Talk:Vlaams Belang/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive

Archives
1 2 3
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Blockwatch’s identity

81.240.199.189, could you please provide further explanation why you are deleting the link to blockwatch.com, and removing Roeland Raes as a member? Your explanation of "no links to communist organisations" is not adequate. --Dan East 20:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Blokwatch has been made by several academics of Belgian universities (mainly UGent, university of Ghent, http://www.ugent.be) and some journalists from qualitypapers (for example De Morgen, http://www.demorgen.be). That's why I call it excellent journalism.

That still does not justify placing "excellent journalism" next to the link. That is still only opinion, and is biased to a specific POV. However the previous description wasn't appropriate either - an article should not reference the discussion page. I'm partially reverting the original description, which factually describes the link as "far-leftist organisation". The remaining portion, "tendentious/counterfeit stories, see discussion page Archive02 4.2.1." is not necessary in my opinion - it is expected the site would support the far-leftist viewpoint, so a description of tendentious is unnecessary. --Dan East 04:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

As cited in the article, the position of the VB "is a very divisive issue in Belgium". A NPOV-article should talk about this, and at least include information about pro- and antagonists. Hence the inclusion of the Blokwatch-link.LucVerhelst 13:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I fully agree with --Dan East BTW, Mr. Verhelst, your last description of Blokwatch as “scientific” is simply hilarious, see the tendentious/counterfeit stories on this discussion page under Archive02 4.2.1. Blokwatch is in fact one big lie. And that’s even a step farther than simply “biased”. But with the link itself I have no problem, at least if the reader is warned. So let’s revert to the original: “far-leftist stance”, except for the case that you bring in new elements.--Jvb – December 05, 2005
Please read "scientific" as in "using scientific methods", i.c. methods of political science. - I don't agree with the description "far-leftist" for Blokwatch. It is a POV-allegation. In fact, Blokwatch has no political ideology, other than denouncing the Vlaams Belang. Using "far-leftist stance" would be POV. -- LucVerhelst 13:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I am no expert in scientific method or the philosophy of science but science is most commonly defined as investigation or study through observation and reasoning, aimed at finding out the truth.
Science as defined above is sometimes termed pure science to differentiate it from applied science, the application of research to human needs. And one field of applied science may be classified as social science, the study of human behaviour and society.
Such as indicated above in the discussion about Blokwatch, there is something serious wrong with their observation method. So they certainly are not scientific.
On the other hand, your claim is that Blokwatch has no political ideology? Why then is their only aim to write about a political party?
Thus they are not scientific, yet political. Probably they even are dazzled just because of their political ideology, thus calling them far-left is certainly an option. An alternative label could be: “useless idiots for the Walloon Mafia, who want to perpetuate the harmful financial transfers from Flanders to Wallonia”, as Blockwatch’s political influence on the ground is neglectible.
--Jvb – December 06, 2005
"Useless idiots", "Walloon Mafia", "perpetuate the harmful financial transfers" : your views on Vlaams Belang and its opponents aren't really impartial, are they ? LucVerhelst 09:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
At the discussion page one is allowed to speak more frankly. I don’t intend to use here the usual Belgian double-talk. Also because here one doesn’t have to fear the Thought Police’s hot breath in one’s neck.
BTW, we are speaking about 11,3 billion EUR transfers (annually) from Flanders to Wallonia. The Belgian anti-opposition legislation is all about avoiding independence for Flanders. And in that respect Vlaams Belang happens to be their biggest threat. “Race” is only a pretext. For more detailed information about the transfers see: http://www.flandersonline.org/news/120/701#390 Mind you that the study is only speaking about the Walloon side of the problem. That the transfers are strangling Flanders’ economy is not represented. We are speaking about the future of 6 million Flemish people. That’s more important than scrutinizing (distorted) blah-blah.
--Jvb – December 06, 2005
One can see that you are on top of the real problems in Belgium. -- LucVerhelst 11:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to meddle with JvB for too long, for my own mind sanity's sake. Just to signal I too consider "far-leftist" as too POV a description of blokwatch. "anti-VB" would be so much simpler and to the point. Also, "tendencious/counterfeited" lies in the eye of the beholder. --FvdP 20:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Anti-VB doesn’t say enough: as an euphemism one could argue that “too much is lost/added in the translation to be credible”. --Jvb – December 14, 2005

Regarding the claim that 11.3 billion Eur is being transfered annually from Flanders to Wallonia. The site JvB links to is highly disputable. Information there shows even a kind of transfer up to 200 billion. "Financial transfers to Wallonia and Brussels now amount to almost 200 billion, but in relative terms have remained unchanged since 1970". Regarding the revenues of the Belgian state of about 150 billion Euro's (according to the CIA Worldfactbook), then I think that when Wallonia is getting 11.3 billion Euros more than Flanders, this is not that big transfer (it's about 7.3%). But that is a political view of course.

If you want to see other sites about the financial transfers from Flanders to Wallonia: [1] [2] 11,3 billion EUR transfers (annually) is very big money for little Flanders. That means 2.200 euro for all the Flemish individually. For a family of 4 persons, this means 8.800 euro annually. The corresponding taxes are in the long term lethal for the Flemish industry, because it undermines our competitiveness. --Jvb – January 10, 2006

Regarding Blokwatch identity I would like to say that the VB and the pro-VB people have a very strange tendency. Anything that is said as a critique regarding the VB is viewed as: - extreme-leftish far away from reality bullshit or - as going with the enemy (either you are an extreme muslim friend or you are in the conspiracy against Flanders being a friend of the Walloons). The VB as a free speech loving party as they state themselves, are a master in rediculising the speech of others. They are always yelling that they are the only ones that are right. Well, in some points the might be right, but overall, they are wrong. They believe that there is something as a Flemish cultural canon. That canon is the only canon that has all rights of being on the Flemish territories. All other cultural aspects have to be subordinant to the Flemish cultural canon that the VB claims to stand for. Bad news for VB, but in our reality it is a society of and/and instead of or/or. You can as well be a Flemming as a Muslim. That is something the VB cannot and will never believe. An other aspect is that Flanders is an unusual rich region. Quality of life is the highest in Flanders. The only thing VB is doing is to try to tell their voters that they live in a country that is balancing on the edge of disaster and that the Walloons and the immigrants are stealing all our money. That we are a repressed majority and that we are very pathetic. Shame on the VB!

Edit War

I wish someone would stop this foolish editing war. Apparantly, extremists from both sides have found a new battle ground. On which they fight without daring to show themselves. Is it at all possible to block edits from anonymous users ? LucVerhelst 18:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


  • This wikipedia page sucks indeed! What a country is Flanders anyway? A country of the followers of Ned? It sure looks like a fleming is more like a lemming! User:Hajduk 18:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


  • I suppose, with Ned, you allude to Dewinter wanting to place back in public places in Flanders, the crosses that (allegedly) were removed to please the Muslims? --Jvb – March 13, 2006
  • I don't allude to anybody, that's your profession already. D'oh! What's your obsession with muslims anyway? The more you stigmatize a group of people, the more you make a fool out of yourself! Amuze yourself in your tiny itsybitsy country, I don't care. User:Hajduk 18:41 24 March 2006
  • I only am referring to messages on Vlaams Belang’s web-site such as those recent ones: [3] (the Gedapo – the Gedachtenpolitie - the Belgian Thought Police thus, persecutes Father Samuel for “racism” because the Father warns against the Muslims) or [4] (Muslims sneakily try to remove a Cross monument in the neighbourhood of a Mosque in Amsterdam). --Jvb – March 27, 2006

Contacts with other parties in Europe /Relationship with other organisations/ Critics

  • There are no formal links between Vlaams Belang and the organisation Voorpost, which advocates a Greater Netherlands. BTW, Vlaams Belang even no longer advocates a pure and simple federation with the Netherlands . You also claim that many Voorpost executives belong to the leadership of the Vlaams Belang. But perhaps you know more than me. Can your please give some (important) names?
  • The two main leaders of the VB, Filip Dewinter and Frank Vanhecke, were NSV-leaders at the end of the '80s, beginning of the '90s. Also, although no formal links exist, NSV, Voorpost and the VB are known to have the same security service at protests, and are known to call upon eachother for protests.
  • And what to think about stories such as the following? Vice prime-minister in the Flemish government Frank Vandenbroecke is said having been a trotskist in his youth. Something that is probably “worse” than being member of a student organisation like [5]. If such things must be discussed/analysed, I think the article about Vlaams Belang will really become too long, something others are implicitely already complaining about, when comparing the English version with the Dutch version.--Jvb – January 2, 2006
  • The same logic for NSV, that is a student organisation. They even claim to be independent from any political party [6].
  • Were Di is an organisation that ended its existence in 1968. I think you should better update your data base.
  • The Ku Klux Klan? MP Marinower (a cunning Vlaams Belang opponent) speaks about a “comparison” and you already make the shift in meaning to “Unsubstantiated allegations”. Let me laugh.
  • Cordon Sanitaire: In 2004, Vlaams Blok’s successor party, Vlaams Belang changed its party platform to allow it to comply with the law and no formal new “cordon sanitaire” agreement was signed any more.
  • Blokwatch: a simple link suffices. Don’t make them more important than they are. The more because in the Blokwatch article itself it is mentioned, I quote, that now with Vlaams Belang most of the Flemish quality newspapers have given up to do research journalism on the so-called “anti-democratic operation of the far right ". This is no coincidence.
  • The nature of Prime Minister Verhofstadt’s “critics” on Vlaams Belang has already been discussed in the article by professor Defoort.
  • Contacts with other parties in Europe, Vlaams Belang’s view, see [7]. Excerpt from interview : “Filip Dewinter in Jewish Week - 28/10/05”:
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?

--Jvb – December 16, 2005

Jvb, I have the impression that you are carefully watching this article, to make sure that nothing appears that doesn't follow the Vlaams Belang party line. I think I'm going to nominate the article for a POV-check. -- LucVerhelst 16:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

