antwerp: a car
bomb, a grenade attack on a school bus with Jewish children, some murders
and attempted murders, and many, many cases of harassing, insult and
intimidation. But the perpetrators were invariably Muslim youths or foreign
Muslim terrorists. In thirty years, not one of our militants ever committed
even one anti-Semitic act. These are not empty words. These are facts. You
can check them. Ask the Jews in Antwerp. This is at least a strong
indication that we are no anti-Semites. Mr. Marinower says we are evil guys,
just pretending to be decent right-wingers. People can play a misleading
role for some years. But is it possible that tens of thousands of people
play a misleading role for almost thirty years?

Q:You referred during a debate with Claude Marinower to Ariel Sharon and
said he was Mr. Marinower’s prime minister. He is not Israeli, why call him
Mr. Marinower’s prime minister?
A: I admit I was wrong. This was a slip of the tongue. I said “your prime
minister”. I should have said “Israel’s prime minister”. This hasn’t any
political relevance. Of course I know the difference between “Jews” and
“Israeli’s”. I will defend both of them: the Jews in the Diaspora in Europe,
and the Jews in Israel. Both are under siege. Both have the same enemy:
militant islam, with it’s anti-Semitic core.

A: Mr. Marinower says he will follow you wherever you go and tell people who
you really are. Your reaction?
Q: Well, he has the right to do so. Of course he will not tell who I really
am. He will depict me as a anti-Semite and a notorious nazi. Mr. Marinower
views are distorted by hate. But he directs his hate towards the wrong
people. The Jews have enough real enemies. Mr. Marinower would better fight
the real anti-Semites. Now he’s spending all his energy in a war against an
imaginary foe. He could use some of that energy to fight Israel’s enemies in
his own party. Vincent Van Quickenborne, now secretary of state for mr.
Marinower’s VLD, a few years ago had a friendly encounter with sheik Yassin,
the Hamas chief. Van Quickenborne wished the sheik “good luck”. Good luck in
killing more Israeli children? Mr. Marinower never protested, at least not
in public. And a VLD-senator said about the Israeli “occupation” of Samaria
and Judea: “If a new holocaust would occur, the Jews have to blame it on
themselves.” Could Mr. Marinower clean up his own house first?

A: What do you think of Europe’s pro-Palestinian tilt?
Q: It frightens me. Europe pays lip service to the great principles of human
rights, democracy, and rule of law. Israel is the only democracy in that
part of the world, the only constitutional state. It’s the only nation that
respect the freedom of religion, even for the Arab Muslim within it’s
borders. Every decent person, every dedicated democrat should defend Israel
tooth and nail. But the Europeans do the opposite. They betray all their
principles. The European politicians are kowtowing for the Arab dictators,
for leaders of rogue states, for terrorists. The European Union subsidizes
the Palestinian Authority with billions of euros and big chunks of tha