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