POV-check

User Jvb keeps removing opposing points of view. However : "The policy of having a neutral point of view is not to hide different points of view, but to show the diversity of viewpoints." Therefore, I nominated the article for a POV-check. -- LucVerhelst 16:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Don’t restrain from discussing matters. Mr. Verhelst, I have the impression that you don’t have (enough) valuable arguments or original and reliable sources. I hope I’am wrong. Johan 17 December 2005
The problem with a discussion is the polarization on this matter. I believe it will be nearly impossible to reach an agreement on a neutral article, because every word that is not immediately favorable of the Vlaams Belang will be seen as an attack from the so called conspiracy against the party.
The particular problem with me, taking part in the discussion, is that I am a member of another Belgian political party, so that even if I succeeded in being neutral, my personal adherence would immediately be abused to shift the stance of the article towards the Vlaams Belang. (Please note that I explicitely state my ideological stance.)
But hey, I'll give it a try anyway.
The main objective of an article on the Vlaams Belang -or any other subject- in Wikipedia is to give someone new to the subject a complete picture. This means that you have to give all the important and/or necessary facts.
For example : it is not enough to give the party programme, but one should also enter the fact that a lot of people believe that this party programme is nothing more than a front, to cover the real, hidden agenda of the party, which is believed to be (and it's a fact that a lot of people believe it) to gain power in the country, and to perform an ethnic cleansing, or at least to install an apartheid regime. It is not a fact that the party is going to install apartheid, but it is a fact that a large number of people believe it will. This is important enough to include this information in the article.
Another example : It is not enough to list all the organizations and people with whom the party has good relations. You should also include the fact that the Vlaams Belang is the only party in the country for which there exist organizations to fight it (among which is Blokwatch). You can not give an appreciation on the ideological stance of Blokwatch, but you must include the information that Blokwatch is being accused by Vlaams Belang followers to have a far-leftist stance.
One for the road : It is not a fact that the Vlaams Belang has relations with the KKK. It is a fact however that Gerolf Annemans took a trip to the US, and that there are unsubstantiated allegations that he was there to contact the KKK.
It's becoming an addiction : It is a fact that the Vlaams Belang is one of the larger parties in the country, but it is also a fact that scientific studies showed that the party reached its sociological maximum, meaning that most of the people that would even consider to vote for the party, is doing it already. It is important information for a neutral article that a majority of the people will not even consider to vote for the Vlaams Belang, when for the other parties this is reversed : a majority thinks it possible to vote for, say VLD or CD&V or SP.a.
One more : it is a fact that polls show that -after Marc Dutroux- Philip Dewinter is the most hated man in the country, but it is also a fact that the man is said to have charisma, and is considered by many to be the perfect son in law.
And another one : while giving the fact that the party was convicted for racisme, you can include the allegation that this trial was a political trial, if you also include the fact that these allegations originated from the Vlaams Belang party itself, as part of its electoral strategy.
W're getting there : You must include the fact that the party has good contacts and followers within the relatively large Antwerp Jewish community. This is important information, because it is something you would not expect from a far-right party. But you also have to speak about the fact that eminent members of that Jewish community have regularly spoken out against the party. And you also have to include the fact that -certainly among the founders- the Vlaams Belang has quite a number of antisemite and revisionists members and followers. It is also a fact that these good relations with the Jewish community are believed to be part of the strategic positioning against the ethnic minority in the country, which consists mainly of muslims.
-- LucVerhelst 10:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Verhelst, I read that you are member of another Belgian political party. So I googled a bit and found that you are chairman for the Green party in Berchem County [8]. BTW, on your blog the first thing I read (December 18 – one day after you wrote the text above) is that you insinuate that Vlaams Belang politicians have a low IQ and that they have an insane psychological texture. Ever heard about psychiatry in the former Soviet Union? I also remark on your blog an obscene caricature of Vlaams Belang’s party symbol. But remark, it is YOU who put these things on YOUR web-site. This is no abuse of your position by somebody else.
Those who want to read more about my stance can do so on my talk page:--Jvb For the rest is presenting myself less useful, as my humble person is really unimportant. I also am NO member of Vlaams Belang.
But perhaps a preceding remark. When I compare the actual article versions of Vlaams Belang [9] and that of your own Green Party [10], I would suggest you not to neglect the latter. Also don’t forget to mention your own party platform and the reasons why your party lost all of its seats in the Belgian parliament in the last federal election! Only to say that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Let democracy do its work and then the voter will see whether the (also for Vlaams Belang) platform and the policy converge.
About Blokwatch. Vlaams Belang is a party that got more than one million votes in Flanders. Blokwatch is not a party. How much members does this tiny Blokwatch, this private web-log organisation have? Ten or twenty? Don’t try to compare apples with lemons. Wikipedia should not do “original” research and certainly not copy the chimeras of a splinter group that pretends to represent a large part of society, without actually doing so. “Far-leftist stance” is a good description for the fact that they lost, as political commentators, contact with reality, see the discussion above. What Blockwatch writes is in flagrant contradiction with information from Flanders’ biggest quality newspaper De Standaard. I know who to believe.
I notice that you write that it is NOT a fact that Vlaams Belang has relations with the KKK.
Is it really a fact that scientific studies showed that Vlaams Belang has reached its sociological maximum? But your big problem is that in the ballot box people strike a different note. The “researcher” will have to use other methods or ask another kind of questions. Or perhaps people might even think that the researcher is Tought Police in disguise?
To compare Dewinter with super paedophile Marc Dutroux or mass murderer Belgian king Leopold II (in Congo) says more about the magazine Deng [11] than about Dewinter himself. Something closer to reality would be claiming that Dutroux is a typical product of the failing Walloon society and failing Walloon political class. I suppose, you agree that without the eternal financial transfers from Flanders to Wallonia, Dutroux’s lifelong living on social benefits would not have been possible! BTW, in the same Deng issue is offered a Dewinter toilet-sticker and a grafitti-template. But may I, as a political outsider, give you an advice? If the left wants the working class to vote back for them, please make propaganda in another way. The same in America. The left did not understand why Bush was re-elected. Perhaps because the left has no project of its own? To understand, read the following (in Dutch) [12]
About the “allegation” that the trial against Vlaams Belang was a political one, I must underline that law professor Matthias Storme is no Vlaams Belang member, but belongs to the ruling CD&V N-VA coalition in the Flemish parliament.
The Jews. I quote from you: ‘’You must include the fact that the party has good contacts and followers within the relatively large Antwerp Jewish community, but you also have to speak about the fact that eminent members of that Jewish community have regularly spoken out against the party.’’ BTW, did I ever delete such things? But in this context perhaps other things play a more prominent role than being a Jew or not. You see it too racial. This is not exclusively racial. There are important differences between the traditional Antwerp Jews and the French-speaking liberal (international meaning) Jews from Brussels, altough in a geographical way they only live at 60 kilometers from each other. And please note, this cannot be a coincidence, that it is mainly in the latter group from Brussels, psychologically outside Flanders, that one finds most of the (Jewish) critics who copy the PS/FdF lamentating about Vlaams Belang.
As far as I know Vlaams Belang has no antisemites or revisionists among its founders or present party members. This is a myth, the same as with that other Ku Klux Klan myth. These allegations cannot be substantiated, on the contrary, see Dewinter’s text above.
--Jvb – December 19, 2005
Ah, well.
I did note : "The particular problem with me, taking part in the discussion, is that I am a member of another Belgian political party, so that even if I succeeded in being neutral, my personal adherence would immediately be abused to shift the stance of the article towards the Vlaams Belang."
If this were a fight, I would have made myself vulnerable, revealing my own position. But I don't think it's very useful to start a fight on an international wikipedia about a local political problem. The problem is that you, Jvb, seem to think otherwise. That is your problem.
I am not here to produce anti-VB propaganda. I think this is somewhat useless, since the majority of (potential) VB-voters will never be reading this. And if I were here for propaganda against the VB, this goal would best be reached by providing the full and complete picture on the party, so that every Wikipedia-reader is able to come to his or her own conclusion about the real nature of the party.
But, as I said, it is not my aim to produce propaganda. I have the impression, though it may be an illusion, that I can make a distinction between fact and opinion. Hence my remarks of 17 december.
It is also my impression, Jvb, that you can not separate fact from opinion. Or that you don't want to. And it's even more my impression that you are not neutral about the Vlaams Belang, although you may state that you're not a member. If you were neutral, there wouldn't be any reason to be hostile, or to get up in arms about the subject, or to launch an attack on me personally or on my party.
As I said, I'm not the best person to participate in this discussion, so I will do what I originally intended to do : warn the international community about the non-neutral stance of the article, and leave the rest up to people that are not perceived as being partisan. I would suggest that you do the same, Jvb...
-- LucVerhelst 14:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I simply refuted most of your assertions from December 17, 2005. And there your side of the story seems to stop, because you don’t come to the point any more. At any event a smart retort from me is still something else as a fight.
I also don’t stop you from depicting Vlaams Belang’s “real nature”. But please refrain from techniques such as “it cannot be proven that they are linked to the Ku Klux Klan" (perhaps hoping that the name KKK will stick in memory while speaking about Vlaams Belang), or to state that they are anti-Semites or revisionists/negationists, without actually giving evidence in proof of this claim.
You also blame me not to be able (or willing) to separate fact from fiction, of course also without giving examples.
Can somebody (else) perhaps explain me why I then should stay away from this article?
--Jvb – December 19, 2005
Yes, well, my examples of 17 december are what I said they were, examples of the way a neutral article on the Vlaams Belang should also include information not necessarily favorable to the party. And therefore a criticism on the way you have been guarding the article. If the KKK-story ends up being an urban legend, so be it, and we should certainly not include it in the article (except maybe to identify it as an urban legend). -- LucVerhelst 18:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
As a general principle, don’t try to stick in a concealed way the criminal record of others on Vlaams Belang. If you claim that Gerolf Annemans went to the US to see the KKK, then I want you to offer evidence in the same way such as there exists evidence that Vincent Van Quickenborne, now secretary of state for prime-minister Guy Verhofstadt’s VLD, a few years ago, had a friendly encounter with sheik Yassin, the Hamas chief. Van Quickenborne even wished the sheik “good luck”. I remember clearly to have read it myself in the newspaper and there certainly is footage about the Hamas meeting too.
--Jvb – December 20, 2005
As a general principle, if you're writing an encyclopaedic article, you try to paint a complete and neutral picture about the subject you're writing about. Comparing that subject with other subjects is making a non-neutral judgement, which has no place in an encyclopedia. I'm sure that others are worse than Gerolf Annemans, or the Vlaams Belang, but it's not up to you or me or anyone else writing for Wikipedia to force that judgement upon the readers. -- LucVerhelst 08:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
You don’t seem to have understood what I mean. I am not saying that the Van Quickenborne story should be included here in this article, I’m only saying that the Ku Klux Klan link to Vlaams Belang is fiction and thus should not be mentioned in Wikipedia Encyclopaedia as long as you can’t give PROOF of it such as is possible in the other case of the Hamas link to prime-minister Verhofstadt’s assistant minister Vincent Van Quickenborne, see for instance [13]
Aggravating aspect: that Van Quickenborne’s demarche in Lebanon was not a superficial courtesy visit proves the following: [14]:
’Elie Hobeika, a key witness in the Sabra-Chatila war crimes case being pursued in a Belgian court against Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon, was blown up outside his house in Beirut on Jan. 24, 2002, together with three bodyguards and a civilian bystander. The car-bomb was the work of professional assassins in the employ of Mossad, the Israeli secret service. The explosion occured two days after Hobeika agreed to give evidence against Sharon in Belgium. Hobeika had met Belgian Senators Josy Dubie and Vincent van Quickenborne in east Beirut, agreeing to be a witness at any trial of Sharon for the Sabra and Chatila massacre.’’
Only to show that, on the contrary, this other controversial visit is well-documented.
--Jvb – December 20, 2005
You don’t seem to have understood what I mean. The KKK-connection may well be fiction, but if enough people believe it, they will act upon it. Therefore, if you want to write a neutral article on the Vlaams Belang, one that paints the total picture of the party, you should include the fact that a lot of people believe in the KKK-link, because the reader needs this information to understand why all these people react in a certain fashion, react differently than they would have done if they didn't believe the KKK-thing.
Now let's stop about the KKK, since we've established that it is almost certainly an urban myth, and anyway, I cannot document where I heard about it in the first place. -- LucVerhelst 17:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
If this specific discussion stops, I intend to remove the check-tag early next year . --Jvb – December 26, 2005
I don't agree at all.
Even less after your changes today, Jvb, from a neutral insertion to a VB-friendly article.
We need to start working on a neutral text, or I will ask for deletion of the page.
-- LucVerhelst 21:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Creating a Vlaams Belang friendly article??? With the Belgian flag on top? I don’t see it like that.
But perhaps we can come to terms. Please explain then what bothers you so much with my last changes.
--Jvb – December 27, 2005

Vote for deleting this page

Indeed there is a goose who is sitting on it's eggs, like rataouille stated. Looks like that dude is unemployed or something, but like a moral-knight he defends his favorite politic party by changing every comment that criticises the Vlaams Belang. Pethatic, but so is Vlaams Belang itselfs.

Anyway, isn't there a possibility to make paté of that goose and keep this page realistic?

Funny isn't it, that JvB considers everything others think as coming from the 'thought police' while he is behaving just like a 'thought police' himself regarding his article.

The Belgian Centre for Equal Opportunities is a quango specialised in intimidating people by systematically lodging complaints with serious prosecutional consequences against people they don’t like, letting in peace other people, even when they say the same. But from me, you have nothing to fear. And neither from the Vlaams Belang, for the case they would ever have an absolute majority in Flanders, because they want to abolish that institute.
The Belgian Thought Police is a public prosecutor directly dependent on the prime-minister’s office. And in legalistic Belgium where as to the letter of the law everything is forbidden, in fact (tax paid) lawyers decide your guilt. They seem to come straight out of the Dark Ages. --Jvb – January 10, 2006

Discuss what JVB?

Discuss what JVB?

Did you discuss the deletion of my posts? In fact it's clear that everything that doesn't fit in your opinion, must be discussed and deleted, but the stuff you edit is clear to do without discussion?For example the deleting of the line about the statement of Filip Dewinter that Vlaams Belang is 'Islamofobic' is a superb example why your free speech is only able for those who have the same narrow minds as yours!

Hypocrisy, mister free speech, that's oviously what connects you to the extreme right Flemish Blok!


Luckely no international visitor is really ineresed in your tiny little nationalistic politic party, so keep terrorising your fake page over here. I don't give a sh*t!

Oh, come on, let's stay serious.
We're on an international forum here, no need to be doing politics. Let's try and make this article on the Vlaams Belang as neutral and truthful as possible, and every sensible reader will discover the true nature of the party.
There is no need to start insulting people, or to spread lies. It doesn't look good (and it is counter productive). -- LucVerhelst 19:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I'm not here to insult but indeed I did. I just get angry when people are not open for opions that are not their own, especially when these are NO lies and the censurist is for 'so called' free speech. Sad but true, so I'll stay away from this article to prevent getting even more angry with people who only love to hear themselves.
Mr. Volim orasac, Filip Dewinter's statement that Vlaams Belang is 'Islamophobic' can be found here [15].
Excerpt from interview : “Filip Dewinter in Jewish Week (New York)- 28/10/05”:
Question from Jewish Week: There are those who say Jews should not be voting for a party that espouses xenophobia. Your reaction?
Answer from Dewinter: “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?
In the present article on Wikipedia this corresponds with: It sees the islamisation of Europe as a frightening historical process. The latter is a better formulation than Islamophobic. Those who read on a regular basis Vlaams Belang’s official web-site will understand this, see (in Dutch) [16]
As far as your remark about the party platform is concerned, I object. There certainly is a new party platform since Vlaams Belang was created, see the Flemish quality newspaper De Standaard (in Dutch) [17] .
I understand that French-speakers are nervous. Losing their Flemish slaves is no pleasant prospect. The Flemish on the contrary can always, because of democracy, if afterwards they would feel disillusioned about Vlaams Belang, vote for another party. That’s not irrevocable.
--Jvb – December 21, 2005
Like I told before, I don't give a sh*t what you edit in this one-sided article, I won't come back to this silly page. WTF do I care about French or Flemish speaking Belgians anyway? I'm glad I'm not a part of it! ;)
Mr. Volim orasac, about all your allegations of one-sidedness I already answered above. I’m willing to discuss everything with you. --Jvb – December 22, 2005

217.136.122.96 and the free market

Jvb, you reverted the changes by 217.136.122.96, calling them vandalism. I don't see how this falls under "vandalism". (Mind you, I am not saying I agree with 217.136.122.96.) -- LucVerhelst 08:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

All those who are watching Vlaams Belang a little bit should know that the party is currently profiling on free market policies, see (in Dutch) [18] --Jvb – December 22, 2005
And because the party decided to profile on a certain subject, it should immediately be inserted in an neutral international encyclopedia ?
I suggest that you would read up on the way sources should be treated when trying to write neutrally and objectively.
-- LucVerhelst 10:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I don’t remember having inserted that statement about free market there by myself somewhere in the past. Mind you, at any event, for the time being, I only re-inserted it, after someone else deleted it.
But the fact is that it already stands there for a longer time of period, see for instance Flemish Interest, which corresponds with the old Archive01. There one finds an even elaborated section about Vlaams Belang’s stance towards free market, see the part about "Macroeconomic policies". And now their recent economic congress (that’s what I meant by profiling) only confirms this. BTW, that this Vlaams Belang economic congress was no little event can be seen on video. And in their daily comments on their web-site economy takes an important place too. I suppose you can’t deny their stance towards free market. Whatever is needed to convince you?
--Jvb – December 22, 2005
I agree that you just reverted the removed phrase. I reacted against your use of the word "vandalism", since the change by 217.136.122.96 didn't appear to be that by me.
About VB's support of the free market : this is what their website says : (in Dutch) "Wij kiezen voor een gecorrigeerde vrije markteconomie. ... Een ultraliberale benadering - laissez-faire - kan tot tal van misbruiken leiden...." They are for the corrected free market, as are all the other Belgian parties (except maybe the nearly extinct communists). Mentioning their support of the free market doesn't add any value to the article, to the contrary (or you should add every single aspect of their programme). -- LucVerhelst 14:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Mr. purist, I wrote “little” (as denominator) vandalism. Was understood “possible” little vandalism, as no explication was given about the change by Mr. Anonymous.
Vlaams Belang’s economic thinking is strongly influenced by the Harvard Business School’s Institute for Strategy and Competitveness and specifically by the writings of Michael Porter, its head, about the competitiveness and economic development of nations, states, and regions. Flemish Interest sees Porter’s clusters as the engine of economic development.
Vlaams Belang, in agreement with neo-liberal economist Friedrich Hayek, believes that the government must limit its actions to creating the right conditions for spontaneous economic growth and remove bottlenecks in infrastructure.
Moreover Vlaams Belang wants the introduction of a flat tax, which is a radical economic measure. The correction Vlaams Belang wants is that for social purposes the flat tax should be combined with a significant zero taxation threshold. So low incomes are exempt from taxation.
These are free-market policies I don’t find in a socialist party platform.
--Jvb – December 22, 2005
Flat tax ? I don't think so : "Er moet een drastische vereenvoudiging komen van de berekening en de aftrekken inzake inkomstenbelasting." Calling this "flat tax" is rather far fetched.
"Low incomes are exempt from taxation" ? I dont think so : "Voor loon- en weddetrekkenden met een laag en gemiddeld inkomen en voor mensen die genieten van een vervangingsinkomen moet de aangifteplicht afgeschaft worden."
Both quotes from  : Resolution of the economical congress of November 2005.-- LucVerhelst 17:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Far fetched? A radical tax reform that simplifies the calculation of income tax and that does away with all kinds of complex reductions of taxable income? Each professional macro-economist will recognize that as a flat tax. Moreover in the specialized Vlaams Belang publication which I mentioned above, the name flat tax is used explicitly. But in this more popular text not, probably because the name “flat tax” has little meaning for the general public.
That in Vlaams Belang’s view certain categories wouldn’t be obliged to submit a tax declaration any more is disconnected from the idea to provide for a significant zero taxation threshold for low incomes in the case of a flat tax. But of course, A does not exclude B.
Another reason to let the international community know that Vlaams Belang is free market oriented is that in the rest of the world most secesionists are left wing, but not in Flanders with Vlaams Belang.
--Jvb – December 22, 2005

Eigen Volk Eerst

I changed the passage about "eigen volk eerst", since the slogan is still being used, for example to end one of the three official speeches at the recent economical congress of the party.

Please don’t mix up two different things.
The old Vlaams Blok used the expression “Eigen Volk Eerst” (“Own People First”) as a slogan on billboards, pamphlets, pencils and cigarette lighters and it even was the name of their newspaper. Little detail, but important, all three words were written in capital letters, see http://vlaamsblok.be/publicaties_eve.shtml This could be interpreted as incitement.
Here on this congres this is different. This is an academic meeting. Anke Vandermeersch speaks about competitor VLD for whom only power, career and selfishness count, instead of the general public interest. Meanwhile, Vandermeersch says, the VLD is telling fairy tales about the economy to mislead the public, altough (because of too high taxes - understood the transfers to Wallonia) Flanders is economically going to hell. She also contends that cost accounting reveals that the present kind of Belgian immigration policy is no solution for a series of problems. Then stating that for Vlaams Belang the Flemish people has priority (not in capitals) is no incitement to hatred. Party leader Frank Vanhecke in his speech says “Flanders and the Flemish first”. President Bush says “America first”. So it must be seen in the context.
Conclusion: if you want to change the text of the article, please find better examples.
--Jvb – December 22, 2005
I don't believe this. The use of this slogan during a recent congress is an example of the fact that the party has only officially changed its identity to comply with the law, but that in reality, it hasn't changed much. This is important information, if you want to understand why for example the cordon sanitaire still hasn't been lifted by the other parties.
Please revert it back. -- LucVerhelst 20:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC) Or alternatively, in compliance with Wikipedia etiquette, refrase the sentence, if you believe it isn't neutral enough. Thank you. -- LucVerhelst 21:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Flanders first, the Flemish first, own people first, America first, God bless America…these slogans are, at least to international standards, no hate speech on its own. Perhaps you don’t like them, but that’s something different. And in the article about Vlaams Belang stands that the Vlaams Blok MOTTO has been dropped, as a motto. That’s a true description of the situation too. As far as the so-called cordon sanitaire is concerned, I know at least one (governing, Flemish region) party, the N-VA (in the polls of the same order of magnitude as your party and in cartel with the much bigger Christian-Democrats) who have declared as a party that for them the cordon sanitaire doesn’t exist any more.
--Jvb – December 23, 2005

Edits deleted

I would like to understand why various edits I made to this article were deleted. They brought additional perspective on the Vlaams Belang, and were all factually correct, e.g.,

  • The exact numerical force of the Vlaams Belang in Flanders and Belgium
Percentages can already be found, see Belgium/politics of Belgium. Right-hand side article.--Jvb – December 27, 2005.
This is not directly visible, while the statement that the Vlaams Belang is the largest and most popular party in Belgium deserves additional facts to be put properly in perspective. By the way, in spite of being the largest, we could also mention that the Vlaams Belang is also the most unpopular party in Belgium
The message here is that Vlaams Belang is already big and that nothing allows us to think that they will deviate from their growth path. This contributes to the idea that it will always become more and more difficult to keep them away from power. That they are not popular at the receiving side looks logical but does not intervene with their growth path. Someone else put it there originally, but I fully agree with it.--Jvb – December 27, 2005.
That the VB would deviate or not from its growth path is an opinion, not a fact. Opinion polls are providing conflicting (and statistically unsignificant) views in this respect. I suggest we stick to the past and present. I also insist on providing the exact share of the vote the VB is getting in flanders and gfor the whole of Belgium, since the article, as currently worded, may give the impression that it is higher than it actually is. The current blurp on political families is unclear, states that they only usually make alliances (while this has always been the case for the Federal Governement), and ommits the critical fact that they are all larger than the VB (even including the FN as its Walloon counterpart if you wish). I fail to understand why this would not be relevant facts for somebody not acquainted with the Belgian political system Benbel 20:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
That the Vlaams Belang follows a long term growth path is not invented by me. I heard it during a speech by a professor in political science. But anyhow it is not written as such on the present article, so that we don’t have to argue further. Dutch and French-speaking parties in Belgium are completely separated, apart from the fact that they have common forefathers. At any event, on the ground the differences grow. And since CDh has removed “Christian” from its name and helped the government as an opposition party, the Flemish CD&V have declared that they from now on both have as much in common as a horse and a zebra. Between Vlaams Belang and FN there are NO relations. --Jvb – January 2, 2006
  • The flip-flop of that party on early retirement
Flip flop? Vlaams Belang wants a pension system based upon investment funds instead of the present system based upon redistribution. The early retirement system is another problematic that will probably disappear after the independence (when there are no longer transfers to Wallonia and the Flemish economy gets a new breath). --Jvb – December 27, 2005
Sorry, you deleted a relevant fact regarding a flip-flop of the Vlaams Belang because of what is only an opinion (disappearance of the need after a putative independence)
And what to think about the following: Vlaams Belang simply denies that it wants to maintain the early pension system. With citation: [19]. De partij weerlegt het standpunt dat ze zou opkomen voor het behoud van de huidige (brug)pensioensituatie. Do you have a citation that proves the opposite? --Jvb – December 27, 2005.
  • The actual linguistic situation in the municipalities with facilities
An additional item has been inserted. --Jvb – December 27, 2005
But you again removed a relevant fact because it does not fit with your political opinions
The actual corresponding text about VLAAM BELANG’s (not yours) policies goes as follows: Abolition of language facilities for French-speakers in the six concerned border communes with Brussels, because in Vlaams Belang's view, these facilities rather frenchify instead of assimilating the French-speakers, French being the killer-language in sociological terms. Isn’t that a right representation of Vlaams Belang’s view on the matter? --Jvb – December 27, 2005.
  • The unacceptability of that party to (at least) the French-speaking political world
With the next local elections the French-speakers are not involved and we are speaking about the so-called cordon sanitaire. --Jvb – December 27, 2005
This piece of the article clearly takes a longer-term perspective as it mentions consequences for the full Belgian political system. Also, in Brussels, French-speakers will be involved in municipal elections. I do not understand why you are suppressing the fact that French-speakers do not like that party, a relevant fact I would think.
In Brussels’ 19 communes, the question of a coalition with Vlaams Belang is not relevant, because Vlaams Belang there only counts 5% of the votes. To say it in French, in Brussels they may well be “contournable”. And that Vlaams Belang is not allowed to speak in the French-speaking media easily contributes to the distorted image that it there has. This then should be mentioned too.--Jvb – December 27, 2005.
You did not answer te objection to the fact that this piece of the article was taking a longer-term view. There will be federal elections at the latest in 2007, for instance, and Regional elections with potential issues in Brussels in 2009 at the latest. I personnally have no issue with a section that woud contrast the treatment of the VB and other exttreme-right parties in the French-speaking and Flemish media over time Benbel 20:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
The “longer” term (the municipal elections this year) was not introduced in the article by me, but I can only confirm that commentators in Flanders wonder wheter Vlaams Belang will rise to power afterwards. --Jvb – January 2, 2006

I could add a lot more regarding, e.g., the filiation of that party with extreme-right organizations and former Nazi collaborators.

The far-right option already has been discussed in the article (at the opening). --Jvb – December 27, 2005
In terms of balance in the article, much more space is given to the refutations of the Vlaams Belang as a far-right party or portraying its condemnation as being politically motivated than to the other opinion. This does not reflect NPOV
This simply is not true.--Jvb – December 27, 2005.
Yes, it is. See size of mention of Defoort's article, long mention around Matthias Storme, or refutation of Raes's antisemitism. Benbel 20:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Matthias Storme is an eminent law professor from Louvain University.
And non of both are members of Vlaams Belang. In the article is the record of what they argued. Nothing more.
  • As far as Raes is concerned. The Guardian article is largely refuted by the home quality newspaper De Standaard.
--Jvb – January 2, 2006

I am also taking exception with the fact that Blokwatch is caricatured as being extreme-left.

Already discussed on the discussion page. --Jvb – December 27, 2005
But you certainly did not reach a consensus on this. We should simply mention Blokwatch as a website that collects facts and opinions against the Vlaams Belang. You saying that it is far left is an opinion, not a fact.
Such as expressed above, what Blockwatch writes is in flagrant contradiction with information from Flanders’ biggest quality newspaper De Standaard. I know who to believe. And for the case that the Wikipedia community would decide to mention them, in that case the source of their dazzling should be indicated too. --Jvb – December 27, 2005.

I would like to see if we can come to a common ground on this, as I feel that I am being censored

No censorship, see above. --Jvb – December 27, 2005
I hope we can come to some common ground on this, and am waiting for your suggestions.
The discussion continues… --Jvb – December 27, 2005.

Just so you know, I have requested a mediation on this article, and have suggested that it be temporarily deleted until a consensus version can be built.


Hi why dont you just make two separate headings with the view of the vlaams belangers and the other one with the view of the anti-vlaams belangers. I think things would be very more simple this way and furthermore i feel this article is really too short. What do you think of this? Julien Tuerlinckx 16:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I would actually support to translate the current Dutch version of the Wikipedia article on Vlaams Belang, on the grounds that it has probably already been much more thoroughly checked than this English version. Who would agree with this? Benbel 20:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
The English version is more extensive than the Dutch one because of the international and interregional discussions with French-speakers. --Jvb – January 2, 2006

Blokwatch is far-left

Today I remarked that even left-liberal socialist and Spirit president Lambert says that Blokwatch is far-left, see: http://www.standaard.be/Artikel/Detail.aspx?artikelId=GU5M4M68 --Jvb – December 29, 2005

Sorry, I cannot agree with the characterization of Blokwatch as a far-left organization solely on the base of Vlaams Belang's opinion, and the one of another Flemish nationalist party. It has a wide panel of academics, of which I'd doubt all or even a majority would be linked to Communist or Trotskist parties. The previous explanations given in this discussion section do not provide evidence other than your own conviction, which does not qualify as consensus. I have gone through their web-site, and there is no systeamtic promotion of political opinions that could qualify as far-left. There are even articles written by members of the Liberal Party. Its promoter, Marc Spruyt, has written several books, whose relevance and quality of research have been praised repeatedly in quality Flemish newspapers.
I can agree to say Vlaams Belang and its suporters see it as far-left, but this is not established as a fact. It is only an opinion and should be stated as such. 85.27.14.44 18:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Excerpt from the De Standaard article:
Maar Lambert ontkent niet dat hij het ,,links-liberale profiel van Spirit wil aanscherpen. De Spirit-voorzitter:,,Ik ben geen Blokwatcher, wij zijn niet extreem-links.
Lambert of the left liberals, who from the Flemish side profiles with his charges against Vlaams Belang and who is also a cartel partner of the Flemish socialist party says: “I am no Blokwatcher, we are not far-left. So this is no Vlaams Belang language…
--Jvb – January 2, 2006
Geert Lambert is a party president, who has to try and win an election, later this year, and who has to convince Vlaams Belang-voters to swing back to his party. You can hardly quote him as a neutral or scientific source.
Furthermore, we're trying to write an unbiased, encyclopaedic article here, not to fight a political battle. I wish you would keep that in mind. --LucVerhelst 13:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
It is more complicated than that. This is more than a personal Blokwatch assessment by Lambert.
Lambert is the one who for the Spirit/Flemish socialists pays the lawyers who must formulate the charges that are intended to kill/hurt seriously Vlaams Belang in court by cutting its public funding. In fact Lambert is trying to realize in practice Blokwatch’s own wet dream: the demise of Vlaams Belang. So Lambert is the reference by excellence for Blokwatch. There is no better. And then the same Lambert says: I am no Blokwatcher, I am not far-left. Indicating that Lambert wants to be compared with a white and noble knight who goes for the pure kill. Insinuating at the same time that the Blokwatch extremists are so dazzled by hate that they don’t shy away from objectionable practices.
--Jvb – January 3, 2006
I'm glad to see that you agree with me. Lambert was making a political statement, not an assessment. --LucVerhelst 09:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Lambert makes that remark because the PUBLIC sees Blokwatch as far-left --Jvb – January 3, 2006
Exactly. He makes the remark because the part of the public he wants to reach, he wants to vote for him, sees Blokwatch as far-left. Therefore, it's not a good source to use in a neutral encyclopaedia. --LucVerhelst 11:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
But outside that public most people haven’t ever heard about Blokwatch. Thus were are then the people that don’t see Blokwatch as far-left? --Jvb – January 3, 2006
You mean the people who study organisations, or observe society ? The people that are not trying to convince other people of something, but that are trying to describe fairly and objectively ? Political scientists, journalists, political commentators ? --LucVerhelst 12:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
At least Flanders’ biggest quality newspaper De Standaard doesn’t take Blokwatch serious. --Jvb – January 3, 2006
"Een VRT-journalist schrok zich onlangs zelfs rot toen hij merkte dat Mark Spruyt, de smaakmaker van de anti-Belangwebstek Blokwatch, in het parlement zonder problemen op een groepje Belangers kon botsen. Niemand bleek de man te kennen. Het blijft een raadsel hoe je een partij kan doorgronden als je met geen enkele mandataris spreekt." [20] ("A VRT-journalist was shocked when he noticed that Mark Spruyt of the anti-Belang web site Blokwatch, in the parliament could run into a group Belang-members without any trouble. Apparently, nobody knew the man. It remains a question how you can thoroughly know a party if you don't speak with any of its MP's").
And this proves how exactly that Blokwatch is far-left ? --LucVerhelst 17:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
After all, yes, it is additional. This states that there even is no feedback from Vlaams Belang about the tendentious/counterfeit stories Blokwatch writes, see discussion page Archive02 4.2.1. --Jvb – January 4, 2006
Where exactly did you read in that article that Blokwatch writes tendentious or counterfeit stories ?
No need to become slanderous, I should think. --LucVerhelst 15:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
See Archive02, under 4.2.1.1 Blokwatch doesn’t say everything. --Jvb – January 5, 2006
Yes, but you write : "This states that there even is no feedback from Vlaams Belang about the tendentious/counterfeit stories Blokwatch writes". Where exactly does it state that it are stories Blokwatch writes, and that they are tendentious or counterfeit ? And where exactly does it state that there is no feedback from Vlaams Belang ? I only read that a number of Vlaams Belang members didn't recognise Mark Spruyt. --LucVerhelst 11:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
It is the De Standaard newspaper that writes, I quote: "It remains a mystery how you can fathom a party if you don't talk to any of their MP's". And that sentence was linked BY ME to Archive02, under 4.2.1.1 At any event, in my opinion, a story on Blokwatch’s website is written by Blokwatch itself. I hope this clarifies things. --Jvb – January 5, 2006
I'm glad that's cleared up.
Does this mean that everything you write here on Wikipedia is tendentious/counterfeit ? You do write it yourself. --LucVerhelst 16:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I refer to the previous discussion on Archive02, under 4.2.1.1 --Jvb – January 6, 2006

How well VB members can recognize Mark Spruyt is irrelevant to the leftishness of the Blokwatch and Jvb has failed so far to provide any significant evidence in favour of the Blokwatch being far-left (as opposed as being seen as far-left by some, or presented as far-left by a right-wing politician). So I remove the mention. --FvdP 01:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a misunderstanding: Mr. Lambert is a LEFT-wing politician, in fact THE left-wing politician as far as Vlaams Belang is concerned. So I put the original mention back. --Jvb – January 8, 2006

Reverted your revert (on the BW link). OK Lambert is leftish. But cf Luc's remark. And don't forget we (AFAIK) all agree that Blokwatch are opponents to the VB: why don't just keep that ? That notice is sufficient to tell that they may be biased, and in which direction. On the other hand, here you're the only one to pretend they're "far-left", with weak indirect evidence. --FvdP 19:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not want to get envolved in an endless discussion with JvB about the political orientation of Blokwatch. As I also do not want to get envolved with JvB about the exact orientation of Flemish Interest (be it far-right, extreme-right or even racist). The only thing JvB should stop doing is calling Blokwatch far-left stance. This is one bridge to far. There is even no consensus to find in just calling Blokwatch opponents of VB like FvdP suggests. Since its constitution last year, the site has been consulted 2.5 milion times by allmost 500.000 individual visitors. By newspaper 'de Tijd' the site is discribed as a newssite about and against the VB. This political newssite, that claims to be independent, is morally and intelectually protected by an assembly of exceptionel lawyers, scientists, ethics and philosophers. The commity is made out of: Jan Blommaert (professor African languages and cultures UG, study group Language, Power and Identity Wetenschappelijke Onderzoeksgemeenschap Vlaanderen), Ronald Commers (professor Philosophy and Moral sciences VUB, director Program in European Urban Cultures), Dirk Jacobs (professor Groupe d'études sur l'Ethnicité, le Racisme, les Migrations et l'Exclusion (GERME), Sociological Institute, ULB), League of Human Rights, Rik Pinxten (professor Comparative Sciences UG, president Humanistisch Verbond), Pieter Saey (professor Geography UG, Study group World-System analysis), Sami Zemni (professor study of the third world UG, president Centre Islam in Europe). The site has this protection commity because of the existing danger that an initiative such as this one will be unrightfully slandered, brought into discredit or undermined by others (just as JvB tries to do). As I stated, calling it far-left is wrong and just calling it oponents of the VB is wrong as well. As the VB is a political party, other parties are opponents of VB. As Blokwatch is not a party it is a newssite. The Blokwatch-site is constituted by a union of 4 separeted sites that wanted to form a strong alternative against the dominance of extreme-right on the internet. Even among the pro-VB surfers, the site is popular (1 out of 5 visitors claim to be pro-VB in an investigation by Blokwatch). As is it just to know what the opposition thinks about their party. With 2.500.000 pageviews and 500.000 individual visitors a year, the website deserves more than to be called "far-leftish stance" or just "opponents to the VB". It should be described correctly as it is: "an independent observatory for the scientific study of extreme-right and the journalistic reporting on extreme-right parties, essentially the VB". Kind regards, YrZ --YrZ – January 9, 2006

Very impressive: you write that Blokwatch is morally and intelectually protected by an assembly of exceptionel lawyers, scientists, ethics and philosophers. And moreover those people should protect them against people like me, who, as you claim, unrightfully slander, bring into discredit or undermine them. But the only text in English that I find on their web-site about Vlaams Belang is fake, see Archive02, under 4.2.1.1 Blokwatch doesn’t say everything. The problem is that Blokwatch is not reliable.
And may I recall that Blokwatch took with the petition www.vlaams-burgerinitiatief.be , linked to http://www.speeltuin.antifa.net/ (they are trying to be funny), the initiative to put a stop to the subsidies for VB, in fact wanting to destroy that party. So is it really an independent observatory? Certainly not. And they certainly are opponents. To what other facts was Lambert reacting when he said “I am no Blokwatcher, we are not far-left”, when he said that he would (for the Flemish socialists as a figurehead ) pay the lawyers for the next attack against Vlaams Belang?
The present description of Blokwatch as: An independent observatory for the scientific study of extreme-right and the journalistic reporting on extreme-right parties, essentially the VB is not correct.
--Jvb – January 10, 2006
Dear JvB,
Indeed, when Lambert reacted saying he is no Blokwatcher, and that they are not far-left, then Blokwatch must be far-left. Nice way to show what kinds of argumentation you follow. So when a certain conservative liberal states he is not working together with the VB because they are fascists, the VB are fascists? Is this the way we are going to argument with each other? I say to you 'whatever', you are wright, almost no content of the site has been translated in English, yet. So I don't care what you put behind their link. When more parts of the site are translated, I will come back and discuss the issue. For now, my last contribution to the discussion about this article is to change the title in 'Flemish interest according to JvB's vision'.
Kind regards,
YrZ – January 10, 2006
When Lambert is saying “I am no Blokwatcher, we are not far-left”, Lambert his talking about their common killer business, wanting to destroy Belgium’s biggest individual party. The action itself already is extreme. This is more than simple labelling.
Apart from that, I wish you much success with your English translation work on the Blokwatch site. Good luck! But I will stay sceptic...
--Jvb – January 10, 2006
Google News refers to Blokwatch as a newssource. Blokwatch are thus not only Opponents to Vlaams Belang, they also are a newssite. Hence my edit on the Blokwatch link.
--YrZ – February 14, 2006
Thank you for adding that Blokwatch is a newssite, but the rest of the wording should not implicitly start from Blokwatch’s own presumption that Vlaams Belang is a far-right party.--Jvb – February 14, 2006
Dear Jvb, it is not only the newssource Blokwatch that is presuming that Vlaams Belang is a far-right party. In Dutch newspapers and in some scientific papers, Vlaams Belang is even discribed as an extreme far-right party. I will not edit your edit on my edit as I know you will edit it again. For now, I'm agreeing with the description of Blokwatch as a 'newssite by opponents of VB' as that is what it is. On the fact if 'Vlaams Belang' is a right-wing party, a far-right part or even an extreme far-right party, the last words are not said. The only thing I am afraid of, is that future will tell us which of the above applies most to 'Vlaams Belang'. At least it is a populist party, using nationalist elements and leaded by a small group of people that accept no contradictions within the party (see the latest commotion around the Vlaams Belang MP Tastenhoye who made a mistake by helping out an illigal couple of asylum seekers to get legalized and the authoritarian reaction of the Vlaams Belang leaders Vanhecke and Dewinter). So certainly in my point of view, Vlaams Belang is an extreme far-right party. I even assume, dear Jvb, that you are in the right position to know for sure that the Vlaams Belang is an extreme far-right party (as I assume that you are an active militant of the party). I do so because I know you edit every edit on this article in favour of Vlaams Belang. This is another proof of the authoritarian ways Vlaams Belang acts.
Kind regards, YrZ
--YrZ – February 28, 2006
You write: …leaded by a small group of people that accept no contradictions within the party (see the latest commotion around the Vlaams Belang MP Tastenhoye who made a mistake by helping out an illigal couple of asylum seekers to get legalized and the authoritarian reaction of the Vlaams Belang leaders Vanhecke and Dewinter). So certainly in my point of view, Vlaams Belang is an extreme far-right party.
Vlaams Belang party president Vanhecke has written a feature concerning the case, which is an example of balanced thinking, included the remark that Vlaams Belang’s party platform concerning immigration is close to the actual Dutch policy such as practiced by minister Rita Verdonk. Authoritarian? Extreme far-right? BTW, I personally don’t belong to that party.
--Jvb – March 7, 2006

Vlaams Belang versus Vlaams Blok

212.159.18.114 says that this discussion is highly relevant. I suppose that is meant that more explanation should be given. Which explanation? That nothing has changed in the platform perhaps? But even today I read in the quality newspaper De Standaard that fundamental changes have been implemented in the party platform since the old Vlaams Blok. Why then shouldn’t people doubt that it is a different party? See: [21]

--Jvb – December 29, 2005

The reason why people doubt this, is that party leaders have expressed repeatedly that they were still the same party as before. Besides, he party leadership did not even change. Moreover, the slogan "Eigen volk eerst" has been used several times during party meetings even after its official abandonment, and there are video's of party leaders telling their militants saying this slogan is still at the order of the day. I am arguing that the adverb "officially" is needed in the section about the abandonment of that slogan, and that its continued use by party officials should be mentioned to give a fully accurate view on the matter. Benbel 20:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


The major changes to the party platform have been implemented in the time BEFORE the conviction of Vlaams Blok. In Belgium juridical procedures take very, very, very, very long. From there your confusion.
Please make the distinction between a non-insulting slogan and a motto that can be found on EACH party document under the name Vlaams Blok and which thus should be seen in conformity with the rest of the text, so that the whole can be offending in that context.
--Jvb – January 2, 2006

Wikipedia:Pages needing attention

I've listed this page on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Political science with this motivation : "article is strongly biased to reflect the current policies of this far-right Belgian party. The article is closely guarded by one user, who reverts nearly every effort towards NPOVing." -- LucVerhelst 16:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I do support this action. A quick comparison of this article with the Dutch Wikipedia article on Vlaams Belang shows immediately the bias. Said user is systematically erasing all mentions of proven links between the Vlaams Belang and Belgian Nazi collaborators during WWII, which are critial to assess the nature of that party. 85.27.14.44 18:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

See next paragraph. --Jvb – January 2, 2006

Links between Vlaams Belang and former Nazi collaborators

I do not understand why relevant and verifiable facts on links between the Vlaams Belang and former Nazi collaborators (Léon Degrelle, former Flemish SS, etc.) or Holocaust deniers were removed. Certainly, the small stub on Roeland Raes does not properly reflect the nature of those links, it even gives the impression that he did not express opinions tending to questions the magnitude of the Holocaust. May I recall that Roeland Raes was allegedly expelled from the Vlaams Blok / Belang for expressing those opinions publicly? As the article stands now, I feel it looks misleading and would request reverting to a more complete list of those links. Benbel 20:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Opponents say that there are links. Vlaams Belang denies. In earlier versions of this Vlaams Belang article such links have been discussed widely. Then the article became too long and someone from Wikipedia, in fact Mr. Joolz, selected the Raes story, not only because Belgian (and Flemish and Jewish and opposing to Vlaams Belang) MP Marinower called it the most important example, but also because Raes was then the leading party ideologue. Moreover the incident is will documented, even in the English press. That Raes quit his functions (he was not expulsed as far as I know) had to do with the fact that he wanted to stop the hectic stir about a discussion in which Vlaams Belang was politically spoken not interested, because Vlaams Belang is a political party, no history society. That there was no conviction afterwards, reinforces the impression that political opponents saw the incident as a cheap occasion to blacken Vlaams Belang’s good name, but that there was nothing more.--Jvb – January 2, 2006

Far right / right-wing

Now how is that for a neutral source : the Information Office of the European Parliament published a brochure (The Belgians in the European Parliament since 1979) in which the Vlaams Belang is labeled "Far Right". --LucVerhelst 17:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I browsed through the internet and found that the Vlaams Belang EMPs are non-attached members. Then I looked further and arrived at Geography IQ and found there that Vlaams Belang is characterized as a right-wing party:
The largest parties in the current Chamber are the Flemish Liberal Party (VLD), 25 seats; the Francophone Socialists (PS), 25 seats, the Francophone Liberals (MR), 24 seats; the Flemish Socialists and Spirit alliance (SP.A/Spirit), 23 seats, the Flemish Christian Democratic party (CD&V), 21 seats; the right-wing Vlaams Belang party (VB)...
--Jvb – January 6, 2006
LOL. Nice try, Jvb, but you really should try and quote your sources completely and honestly. Scroll down on the same Geography IQ page, and read :
"The far-right Vlaams Belang (Flemish Interest) is the most militant Flemish regional party, with a separatist, anti-immigration, law and order platform. The Vlaams Belang was formerly called the Vlaams Bloc, until a 2004 high-court ruling confirmed a lower court verdict that the Bloc was a 'racist' party. Faced with further legal problems, the Bloc disbanded and resurrected itself as the Vlaams Belang, with the same party leaders but a less radical party policy. ... The new Vlaams Belang party is attempting to shed its 'racist' past, characterizing its current party policies as those of a 'traditional conservative party.' "
--LucVerhelst 11:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

We now have two independent, neutral sources (one provided by me, one provided by Jvb) that qualify Vlaams Belang as Far Right. I think we can agree on changing the article now, can't we ? --LucVerhelst 11:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

About your source, the Information Office of the European Parliament, it is hard for me to assess its value, as I have no further information. But the European Union, which is a supranational organisation, only has one source of information, namely the Belgian Ministery of Foreign Affairs, currently dominated by the Parti Socialiste (lady Laurette Onkelinckx), Vlaams Belang’s worst enemy, who can hardly be viewed as independent.
On the contrary, the source delivered by me, Geography IQ , is more Interesting, I think. Let's quote:
… the right-wing Vlaams Belang party (VB)…
….. The far-right Vlaams Belang (Flemish Interest) is the most militant Flemish regional party, with a separatist, anti-immigration, law and order platform. The Vlaams Belang was formerly called the Vlaams Bloc, until a 2004 high-court ruling confirmed a lower court verdict that the Bloc was a 'racist' party. Faced with further legal problems, the Bloc disbanded and resurrected itself as the Vlaams Belang, with the same party leaders but a less radical party policy. Late 2004 polls showed the Vlaams Belang as the most popular political party in Flanders. Its predecessor, the Vlaams Blok, had broken out of its 'fringe' party status in the 1991 federal election, when it posted significant electoral support in much of Flanders, especially Antwerp. The Bloc continued to gain in popularity in each successive federal and regional election. In the 2004 regional elections, the Bloc received 24%) of the votes in Flanders, with only the alliance of CD&V and NVA winning more votes at 26.3%. The new Vlaams Belang party is attempting to shed its 'racist' past, characterizing its current party policies as those of a 'traditional conservative party.'
In the second reference, at first sight there seems to be an antithesis between right-wing and far-right, but when you read the long paragraph as a whole, than the message is clear that the Bloc was far right, that Vlaams Belang has become less radical in its party policy and that in that respect they present themselves as a traditional conservative party.
Only when pulled out of its context there could be seen some ambiguity in the wording, maybe originated in the fact that in the previous text about the Bloc, in the first sentence of that text, Bloc was simply changed into Belang, without looking farther in the paragraph so that there in fact is a contradiction with the explanation. But in America they aren’t aware that at the other side of the pond, people have the nasty habit to stick labels of their own choice on others. BTW, we aren’t looking here for LOL such as you write, but we are in real earnest searching for the truth.
--Jvb – January 6, 2006
OK. We have 2 independent and neutral sources that call VB far right.
Please provide some sources (not linked to the Vlaams Belang if you can find them) that contradict this without ambiguity.
(You can read more about my source here . I found out about it in a Vlaams Belang publication. They seem to take it seriously...)
--LucVerhelst 19:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Your source: the last European elections date from June 2004, before the Vlaams Blok conviction and transformation into Vlaams Belang. My source speaks about a less radical party policy and the new Vlaams Belang party is characterizing its current party policies as those of a 'traditional conservative party.'--Jvb – January 6, 2006
And your source, Jvb, still qualifies Vlaams Belang, not just Vlaams Blok, as "far right", that is, maybe less radical, but not less radical enough to stop deserving the "far right" qualification. --FvdP 00:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
As long as there is a certain degree of contradiction in the text I agree, such as you write, with your middle-ground attempt. --Jvb – January 8, 2006

Non-encyclopaedic language

User Jvb entered this paragraph : "Belgian political parties also get public funding from the regional parliaments. When Vlaams Belang ... there is no majority for such political manoeuvers." (In this version of the article.)

It includes this phrases : "there was minor row", "In fact it was a paradox.", "But strangely enough", "no majority for such political manoeuvers". To me, this is non-encyclopaedic language, and furthermore POV.

I propose to remove the paragraph, and revert to my (more neutral ?) version that was removed by user Jvb. --LucVerhelst 10:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I replaced the non-encyclopaedic language. Thank you for the hint. --Jvb – January 9, 2006

Nova Civitas and ECHR

Started by user:Berchemboy

1. Nova Civitas is also supporting Storme's point of view!

And some others do too. Adding all the supporters doesn't bring any more value to the article, but makes the text more heavy and difficult to read. --LucVerhelst 15:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

--> Allright, I understand your point here, although I also believe that Matthias Storme's opinion is as useless as Nova Civitas', especially because Storme is ONE person and Nova Civitas a complete organization ... (Written by user:Berchemboy)

But Storme is a law professor from Flanders’ most prestigious Leuven university. Moreover, it would be easier for him to simply sit back and say nothing. So I suppose he really is convinced about the serious character of the matter. --Jvb – January 17, 2006
Boudewijn Bouckaert (president Nova Civitas) is a professor from Ghent University (which is internationally equally prestigious as the KUL). Several other university professors (University of Brussels, University of Leuven, University of Ghent and University of Antwerp) are executive board members of Nova Civitas. I believe that their opinion is at least as valuable as Storme's ! (Written by user:Berchemboy)

2. After the Cassation Court Verdict, Vlaams Blok went to Strasbourg. Their case was rejected by the ECHR as "non recevable" because the Belgian courts were better placed in casu to make a decision.

Was this a formal decision of the Strasbourg court ? Is it published (on the internet), and/or do you have a source for it ? --LucVerhelst 15:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

--> I am a law student and do not have the wright publication or so, but I can assure you that my professor (Hendrik Vuye, institute of constitutional law, University Antwerp and University Namur) told this during his courses as a 'fait divers'. The commission of the ECHR which is in charge of judging the recevability of complaints, has ruled that the VB-case was "non recevable". That's all I can say ... (Written by user:Berchemboy

A pity. It's always nice to have verifyable sources, it makes it easier to 'convince' the VB-followers that guard this article and try to keep it as VB-friendly as possible. --LucVerhelst 22:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I read a different story in the quality newspaper De Standaard, see [22] No notice of appeal was given in Strasbourg because of a procedure fault made by a legal adviser of their legal service. Mind you, it’s not because I don’t want (such as you) a priori to make steak tartare out of the Vlaams Belang party that I am one of their followers. --Jvb – January 17, 2006
I do not want to make steak tartare of the VB because I am one of their partisans. Although I am not voting for them, I have deep sympathies to their viewpoints (not all of course ...). I am a member of Nova Civitas and I was deeply astonished by the Vlaams Belang verdict. This is not why democracy stands for! Fighting each other in courts is a typical Turkish phenomenon (check the ECHR-verdicts about the liberty of association : Refa Partisi vs Turkey ... International Communist Party vs Turkey). But nevertheless, I just added the things I remember my professor was saying in class.user:Berchemboy
Fighting each other in court is also a typical Northern American phenomenon. LaundroMat 08:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Miscellanious : LucVerhelst? Aren't you member of the Berchem County Council for Groen! ?? (Question from user:Berchemboy

District Council, yes. Why ? --LucVerhelst 22:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I live in Berchem and tought I had heard your name before. Maybe you can check the English article about Berchem I have been expanding and detect some errors I might have made. (Written by user:Berchemboy

Euronationalism ???

started by user:Berchemboy

The VB opposes the EU because it is a "monster state".

proof : www.flemishrepublic.org --> N°12 : front page "Flanders Blocks EU Constitution"

This newsletter is published and distributed by Karim van Overmeire (VB-Senator) in the name of the VB!

quotes : "Berlaymonster" - "... do not want to replace it by another undemocratic artificial construct, a European superstate" - "Belgium and the EU : two monsters", ...

Reading : "The Belgianisation of Europe" (P. Beliën) : author endorsed by VB and opposes the monsterstate-EU !

VB is definitely not Euronationalist !!!! VB is eurosceptic and opposes the current EU ...

For more info about Euronationalism, see [23]
Out of their daily briefings on their web-site, it becomes clear that Vlaams Belang is indeed not happy with the state of affairs in Europe, because of a democratic deficit, but that doesn’t prove that they are no Euronationalists.
--Jvb – January 17, 2006
Allright, I must admit that I haven't read that article before and that Euronationalism was "European Patriotism". I was wrong about this. Nevertheless I believe it is necessary to add their "anti-EU" to the Vlaams Belang article. This is just the truth. Not only VB is against todays' EU. Several conservatives, liberals and socialists also oppose the current EU. Adding this to the article is adding a neutral truth to it. I believe there can't be any problem with that! (user:Berchemboy)
Done.--Jvb – January 17, 2006
"Done"? The only thing you did was adding the "democratic deficit" to the text! You denied the global anti-European context of the Vlaams Belang via "The Flemish Republic" and other publications. I took the freedom to add this anti-Europeanism to their policies in the most neutral way I could imagine. It is just a fact! I did not make this article more leftist or more rightist, I just made it more correct! By the way, it is not even a bad thing. Several other political parties and individuals also oppose the current EU! Please accept this neutral add. It can do no harm and it avoids Wikipedia of being labelled "too friendly" towards VB! -- Berchemboy.
Hey Berchemboy, as you ave some sympathies for the VB, those kinds of attitudes and discussions should give you an idea of what will happen to freedom of expression if ever the VB comes to power. The distortions of facts and language through partisan selection, careful omissions and deletions, or out-of-context quotes makes me think of Orwell's 1984. I hope that will make you think another time about that party.
Berchemboy, what you write is in some respect in the line of my expectations. But my only remark is that I read on a daily base the Vlaams Belang briefings in Dutch, nevertheless I don’t remember having read the exact wording “Monster State”. Where exactly did you read “Monster State” in a Vlaams Belang publication, The Flemish Republic…? In fact what I miss in your wording is the following nuance, see [24]. Vlaams Belang states that it rejects the new European Constitution because it would create a federal state, without solving the problem of the present democratic deficit, which indeed would create a European monster.
To the other guy. There is no distortion. 90% of Vlaams Belang troubles with Europe is about Turkey.
I won’t disclose my political preferences on this site.
--Jvb – January 17, 2006
To finally make an end at this discussion, I have checked all given idees and I have been seeking for an even more neutral and correct point of view. I have added "refers to as an upcoming unnecessary monster state" to the article. I believe that this line must be acceptable for everybody, even for those who believe that VB adheres to the "European Thought" and only opposes the current bureaucratic EU which is becoming a monster state. Personally, I believe it already is a monster state and I am also convinced that the VB thinks about it in exact the same way! It's also a fact that VB invited Hoppe to speak on one of their economic rallies. Hoppe's points of view were endorsed by VB on their congress. Hoppe clearly opposes every big state because of the lack of "cross boarder competition". Hoppe's analysis was purely based on economical facts. VB clearly does not want - neither do I - that the EU will become a big unitary of federal state but a confederacy like the USA with competition on social, econonomic, political and fiscal issues between the states. (Berchemboy)

Singer Vanessa Chinitor

It’s not because this fairly good lady singer [25] (probably) appeared on a party festivity [26] that she must automatically be considered as a Vlaams Belang member. Except for the case that you have other intelligence, of course. --Jvb – January 19, 2006

Majority Leader

"Philip Claeys, majority leader in the European Parliament". LOL ! You wish ! (See also : Majority Leader of the United States House of Representatives.) --LucVerhelst 21:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no further information about that person, but I suppose that is meant “floor leader”.--Jvb – January 20, 2006
The contributor clearly meant "fractieleider" and believed the English equivalent was "majority leader". LucVerhelst, please do not use simple language-errors to justify your witch-hunt against the Vlaams Belang! This article does not need a too friendly or too hostile style towards the biggest political party in Flanders. As you are a politician yourself, please fight your wars elsewhere!

Exactly my point. Have I ever said otherwise ? Did I ever try and enter hostile content into the article ? I've always been very prudent to stay as neutral as possible. Please give some proof that I am fighting a war here, or that I am performing a witch-hunt. All I have been trying to do is to create an article that is as neutral and objective as possible.

Ex: I have never said that Philip De Winter was a fascist, that was Guy Verhofstadt, the Belgian Prime Minister.

I don't see why this personal attack is necessary (other than abusing my vulnerability as a small time 'politician' to create a VB-friendly article, off course).

BTW, I suggest you create an identity on Wikipedia. It has a lot of advantages. --LucVerhelst 16:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Remove POV-check

I made some changes to the article, which could lead to the removal of the POV-check template. What do you think ? --LucVerhelst 14:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I indeed would invite you to remove the template..--Jvb – January 22, 2006
I disagree. To be convinced, I would need 8 additional items mentioned or adapted: (1) the history and continued maintenance of links with Nazi collaborators during WWII or neo-Nazi groups(see recent hommage to Staf De Clarcq or Bart Ericsson, involvement with associations for former Flemish SS, in which Filip Dewinter pronounced the SS oath, Koen Dillen's visit to Léon Degrelle); (2) A clear description of the ambiguities of members of the party leadership towards the Holocaust (i.e., mention that Raes was not condemned only because the law at the time targeted only outright denial and not minimization or doubts, Raes's defense of Faurisson's writings, translation of a Holocaust denial book by party founder Karel Dillen, abstention of VB during a quasi-unanimous vote in the European Parliament for a motion condemning the Holocaust and attempts to deny or minimize it, vote of VB in Belgian Parliament against the extension of the Holocaust denial law to Holocaust minimization to put it in conformity with most recent European directive); (3) the description of the amnesty demand in its program is inaccurate: VB demands a general and unconidtional amnesty, and not only for the people who may have been unfairly condemned ; (4) the inclusion of opposition to abortion in its program; (5) a selection of links within and and at the end of the text, which is much more balanced between the ones that support or defend the VB vs. the ones that condemn it; (6) the removal of the link to the archives next to the Blokwatch link: saying Blokwatch is about opponents to the VB is enough to warn viewers of potential bias - alternatively inclusion of a similar warning in the link to the VB's official website; (7) a quantified importance of VB's share of the votes, the mention that traditional families have always sat together in the Federal Government, and that they are larger than the VB; (8) the mention that "eigen volk eerst" is still regularly used by party officials within the party or while campaigning. Please let me know which of those changes you agree to implement, and then I'll start. Benbel 21:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
All Nazi-sympathizers and holocaust deniers are kicked out of Vlaams Belang (and out of other parties as well). To find reliable references that Filip Dewinter pronounced a certain SS oath will not be easy. Far-right clown Ericsson died not so long ago and there certainly was no Vlaams Belang delegation at his funeral. And so one could go on. The warning about Blokwatch is necessary because what they write is not only biased, much of what they write is also lied. In those circumstances, what can be believed about the rest they write? What is true and what is not true? About one thing we can be sure when we read on a daily base Vlaams Belang’s web-site: they are for (zero) 0% percent interested in such things. It is the outside world, people like you, who try to stick such labels on them. To mention one item is already enough.
I am coming back with sources Benbel 20:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'm starting and will build this along the way, so bear with me.
1. I'll admit you were right in the sense there was no official VB delegation at Eriksson's funeral (something I did not imply by the way). No leader of the party attended the cremation, though VB MP's Pieter Huybrechts (the author of the NSV song attacking a.o. "filthy Jews") and Staf Neel were there. Also, there was one full page in the newsletter of the party in November 2005, that was full of praise for the man. I assume you have a copy of this newsletter, so you can go check by yourself. I will provide the main quotes if you threw it away.
2. About the SS oath by Filip Dewinter, this was published after the visit paid by Filip Dewinter on December 1, 2001 at the Sint-Maertensfonds, the association of Flemish SS veterans, in their newsletter "Berkenkruis". I have seen people dismiss this source as unreliable, but then what on earth was Dewinter doing at the meeting of an association that is so thrilled about having a political leader utter that oath? I have also not read anywhere any sort of denegation by Dewinter on the matter. Dewinter could have percetly intervened, since the graphist employed by Berkenkruis is the same one as the VB's graphist, hence the striking similarities between the Flemish Lion of the Sint-Maerten's fonds and the VB. This said, I am willing to concede that we say "according to Berkenkruis" before we mention the infamous oath.
3. In terms of praise for Staf De Clercq, there was a whole delegation of VB people - including Filip Dewinter - at the Yser wake in August 2004, who laid down a wreath of flowers during a ceremony in his honor. Shall I remind as well that the VB Magazine, the newsletter of the VB youth which you surely have somewhere in your archives, placed a full-page advertising for the infamous commemoration ceremony that took place in Gooik on Sept. 19, 2004. It is true that VB party leaders had been careful not to be seen that time because of a party convention in Burgundy. But this did not prevent Mr. Dewinter to hail De Clercq as one of the party founders in his recent interview with Ha'aretz.
4. But if this is not enough, what do you think of the declaration by Mr. Dewinter that the list of people he admires most comprises (among other Nazi collaborators), the black priest-poet Cyriel Verschaeve. Do I need to find back some of the nice comments he made regarding Jews before and during the war? Or to the interview full of praise he made of Nazi-collaborator Bert van Boghout in VB magazine in March 1990?
More to come later...
I've looked at more info on Roeland Raes. Excerpt of interview with a Dutch newspaper: "Jews are an issue that we don't look as much at, because we have fewer Jews than in The Netherlands. But they have their own state, hence a Jew belongs to Israel." Do I need to remind he put up a strong defense of Faurisson, the leader of the French revisionist school? And what is not mentioned in the article is that Raes's infamous interview on the Dutch television also included a questioning of the magnitude of the number of Jews who died during the Holocaust, doubts about the extensive use of gas chambers, doubts about the authenticity of Anne Franck's diaries, and probably most importantly, doubts regarding the intent of the Nazi's to kill every single Jew in Europe. Now, explain to me why you would make such remarks if you are not an Antisemite?
Some additions. One of the 3 persons Mr. Dewinter said he admired most is Irma Laplasse, who was reconstructed as a sort of heroin by a certain streak of Flemish nationalists. I would suggest you read the following letter by the daughter of one of the victims of her betrayal. You can travel through that site to then get all the details about this sordid business. Benbel 23:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Sordid business? Victims of her betrayal? It is as if you want me to give a judgement about what happened. What I remember about the tragic story is the following: Irma Laplasse indeed was executed for betrayal by the Belgian judiciary after WWII. In fact she was a simple housewife and she herself was not political active during the war. But her son was captured by the resistance while the Germans were still in charge. Then by accident a German soldier found her weeping in the street and asked whether there was something the matter. She explained and in the end seven people of the resistance died. Was she (at that time) aware what the Germans did with members of the resistance they caught? I also don’t know exactly what Dewinter ever and on which occasion said about the matter, but in my opinion it would be the best to draw a line under history and promulgate a general amnesty. --Jvb – February 2, 2006
I really have no knowledge about a Vlaams Belang newsletter hailing Bert Erikson (I meanwhile looked up the wording).
Here is a link (sorry, it is Blokwatch, but I really don't think they could have forged this article, right?): [27]Benbel 11:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Even Blockwatch admits that Eriksson was a marginal Neo-Nazi and anti-Semite and also states that Vlaams Belang dissociates itself from him. --Jvb – January 30, 2006
"filthy Jews"? It is inconceivable that a Vlaams Belang official ever has said something of the kind.
You thinking that it is inconceivable is not exactly a rational argument. Mr. Huybrechts recognized himself he is the author of this infamous song, saying now embarrassingly this was some sort of youth mistake. Notice I did not ask to put that specific fact in the article.
I am not saying here that Anti-semitism is a feature of VB's program. My main point is that multiple VB leaders seem to have a real knack at uttering borderline statements in this respect, that they claim a filiation and political inspiration from people who were or still are undoubtedly virulent anti-semites and that they entertain links with organizations that have a clear anti-semitic streak. I can understand that it may be driven more by a shared Flemish nationalist "ideal", but nervertheless, VB leaders think at the least that this shared "ideal" is sufficient to overlook the terrifyingly hateful opinions and deeds of those people. Benbel 11:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Concerning Huybrechts, I suppose that your source probably once again is Blockwatch e.a.? At any event for the case Huybrechts really has made a youth mistake (others were for instance Trotskists such as actual minister Frank Vandenbroucke) at least the most important is that he, I mean Huybrechts, now regrets.
Dewinter, Huybrechts… they dissociate themselves from the terrifyingly hateful opinions and deeds.
--Jvb – January 30, 2006
Notice again I did not suggest inserting Huybrechts's "youth mistake" in the article, only his presence at the cremation of Bart Erikson (thanks for checking the spelling) - for which he hasn't expressed any regret AFAIK. As to the article about Bart Erikson in VB magazine(you see it existed!), there is a pudic sentence at the end about taking different political paths, but you won't argue the tone of the article is very positive overall, will you? Benbel 00:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
In the quality newspaper de Standaard, I read a different story about Eriksson. His VMO organisation became part of the historical Volksunie party. A party that recently split up in two parts (N-VA and Spirit), both parties having now governmental responsibilities. Thus trying to stick Eriksson solely on the Vlaams Belang isn’t historically correct. Later Eriksson became a marginal figure and now you let me read on Blokwatch that the Vlaams Belang distanced itself from him. Something the other parties saved themselves the trouble. What could Vlaams Belang otherwise possibly have done (always in the hypothesis that the Blokwatch article about a Vlaams Belang article is correct)? BTW, in the de Standaard article also is written that Eriksson considered the Vlaams Belang as a too moderate party, that he didn’t like. Just another Blockwatch story exposed. --Jvb – February 2, 2006
About Staf de Clercq, Filip Dewinter says in Haaretz the following, which is already an answer to much of the questions posed, moreover it already is present as a link in this article:
"He is one of the historic leaders of the party. This is part of the history of the Flemish nationalist movement and it is impossible to deny this. We are the descendants of this movement. Some of the members of the party attend these events because they want to honor the heritage of the Flemish movement. This does not mean that they agree with Nazism. Not at all. I understand that this is hard to understand as a Jew. I respect very much that Jews have a problem with this. But Jews must also understand that this is not as simple as it seems. Not all of the [Nazi] collaborators wanted to kill the Jews in Europe. Most of the collaborators had other motives. I think that if they were living today, most of them would be ashamed of what happened to the Jews. The only thing I can do today is to say that I respect very much the suffering of the Jewish people, to express my sympathy and condolences about what happened and to try to move far away from this. But the Jewish people must understand that not every collaborator was necessarily anti-Semitic."
See what I said above: Mr. Dewinter thinks the nationalist vision of those people allows him to overlook their blatant hateful anstisemitism. Mr. Dewinter may be right that not all collaborators wanted the completed extermination of Jews, but nevertheless people like De Clercq, Verschaeve or van Boghout -to quote only them - were hateful antisemites who supported the deportation of Jews. Cyriel Verschaeve survived until after the discovery of the Nazi extermination camps, but I am not aware of any regret expressed by him regarding Jews, same for Bert van Boghout. Benbel 11:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
To cite the most important example, about Staf De Clercq’s alleged blatant hateful anstisemitism. I am no historian, but to indicate that one must be careful with history, I looked up some background, also to prove that one must refrain from oversimplifications:
In the first World War, Staf de Clercq was stretcher-bearer and was also able to visit the Orne forest where he gave comfort to Flemish dissidents who worked there as forced labourers. Between the two World Wars he knowingly never made any anti-Semitic remark. On the contrary. In 1937, in tempore non suspectum, he wrote a larger publication called “Het VNV en het Duitsch nationaal-socialisme “ (“The VNV and the Nazis”). He was originally democratic, pacifistic and opposed to the Nazis. But during World War II he pursued an ungrateful policy, intended to be “of the lesser evil”. He collaborated with the German army (the Militärverwaltung) with the aim to keep the SS (the Zivilverwaltung) out of the government as long as possible. A policy in which he was “successful”. We will never know how many lives this has saved, Jewish included. Because of his early death, we also will never know for certain whether Staf de Clercq would have quitted the VNV in September 1943, together with other leaders, when it came to a breach with the Flemish SS lackeys: DeVlag and SS-Vlaanderen. But more important. What could Staf de Clercq in August 1942 possibly have known about the holocaust? There was one major, but forbidden (because considered as propaganda) external information source: the BBC. The first time the BBC broadcast about the holocaust, at least in English for sure, was on June 2, 1942 [28] . It was about a report sent by a Bund underground activist in Warsaw, Leon Feiner, containing information on the murder of Jews in various parts of Poland. The report traced the path of the murder actions: town after town, district after district, month by month. It described the extermination centre at Chelmno, including the gas vans, and estimated the number of Jews whom the Germans had murdered in Poland by May at 700,000 (the real figure was much higher). But and that should be stressed, although the BBC reported the main contents of the report, including the estimate of the 700,000 murdered Jews, it did not stress the conclusion: that the program (the secret Wannsee conference program from January 20, 1942) to murder all the Jews was already being carried out. But by that time, even the Jews of Warsaw did not believe detailed descriptions of mass slaughter by the Jewish Underground newspapers! Common human sense could not understand that it was possible to exterminate tens and hundreds of thousands of Jews. The Warsaw Jews decided that the Jews were being transported for agricultural work in the parts of Russia occupied by the Germans. And the same in Flanders. Much Flemish even saw the Jewish deportations as the equivalent of the Flemish forced labour recruitment to Germany such as conceived by Fritz Sauckel who directed and controlled German labour during the war. (main sources: Encarta Encyclopedia and yadvashem, reworked). --Jvb – January 30, 2006
I don't know where this BS comes from. I will assume you are misinformed rather than being manipulative. If you wish to get a more accurate picture from Staf De Clercq, I suggest you read this [29]. The Holocaust was the ultimate horror generated by Antisemitism - and it is not unlikely that De Clercq wouldn't have known about it, but there were many other evil deeds done to Jews in this period, which De Clercq supported knowingly and wholeheartedly. If you didn't know about this, I assume this will make you reconsider certain things. And if you did know... Benbel 22:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
A more accurate picture? The Holocaust certainly was the ultimate horror, but why is nothing written in your text about the Belgian “mischief”. In the 18 days between the German attack in 1940 and the Belgian capitulation thousands of Flemish nationalists were arrested and deported, abused or stabbed with the bayonet and many executed, among them greater Netherlands advocate leader Joris Van Severen and his closest collaborator. A good advice, next time when you pop up an historical text, try to find one that says EVERYTHING about the main historical figures. . --Jvb – February 2, 2006
As a general principe, Wikipedia is not the place for original research. I myself read the quality newspaper de Standaard, look television, listen to the radio and read Vlaams Belang’s daily briefings, their platform…. These things are not what we Flemish people hear about them on a daily base and so we mostly have no knowledge of most of such things. To verify them would be very difficult, the more because sources like Blokwatch are not reliable. About the SS oath by Filip Dewinter you yourself even admit that the source is not reliable… So let’s restrict to what the mainstream news sources give about Raes and the de Clercq story in Haaretz.
--Jvb – January 30, 2006
This may not be the kind of things that you hear about, but another quality newspaper - De Morgen - provides information regularly about this. So does Het Laatste Nieuws, the most read newspaper in Flanders.
As to Blokwatch's reliability, there are response rights and libel laws if VB thinks it is unfairly attacked. I am not aware that Blokwatch has been condemned, or even brough to court, so far. I did not admit that the source for the SS oath was unreliable, I said some people claimed it was. Again, I am not aware that Mr. Dewinter ever denied Berkenkruis's statement. Mr. Dewinter knows the organization in question pretty well, and VB shares some writers and its graphist with Berkenkruis. So what on earth was he doing at that meeting if he could suspect they were "unreliable"? I find the statement plausible, though not fully verifiable. I would suggest we simply mention Mr. Dewinter's regular contacts with that organization (for instance laying down flower wreaths on the tombs of former Flemish SS), and that the source for this specific statement is indeed Berkenkruis. That should keep things neutral. Benbel 11:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
About the socialist newspaper De Morgen, that wouldn’t wonder me, but remark that they are three times smaller than the de Standaard newspaper. About het Laatste Nieuws I have serious doubts that you can make your claim hard, although I rather irregularly read that newspaper. And do you really think that Vlaams Belang will, being a political party, spend money to sue Blokwatch for libel? That would be a “dream” for Blokwatch: talking all the time in public simultaneously about the Nazis and the Vlaams Belang, perhaps without any serious link, about which Blokwatch doesn't bother, but nevertheless with the intention that something will stick somewhere in the public mind.--Jvb – January 30, 2006
I am not the person who must defend them, but the abstention of Vlaams Belang during a quasi-unanimous vote in the European Parliament about the holocaust had (in their view) to do with the abuse of history for present-day politics. And it was abstention, they didn’t vote against.
Have you read the motion, or do you want a link? I cannot fathom why anybody would not vote in favor of this text.
If this is really important to you, then give the link and we will see. --Jvb – January 30, 2006
Here it is [30] Enjoy the reading. Benbel 11:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I cannot speak in the name of the Vlaams Belang. For the case you want to elaborate, I would suggest you to look after Vlaams Belang’s declaration in the European parliament. At any event, I found the following --Jvb – January 30, 2006
I'm lost: the only thing Vanhecke is referring to is one sentence where the Parliament expresses concern about the rise of "racist or xenophobic parties", and then goes on to say his party is not racist. So, why doesn't he then vote along? By the way, you didn't tell me what you thought of the text itself? Anything offensive that would warrant reservations in your eyes? Benbel 22:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Some politicians allegedly abuse the Shoah to demonize their political opponents, see (in Dutch --Jvb – February 2, 2006
About the amnesty, if such as Vlaams Belang claims, immediately after WWII there have been serious abuses by the Belgian judiciary against (innocent) Flemish nationalists, then what can be done now? Redo all of the trials once again over to see which are legitimate and which not? Most witnesses already died long ago.
I hope you can agree with the way it is now worded. I made sure the language stuck as close as possible with the VB program. But I need more evidence on scope of amnesty in other countries, and how it compares with existing Belgian amnesty law before implying that Belgium's law was not as generous. Benbel 20:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. Read the following in their platform (in Dutch) and notice that making a summary is different from picking out one single sentence:
g. Amnestie.
Heel wat Vlaams-nationalisten stonden bloot aan terreur en vervolging in de nadagen van de Tweede Wereldoorlog. De Belgische staat trachtte toen het Vlaams-nationalisme te vernietigen en sprak zware straffen uit voor nationalisten. De repressie maakte ontelbare overtuigde Vlamingen monddood. België duwde vele goedmenende en oprechte Vlamingen naar de zelfkant van de samenleving. Amnestie blijft een programmapunt van het Vlaams Belang. Het kan eindelijk een punt zetten achter oorlog en repressie. Alle andere Europese landen verleenden amnestie. Amnestie houdt geen historisch oordeel in. Dat is immers de taak van historici.
Het Vlaams Belang blijft eerbied hebben voor het menselijke lijden van elkeen, aan welke kant hij of zij tijdens de oorlogsjaren ook heeft gestaan….
--Jvb – January 30, 2006
I think I fairly summarized VB's opinion on post-war repression in the paragraph on amnesty. Feel free to expand it if you want, but make sure it does not appear as the consensus view of historians of the period! As to the quote, you may find it clumsy that VB wrote that in its manifesto, but there it is. Such a statement is not necessary to support amnesty, VB had been criticized in the past for putting victims of the Nazi's and their convicted tormenters on the same footing. It decided to maintain this perspective, so be it. They have to assume it. Benbel 11:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
You should consider at least the WHOLE of the paragraph. --Jvb – January 30, 2006
About the vote of Vlaams Belang in the Belgian Parliament against the extension of the Holocaust denial law to Holocaust minimization to put it in conformity with most recent European directive? This could be true, as Vlaams Belang sees it the American way of life: full freedom of speech. BTW, here (in Dutch) http://www.standaard.be/Artikel/Detail.aspx?artikelId=G8JN5ERH is explained in detail why fanatics (like you?) won’t avoid the next genocide by shutting up people, even people like prominent expert Gie van den Berghe.
I won't honor your personal attacks with a reply. But the two votes to which I referred are perfectly verifiable. In included mentions under the part of VB's program that refers to "free speech". This does not mean that there may be perfectly appropriate reasons for wanting to restrain the intervention of politicians in historical debates. Benbel 20:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I really need to see the text, because I fear you misunderstood it. Can you give the link?--Jvb – January 30, 2006
About abortion. I am ready to believe that lady Alexandra Colen is against abortion, but do you have by chance information that it also is Vlaams Belang’s party view?
Meanwhile found, ok.
I'm OK with the way it is worded now. Benbel 20:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Vlaams Belang’s election results can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_regional_elections%2C_2004 In Belgium political parties are de facto organisations. To which extent do traditional families still exist after their split-up long ago in former century? That it is mentioned that they exist is ok, but please don’t elaborate further. And to repeat: the Flemish Chistian Democrats CD&V explained their relationship with the CDh (after “Christian” disappeared and the CDh voted as an opposition party with the government) that they both might have a common ancestor, but that their actual relationship is that such as between a horse and a zebra.
The fact of the matter is, that they have always gone to Federal Government together. Also, CD&V's reactions after the Cdh's support to the refinancing of the French Community, were really in the spur of the moment. They haven't been repeated since then, and nothing points towards such a split after the 2007 elections. Even for the Brussels municipal elections, there will be a joint Cdh-CD&V list. And I still think it would be fair for non-Belgian readers to provide a quantification of the exact importance of the VB, why are you concerned about this? Benbel 20:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
CD&V and Cdh even have split up their common think tank, which means that they also have split up in mind. About the election results, all the (exact) information is already present. --Jvb – January 30, 2006
It still does not show they are ready to go separately to the Federal Government. Benbel 11:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
We probably will never know, for the simple reason that meanwhile Vlaams Belang will have grown so big that all of the three traditional parties will be necessary to form a majority at the Flemish side…but it stays speculation. --Jvb – January 30, 2006
"Eigen volk eerst": it isn’t their motto any more. It’s no longer on each leaflet. But you can’t refrain people from speaking Dutch in Flanders, isn’t it?
I was not referring to the Dutch language, and you know it. But when one of the party leaders declares in a congress that "Eigen Volk Eerst" is still more than ever the slogan of the party, this is something worth mentioning. Or else, we remove the reference to "Eigen Volk Eerst" altogether. There is too much ambiguity and conflicting signals on that one. Benbel 20:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
It is about the written motto that has disappeared: from each billboard, from each leaflet, from pencils, cigarette lighters… Something has changed and this is reflected in the article. Nothing more, nothing less. --Jvb – January 30, 2006
OK, let's phrase it like that. It has been dropped as the official motto of the party, though it is still occasionnally used by party leaders in internal party meetings or while on the campaign trail. Can we agree this reflects accurately the reality on the matter? Benbel 11:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
--Jvb – January 23, 2006

Clean-up

Hi there! I made some "cleaning" of the article and I would like to tell you my reasons for what I did and I hope it won't hurt anyone :

  • I removed the last sentence of the intro as I think there is no place for such a sentence (with embedded braces on top) in the intro so I've put it in a footnote;
  • For technical reasons, I changed the link to Jackosheas website (so that the third footnote has the right reference number) into a footnote;
  • I removed the sentence explaining why Antwerp is the largest administrative city of Belgium and put it in a footnote as I think this is not the problem here and that it leads to some confusion for a common reader;
  • I removed totally the following sentence: "The result of this election could have a crucial impact on the future of the Vlaams Belang and possibly on the entire Belgian political system." as I think it does not belong to an encyclopaedia (this is expectations... or a dream?). I also think the whole paragraph it belonged to could be removed/reworded. Or maybe it is more simple just to wait for thos elections and write something on this later...

Any (non-agressive) comments welcome. Julien Tuerlinckx 17:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


BTW, I didn't want to put every embedded URL in the text to a footnote (as the Wikipedia:Citing sources article suggested) but to me it should be done as I think it looks cleaner. Julien Tuerlinckx 18:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction in Terms

"Vlaams Belang (English: Flemish Interest) is a Belgian political party. It supports Flemish independence, restricted immigration, and free market economics."

Free market economics and restricted immigration are mutually exclusive. Toby Douglass 19:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

This is not the only contradiction you will find in their program. They argue for instance for extensive social protection as well (for Flemings only, of course). Benbel 13:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

These kind of contradictions also exist in the U.S. where far-right parties also defend a combination between anti-illegal action (mostly from Mexico) and free market economics! Besides, goverment must reflect the vox populi and the people wants severe anti-immigrant regulations in combination with wealth and prosperity!

Some points of Vlaams Belang's program erased by Jvb

I would like to understand why Jvb has deleted the couple f additional details I gave on VB's immigration program (no voting right in local elections, no public jobs, repatriation of immigrants who fail to "assimilate" and hence can only be legal immigrants, etc.) Benbel 00:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Political rights :
Voting rights and the right to get a public job are by definition “political rights”. In the present Vlaams Belang article on Wikipedia is written that those immigrants who want political rights should apply for naturalization. And in Vlaams Belang’s view the principal requirement to become a national is that the immigrant is willing to assimilate. This already is in the present text too.
--Jvb – February 2, 2006


I would suggest Jvb to re-read VB's manifesto. It clearly mentions "stolen territories" aside from Brussels. It may seem to indicate municipalities where Flemish used to be spoken but who are now French-speaking, although I've already heard or read VB members raise the issue of French Flanders ("South Flanders" again in VB's words) or Sea Flanders (the Terneuzen area).

Can I ask Jvb to provide some explanations? Otherwise, I will revert those changes.

Benbel 00:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

“stolen territories” :
In the manifesto of the Vlaams Belang I read (in Dutch)… de terugkeer van de ons ontstolen gebieden… Where do you read that the “stolen territories” should be situated outside Brussels? On the contrary, I even think that there are strong indications that they mean Brussels, because below in the same text is indicated that the independent Flemish state should include Brussels, which is the capital of Flanders, but with a separate linguistic status.
I suggest you type the fairly rare Dutch expression "ontstolen gebieden" op Google and see what comes up. It is a typical codename for a few municipalities in Wallonia that have lost their Flemish/Dietsch character over time, and which Flemish Nationalists want to integrate in their independent Flanders. It is also occasionnaly used for French Flanders. The student organization NSV which is very close to the VB as we know, includes that claim in its manifesto with exactly the expression in question. Some also use the expression "bezetten gebieden", as in the manifesto of the Vlaams Blok which explicitly claimed the "return" of those municipalities. VB would never use the word "ontsolen gebieden" for Brussels, since in its eye, Brussels still is and has always been part of Flanders. This expression holds absolutely no ambiguity whatsoever for somebody acquainted with Flemish Nationalism, friend or enemy. Thank you for forcing me to check this more deeply, whatever doubt I might have had is now dispelled. Benbel 20:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I also just found that one: "Deze zal zijn soevereiniteit uitoefenen ten minste binnen de perken van de huidige Belgische taalgrens en zal, met een bijzonder taalstatuut, Brussel als hoofdstad hebben." here [31]. For our English-speaking friends: "This (Flemish State) will exercise its sovereignty at least within the bounds of the current language border in Belgium, and wil have Brussels as a capital, with a specific language status". Pretty clear that VB means something beyond Brussels, right? Benbel 20:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
All doubts dispelled? Don’t mix up the professional Vlaams Belang with grassroots organisations. Vlaams Belang has good relations with top-quality experts such as professor Eric Suy, former adjunct secretary-general of the United Nations. In diplomatic terms “at least” is not the same as “more” . Perhaps some nostalgic Flemish nationalist may remember the way in which a city like Edingen (Enghien) was annexed to Wallonia, but to call into question the actual Flemish regional border as a future international border could be costly for Flanders, especially in confrontation with mighty France. In fact saying “at least” means in diplomatic terms that the notorious corridor from Wallonia/France to enclave Brussels will not be allowed. --Jvb – February 3, 2006
Such as you can see here, Vlaams Belang is not the only one in Flanders who speaks about South Flanders. South and French Flanders are two idioms expressing the same, but for an international audience I would prefer “French”, because otherwise people might think it’s about the south of present-day Flanders.
--Jvb – February 2, 2006
OK, I will concede that one. It seems to be used mostly to emphasize the close bonds with the rest of Flanders, but perfectly honorable organizations use it as well. Benbel 20:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Hirsi Ali & Fortuyn

  • Qualification of De Morgen as a quality newspaper is important, for the reader to be able to assess the truthfulness of the published interview with Pim Fortuyn.
If a newspaper is a quality newspaper, there are more guarantees that the published information is truthful, because of the higher standards the newspaper upholds, and because a newspaper that sells itself as a quality newspaper can't risk to be exposed as publishing wrong information
  • Qualification of Liberales as a left-liberal think thank is not necessary, because the statement was made by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, not by a Liberales member or spokes(wo)man. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a.o. because being an Dutch MP, is old and wise enough to decide for herself to make this kind of statements.
  • No need to drag Dirk Verhofstadt into the story, or to add statements about the alleged publication by him of certain accusations, which aren't proven anywhere, and which have no relation with Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Again, Hirsi Ali is old and wise enough. --LucVerhelst 14:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is about finding a consensus. Perhaps I was too fast in deleting that De Morgen is a quality newspaper, so that the balance between the newspaper and Vlaams Belang’s arguments was broken. After all De Morgen IS a quality newspaper and underlining this could be important. But even quality newspapers stay little rascals, who sometimes write things that only intend to stir the fire (neither are Vlaams Belang angels). For instance the other quality newspaper De Standaard does the same. What a misfortune that Fortuyn was killed some days later, so that we will never know the rest of the story.
About Hirsi Ali all kind of speculations can be made. For instance it is known that not everybody in her own party is happy about her Islam statements and pleasing in Antwerp the Belgian liberal sister party by bashing Vlaams Belang, justified or not, could be a "cheap" way for a politician to stay acceptable in the Netherlands. I think we should limit ourselves to give a short summary of what both sides say.
So my consensus proposal is that we revert to 14:05, February 3, 2006 LucVerhelst but with extra threnghtening the fact that in the case of Hirsi Ali, the arguments in defence are those of Vlaams Belang and not Wikipedia’s neutral point of view, so that there can be no misunderstanding. As Wikipedia is no place to do original research, I also propose to add as far as Dirk Verhofstadt is concerned the word “alledged”.
--Jvb – February 4, 2006
Wikipedia is first and foremost about writing neutral and objective articles with high quality standards. I don't agree with your proposal, because you're adding non-neutral information that is irrelevant to the article.
Furthermore, the present text already is a consensual text. Personally, I would think the information about PF defending Filip Dewinter is superfluous, as are both the sentence about Liberales, and the invitation of Hirsi Ali by Vanhecke. --LucVerhelst 10:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Neutral and objective articles with high quality standards can include the arguments of parties in an important ongoing discussion, but we must take care that it is indicated whose point of view it is.
The Hirsi Ali invitation by Vlaams Belang indeed can be omitted, the same as your comment that De Morgen is probably true because there could have been an hypotetical check (if he had lived longer). But that Fortuyn defended Dewinter is important. Also because in the text that Fortuyn without any doubt wrote himself, he didn’t call Dewinter a fascist. And the global context background about the Hirsi Ali statements such as provided by Vlaams Belang, IS Vlaams Belang’s answer to accusations. Everybody has the right of defence. As soon as Ayaan Hirsi has answered this Vlaams Belang reply it can be incorporated too in Wikipedia. Otherwise than in the Fortuyn case, Hirsi Ali is still alive.
And if opponents see Vlaams Belang as far-right, certainly their affiliated observers do it as well. This gives no additional information.
--Jvb – February 4, 2006

Affiliated ? --LucVerhelst 12:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Affiliated in mind. --Jvb – February 4, 2006
Jvb, as you said yourself, this is no place to make jokes.
On PF defending Philip Dewinter : I don't see how this is important. PF was defending PD's human rights : freedom of speech, etc. Me too, I can imagine defending PD if he was violently attacked just for being somewhere. Which of course is something else than defending PD when he -for example- once more is breaking the law by inciting to racism. --LucVerhelst 13:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
If ever Dewinter reads this, he will be pleased hearing that you will “defend” him.
But in his text, Fortuyn criticises that the Dutch television depicts Dewinter as a fascist, thus for Fortuyn this is no foregone conclusion. This is important, because there is no doubt about the reliability of the source. Fortuyn namely wrote it himself.
If you insist giving your wise lessons to Wikipedia readers how devoted journalists are to the truth and only the truth, then they need my little warning too.
Far-right is a qualification. The observer who qualifies Vlaams Belang as far-right is certainly not neutral. And those observers are opponents too. BTW, it is not written “political opponents”.
--Jvb – February 4, 2006


Far-right (?) and Freedom of speech

Jvb writes : "Far-right is a qualification. The observer who qualifies Vlaams Belang as far-right is certainly not neutral. And those observers are opponents too."

On what grounds do you come to the conclusion that an observer that qualifies Vlaams Belang as far-right, can't be neutral ? Why not ? Because you or the Vlaams Belang decided ? I don't see why a neutral observer can't assess the real identity of a party. --LucVerhelst 14:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

At any event for the case of the Vlaams Belang it will be more difficult, because already so much rubbish has been told about them. --Jvb – February 4, 2006
Rubbish. I think you have just proven my point, that you can't think neutrally and objectively about the Vlaams Belang. --LucVerhelst 17:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I was referring to former discussions about Vlaams Belang’s major “observer”: Blokwatch. --Jvb – February 6, 2006

Jvb, you removed the "neutral observers" from the introduction of the article, refering to the discussion page. I don't seem to find your motivation, however, so I'm changing the text again. The neutral observers I'm refering to are, among others, the Belgian Information Office to the European Union, and GeographyIQ. Furthermore, I'm removing the sentence "It is controversial", because it's nonsensical. --LucVerhelst 08:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

This discussion has been done before under Far right/right-wing, above. To repeat, the European Union, which is a supranational organisation, only has one source of information, namely the Belgian Ministery of Foreign Affairs, currently dominated by the Parti Socialiste (lady Laurette Onkelinckx), Vlaams Belang’s worst enemy, who can hardly be viewed as independent. The other source is interpreted different by you and by me. I supposed that you were talking about Vlaams Belang’s main “observer”, Blokwatch. Then it is better to speak about “controversial”. --Jvb – February 6, 2006
The problem is, Jvb, that you only seem to accept as neutral or independent or objective, sources from within or from close by the Vlaams Belang. Flemish "Free Speech Activists" as yourself, so to speak. --LucVerhelst 14:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Free Speech should be absolute, otherwise there is no Free Speech. This has nothing to do with any particular political party. --Jvb – February 6, 2006
You know as well as I do that today in Belgium a so-called "Free Speech Activist" is a Vlaams Belang member or follower, someone who defends the right of the party to incite to racism. That is the reason why you put it on the first line of your talk page.
About free speech : there can only be freedom for everyone if this freedom is checked, so that one person's freedom isn't another person's prison. This is called civilisation. LucVerhelst 16:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
All Vlaams Belang members want Free Speech in Belgium, but all Free Speech activists aren’t member of that party.
Would you suggest that the United States are no civilised society because there is full Free Speech?
--Jvb – February 6, 2006
I don't think there is full and unchecked freedom of speech in the U.S. It's true that the restrictions are imposed more by civil law suits than by the government. Which means that the freedom of speech is only for the rich, as is the defence against damages, occured by free speech.
"The right to freedom of expression is not considered unlimited; governments may still prohibit certain damaging types of expressions. Under international law, restrictions on free speech are required to comport with a strict three part test: they must be provided by law, pursue an aim recognized as legitimate, and be necessary (i.e., proportionate) for the accomplishment of that aim." (Freedom of speech). I think the Belgian anti-racism laws, under which the Vlaams Blok was convicted, are fully within these restrictions, applied in every civilised society.
I agree that not every Flemish so called "free speech activist" is a member of the Vlaams Belang. That's why I wrote member or follower. --LucVerhelst 19:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Restricting freedom of speech can have unexpected consequences: some weeks ago I read in the newspaper that in the provincial town of Malines there are hundreds of “discrimination” charges, mostly brought by young North Africans. The locals indeed might start to think that they are colonised. In my opinion only a direct appeal to violence should be prohibited. This point of view happens to be Vlaams Belang’s too, which does not mean that I am one of their followers.
The Parti Socialiste masterminded the Belgian “anti-discrimination” law and the prosecutor office of the Centre for Equal Opportunities (the Thought Police) that should destroy Vlaams Belang. Why? Because Vlaams Belang wants independence. The huge financial transfers from Flanders to morally lousy Wallonia are Belgium’s main (economic) problem. These transfers are killing the Flemish economy and bring our social security to the brink of collapse.
Don’t try to create your ideal society in mind, but on the ground,. Otherwise it will end in something like the Deutsche Demokratische Republik. You should better have mercy with all those pensioners who must stay lavatory attendant or so to keep their head above water. In the neighbouring countries minimum benefit drawers approximately get the double.
--Jvb – February 7, 2006

You're so close to the Vlaams Belang's points of view that I really can't believe that you're not extremely close to that party. --LucVerhelst 11:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Just get hold of the idea that there are more conservatives in Flanders than you think. --Jvb – February 7, 2006
No, no, this has nothing to do with conservatism. I have no problem with conservatives at all. You obviously can be a conservative and a good person. Which can not be said of Vlaams Belang members and followers. --LucVerhelst 19:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Is this an axiom? --Jvb – February 8, 2006
You mean axiom ? No, axioms are supposed to be self-evident, but not based on empirical proof. The above is based on observations. --LucVerhelst 10:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation, but I fear they neither do like your party. --Jvb – February 8, 2006
I see that you revised your entry, where you wrote axioma i.s.o. axiom, making my entry less intelligible. You guys have a way with revisionism, don't you. --LucVerhelst 13:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
"Axioma" is the Greek word for axiom. I saw it underlined in my Word document because of the spelling checker, but therefore didn’t bother. Sorry for stepping on your long toes. --Jvb – February 8, 2006
Yawn, here Jvb comes again with the conspiracy theory masterminded by the VB: "The Parti Socialiste masterminded the Belgian “anti-discrimination” law and the prosecutor office of the Centre for Equal Opportunities (the Thought Police) that should destroy Vlaams Belang. Why? Because Vlaams Belang wants independence. The huge financial transfers from Flanders to morally lousy Wallonia are Belgium’s main (economic) problem. These transfers are killing the Flemish economy and bring our social security to the brink of collapse." For me, this is a proof Jvb is a party militant, as this is a well trained VB-line. In the sentence there is the assumption that the law is being alternated to condamn the VB, while it is the VB which should adapt itself to comply to the anti-discrimination law. Because the anti-discrimination law was voted also by PS-members, the VB should not comply to this law? Secondly, there is the fact jvb always says that the Centre for Equal Opportunities is the 'Thought Police'. But the fact is that Jvb is the Thought Police on this article. Then there is the construction that the law and the Centre are there to destroy VB. This is the real conspiracy theory. What follows is another proof of the ways in which VB is always searching for black sheep: in this case not the migrants, but the 'evil'Walloons that are destroying Flanders. Dear Jvb, go live abroad and you will notice that the Belgian system of social security is a dream and that the transfers to the Walloons are not the mayor problem in the system. People are paying about 15 Euro's for one of the best social security systems in the world! No wonder this will not work in the future: it is impossible. No wonder people want to come in Belgium. The kind of social security Belgians have is the envy of many in the world. I really get sick of the conspiracy theory that VB militants (like I assume Jvb to be) spread. --YrZ – February 28, 2006
Yes, and thus even the Warande Groep supported an independent Flanders. Or this part of a right-wing conspiracy? Intangible 01:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Dear Intangible, the Warande Groep is not an independent group of ultraliberal entrepreneurs. Erik Suy, one of the subscribers of the Warande-manifest wrote the foreword in the book by VB "Een brug te ver: Turkije in de Europese Unie". If you want a discussion about their integrity, be my guest. Among the subscribers of the so-called "Lentemanifest" are a bunch of retired people and also among them we find people like ex-CEO Hugo Vandamme, publicity man Wim Schamp, the professors Jef Vuchelen, Juul Hannes, Wilfried Dewachter en Bart Maddens, Johan Vandendriessche van KPMG, Chris Morel (ex-Alcatell and the father of van VB member Marie-Rose Morel), Erik Suy (who is seated on request of Vlaams Belang in the board of the Vlaams Vredesinstituut), Mattias Storme enz... --YrZ – February 28, 2006
You write: go live abroad and you will notice that the Belgian system of social security is a dream and that the transfers to the Walloons are not the mayor problem in the system. I don’t see the macro-economic logic in this. BTW, I don’t belong to the Vlaams Belang party. Neither can I be compared with the Belgian Thought Police, as I cannot send people to prison for what they write, say or allegedly intend. My motto is: "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will fight to the death for YOUR RIGHT TO SAY IT."--Jvb – March 6, 2006

Criticism VVB

How are we going to incorporate the criticism by the Flemish nationalist Vlaamse VolksBeweging into the article ? "The VB is becoming a jellyfish. Or rather an octopus, that is trying to grab votes from all possible groups in the population. ... The party is for the expansion of the Antwerp Port when talking on the right bank, and against it when talking on the left bank, pro employers and pro employees, pro French speakers on their ballot in Brussels and against it around Brussels, pro the expansion of the Brussels airport but against it when speaking in the adjoining towns, pro the Atlantic alliance and contrarily pro a pan-European construction..." Apparantly, this criticism is supported by the VVB honorary president Peter De Roover. Text in Dutch --LucVerhelst 14:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

In the text is written that Vlaams Belang is not better a party than the Christian Democrats some decades ago, in the respect that Vlaams Belang wants to please “everybody” and sometimes one may even wonder whether there even are conflicting stances in publications of different local branches.
Some remarks:
1)There are factual inaccuracies in the article.
2)Statistically spoken Vlaams Belang actually IS the MOST genuine Flemish “People’s party” with a good statistical distribution over all social areas and groups in the Flemish population. And so they have a message for everybody…
3)What to think about possible contradictions in views or stances of local Vlaams Belang branches? This is not the place to start an original research study about that aspect. Nevertheless about the most important aspect in which Vlaams Belang is allegedly inconsistent, this week Vlaams Belang happened to publicise its draft for a Flemish constitution in which is explained that the French-speakers in Brussels, as part of independent Flanders, will get structures of their own, language and educational rights. So in fact there is no contradiction.
BTW, do you have a link where I can read such as you write, that the present criticism is supported by the VVB honorary president Peter De Roover? This would interest me.
--Jvb – February 19, 2006
This is a link (in Dutch). You might need to subscribe, however.
"It is no opinion, it is an observation", says VVB honorary president Peter De Roover. And : Even more remarkable is the fact that VVB honorary president Peter De Roover supports the criticism in the article. --LucVerhelst 13:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Not every criticism on the Vlaams Belang is necessarily to be entered into wikipedia. Intangible 16:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Obviously.
We need to assess the importance of this particular criticism.
The fact is that the VB proclaims itself as a leading factor in the Flemish movement. A large part of the VB-voters vote for the party because of its Flemish nationalist identity. When the leaders or the "gentry" of this movement speak out against the party, criticise it, this has some importance. Altough it remains to be seen what the consequences will be for the party and for the movement. The latter might even be more affected than the first. --LucVerhelst 20:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Or flemish voters might simply not care. I know wikipedia editors know a lot, but foretelling the future should not be the business of wikipedia. Intangible 21:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Who wants to "foretell the future" ? --LucVerhelst 22:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
We need to assess the importance of this particular criticism. [...] Altough it remains to be seen what the consequences will be for the party and for the movement. The latter might even be more affected than the first. Intangible 15:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
That's what I wrote. I did not suggest to enter this in the article. They're remarks while assessing the importance of the criticism. This was obvious, wasn't it.
Actually, they're arguments against entering this criticism into the article. But if you think they're not valid, only the arguments pro mentioning the criticism remain. I therefor take it that you agree ? --LucVerhelst 17:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I think we agree. Intangible 17:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Luc, thank you for the link to VVB honorary president Peter De Roover’s article. But I agree with Intangible. Not every criticism on the Vlaams Belang is necessarily to be entered into Wikipedia. In fact Peter De Roover wants to reduce Vlaams Belang’s platform to his own core business: Flemish independence. This looks like the inverse world. Normally a grassroots activist tries to insert his views into a political party’s platform. Not to reduce the party’s platform to his own views.

Even more annoying is that Mr. De Roover simply is wrong in his argumentation, about the Atlantic Alliance and about the status of Brussels.

So I would say to Mr. De Roover: let the cobbler stick to his last. And not apt for Wikipedia Encyclopaedia.

--Jvb – February 20, 2006

francohpone point of view

Dear Gentlemen, don't forget to introduce all points of view about VB : [32]

Dear Mr. Christophe Greffe, then what should be the conclusion about the link you establish between the Francophones and Blokwatch? Perhaps that Blokwatch is an objective ally of the Belgian Francophones, the beneficiaries of the huge (but shrouded in mystery) financial transfers to the South? --Jvb – March 10, 2006

The latest poll by De Morgen and La Libre Belgique

According to the latest poll by De Standaard and La Libre Belgique, the Vlaams Belang is the second largest party in the Flemish Region and according to the last federal election results (2003), it is hte fifth largest party in term of the number of votes. Therefore, saying that it is the largest party in Belgium is simply wrong. I removed that part.

Referring to the following article: , first we note that the poll was organised by the newspapers La Libre Belgique and De Morgen. The newspaper De Standaard was not involved.
More important is that In the newspaper article is indicated that it is the cartel of CD&V and N-VA which gets 26,9 % in Flanders (but they stay two separate parties) and Vlaams Belang gets 25,7%. Thus even whithout considering that Vlaams Belang normally gets more votes in the ballot box than in the polls, it still stays the biggest single party, whether we like it or not.
This is confirmed here
--Jvb – April 4, 2006

Roeland Raes

has Roeland Raes been a member of Vlaams Belang? Intangible 13:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

He still is a member of the party, and party secretary for the local chapter of Lovendegem. He used to be vice-president and senator for the party, secretary of the party organizations that where outlawed for racism, and member of the Ghent University Board for the party. See this article (Dutch) in today's De Morgen. --LucVerhelst 14:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
For your information: I suppose that is meant this article in De Morgen.
--Jvb – April 10, 2006
Then it applies more to a Roeland Raes and/or the Vlaams Blok article. Raes doesnt seem to play a 'prominent' role anymore in Vlaams Belang. Lovendegem has a population less than 10.000. Intangible 17:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
It also is an example of the witch hunt against Vlaams Belang. In legalistic Belgium, if one is the “wrong” person, so to say reading aloud the article about the Wannsee Conference from Encarta Encyclopaedia can cost you more than five years of prosecution or worse. Or to say it with Monty Python's Flying Circus, why not put Bill Gates into prison, because Encarta Encyclopaedia cooperates with Microsoft? --Jvb – April 10, 2006
Intangible, please read the history of this article. There was a agreement that Roeland Raes was put in the article as an example of the many Vlaams Belang members that are far right and revisionists. Please note the role that Jvb played in this agreement. --LucVerhelst 10:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
But Raes made these comments before the Vlaams Belang even existed, and he hasn't played any role for the Vlaams Belang, so why include -him-? He doesnt seem to be a 'representative' Vlaams Belang member, which would be far more interesting to know (any polls about that?!) Intangible 00:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Strange. All these last months, there was no comment on the presence of Raes in the article. But now that the news is negative for the Vlaams Belang, all this changes. Aren't we trying to revise history again ? --LucVerhelst 16:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I didnt partake in that discussion, im just mentioning it now. But withouth belittling the previous discussion, I dont think there has been any consensus on it, then or now. Intangible 21:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Pretty neutral

The text of the article as it currently is (March 15th 2006) seems pretty neutral to me.

It's a political party, so any summary on it is not going to be 100% neutral. But I can't say the article is definite pro or contra "vlaams belang".

I agree. Sadly, this is not true for the original article Vlaams Blok, which is obviously biased contra. 1652186 09:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

A neutral article would put more stress on the fact that the party still is far right, that a number of its members are neo nazis and revisionists, and that up until a year ago, the party was racist, and wanted the ethnic cleansing of Flanders. It would also stress that many believe that this is still the hidden agenda of the party, reason why the cordon sanitaire is still in place. --LucVerhelst 10:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Far right? Neo Nazi? How can a party be neo Nazi if they are not racist?
Hidden agenda? What’s your own party’s, Groen!’s hidden agenda? Didn’t top leader of the Antwerp Greens, lady Freya Piryns, say that she resembles a watermelon: “green” at the outside but “red” inside? And doesn’t she want to give preferential school enrolment rights to the immigrants? Isn’t that green (red) racism? Where stayed the Gedapo (Gedachtenpolitie or Thought Police)?
But at least about prime-minister Guy Verhofstadt’s hidden agenda there is no doubt: he clings to power at any expense.
--Jvb – April 17, 2006
Are you suggesting to mention Freya Piryns in the Vlaams Belang article ? I don't see the relevance of that... --LucVerhelst/82.174.61.134 09:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Neither do I. But this is no political debate, thus, if possible, please refrain from using the “hidden agenda” discussion technique to provoke a political opponent. Thank you. --Jvb – April 17, 2006
It's just that I didn't understand why you were dragging Freya Piryns and Guy Verhofstadt into a discussion about an encyclopaedic article on the Vlaams Belang.
I don't agree on refraining to "use the 'hidden agenda' discussion technique", as you call it (and calling it that is a discussion technique of its own, off course). A lot of people believe in this hidden agenda. That is a fact. And these people will act upon this belief, will make different choices than they would have, if they didn't have this belief. Therefore, if you are writing an encyclopaedic article on the party, that wants to explain a number of things on the party for a reader that has no knowledge about the party, it is necessary to include the fact that a number of people believe in this hidden agenda, so that the reader in question would understand why these people react in a certain way and not in another.
If you read the present article as a reader without prior knowledge, you can't understand why the party is shunned by the better half of the flemish population. Therefore, the article is not neutral. --LucVerhelst/82.174.61.134 09:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Fortunately there is democracy. If ever Vlaams Belang turns away from its party platform, then next time the voters will turn away from that party. I even think that most people who believe in the “hidden agenda” rhetoric belong to your own very small party. --Jvb – April 17, 2006
I don't see the relevance of the first sentences of your remark. You don't seem to grasp the difference between a scientific, encyclopaedic article on the one side, and party propaganda or political debate on the other, do you ?
As for your last sentence : I suppose that is why all the other parties are lining up to form coalitions with the Vlaams Belang ? --LucVerhelst 15:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I quote: “You don't seem to grasp the difference between a scientific, encyclopaedic article on the one side, and party propaganda or political debate on the other, do you ? ” . Better stop yourself about all that “hidden agenda” nonsense, except for the case that you can link to a (scientific) poll that a non-negligible part of the Flemish believe in it.--Jvb – April 18, 2006
Talking about using the hidden agenda stuff in Wikipedia is not political debate, it's debate about the content of Wikipedia. So : you argued that only a small minority believes in the hidden agenda, I retorqued with my remark about the cordon sanitaire.
You have to admit : either the present party program is still below ethic standards, or it isn't, in which case all the democratic parties believe that the present party program isn't the real one, that there is a hidden one, or they would not have a reason to uphold the cordon sanitaire. Elementary deduction.
But I'll try and find some neutral sources, as you suggest. It is the right way of doing things on Wikipedia.
--LucVerhelst 15:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Elementary deduction? No, pure speculation. Do you really think that Prime-Minister Verhofstadt, even barely, is influenced by his own party platform??? VUB economics professor Vuchelen recently wrote in a free column in De Tijd newspaper (27.03.2006) that the VLD party, economically spoken, in the Belgian government simply does the opposite of what is written down in their own party platform.
Verhofstadt has, in a tactical way, no other choice as to continue his smear campaign against his pricipal competitor, Vlaams Belang. Verhofstadt already invested too much energy in it too. No coincidence that the VLD top now must issue diktat after diktat against collaboration with Vlaams Belang, to keep control.
--Jvb – April 18, 2006
OK. Tactics. If the VLD would go in coalition with the Vlaams Belang, they would, for example, have the Antwerp mayor, they would have a lot more power than they do today. And they would be able to implement a lot more of their party program than they can today. So why don't they form a coalition with the VB ? Because they know they will loose a great deal of their votes. Because even the right wing VLD-voters don't accept such a coalition.
Now, either this is because of the present party program, or it is because those voters think there is a hidden agenda.--LucVerhelst 18:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Another explication is the following. Probably the right one, because it is the story of money and power. Vlaams Belang wants independence for Flanders, the Walloon financial nightmare. Verhofstadt must play for time, because he is blackmailed by them. The Walloons can drop him in a moment and then he is finished. Verhofstadt knows. --Jvb – April 18, 2006
Of course. That must be it. Thank you, Jvb, for letting me see the light.
The Walloons. How could I forget about them and their devilish plot.--LucVerhelst 19:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, just contemplate how many woods, even forests, can be bought yearly by avoiding 11,3 billion euro financial transfers to the French-speakers, isn’t it? Pass the happy message to your political friends of the Green party! --Jvb – April 19, 2006
No thank you. I prefer to be taken serious by my friends, now and in the future.--LucVerhelst 16:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

"Largest party"

I rephrased the sentenced where the party was called the largest Belgian party to "one of the largest Belgian parties". There is no scientific way to measure the size of a Belgian party. Do you count the members of the party, or the number of seats it has in a certain council or parliament, and when you do the latter, isn't that the size of the party at one particular moment in time, and not at present ? The assertion that the party is at present the largest party in the country can't be proven. Therefore, it's scientifically more correct to speak of "one of the largest Belgian parties". If you disagree, please provide proof that the party today is the largest. --LucVerhelst 11:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. It did not provide hard evidence that the largest Flemish party is automatically the largest Belgian party, but I believe no reasonable person will contest this. BTW, 'largest party' doesn't' mean the members of the party, or the number of seats it has in a certain council or parliament, but simply the number of voters. If you don't believe this, please refer to any other article about a country's politics. 1652186 11:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be pretty sure that "largest party" always means "the number of voters". Can you provide some proof for that ?
Secondly, the Vlaams Belang never participated in any election. Are you implying that Vlaams Belang and Vlaams Blok are one and the same party ? In that case, we should merge both articles. --LucVerhelst 15:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll respond to your last question first. Where did I refer to any election? You asked me to prove that Vlaams Belang is the largest party today, so I gave you a reference of how many voters Vlaams Belang would have today. So it doesn't matter whatsoever wheter Vlaams Belang has already participated in an election or not. As for your first question: allow me to respond with another one. If you find any Wikipedia article (or other encylopedic article for that matter) which uses the generic term largest party for anything else than the party with the most voters, I'll adapt my sentence right away. 1652186 16:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Where did you refer to an election ? Well, you know, elections, that's where people vote, so if you mention votes, you refer to an election. As opposed to opinion polls, where (a limited number of) people don't vote, but express an opinion.
And since we're talking about opinion polls, we all know that you can not use them to predict the exact number of people that will vote for this or that party, you can only use them to indicate tendencies in growth or decline of parties. An opinion poll always has a margin of error. So if one party has 26,7 %, and the other has 23,7 %, but the margin of error is 10 %, a real election result at the same time could be 16,7 % for the first party and 33,7 % for the second. (And since the population of this particular opinion poll is only 266, a margin of 10 % is quite realistic.)
The only thing you can prove with opinion polls therefore is that the Vlaams Belang is just one of the largest parties in the country.
By the way, the external link you provided was not an opinion poll among all potential voters, but just among new voters, youngsters that weren't allowed to vote yet during the last elections. Was this a mistake, or are you trying to mislead us ? --LucVerhelst 19:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
That was a mistake, for which I apologize. I have replaced it with a valid poll. I also won't remove your sentence, as I don't like edit wars. But if you remove the fact I have included now, I will feel compelled to take further action. 1652186 19:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Calm down, will you. You're not in a Vlaams Belang meeting. You should learn that among decent people, you don't threaten each other.
That said, I don't have a problem with the fact that you entered in the text. I don't understand why you should think otherwise. Or are you trying to mislead us again ? --LucVerhelst 20:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I didn't threaten you, I was talking about a fair Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. You see, I know more about Wikipedia than you think. But since you don't have a problem, I consider this issue solved. 1652186 09:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Further POV Discussion

Hi, I hope you don't mind me interrupting the fascinating debate going on here, but I thought I would add my thoughts. First maybe a small declaration of who I am, long-time Wikipedia user/lurker, recently becoming more interested (so go easy on me please ;), also a Belgian national with no particular political preference.

After having waded through the discussion here and gone over the article a few times, I would say it is fairly balanced (as a poster just above me mentions, an article on a political party with no POV would be nigh on impossible). However It would seem to me that the problem here is a clash of ideologies between the two main editors of this page, namely LucVerhelst and Jvb.

Both make good arguments for their case, but most are also most definitely arguing their own POV, which are at the opposite extremes. This really seems the essence of the 'edit wars' and NPOV flag. Concerning the political affliliation of Mr. Verhelst, I have no doubt that that he could leave his own ideology at the door as it were, I do have my doubts as to whether he does do this. No offence meant but your comments on BlokWatch and other topics seem rather biased IMHO. On to the thornier question of Jvb. On his talk page and on this page, Jvb states he is not a member of the Vlaams Blok and I have no reason to doubt him. Doubt does enter my mind however as to whether Jvb is a supporter of Vlaams Belang or not. From his talk page and his arguments presented here, I would say he is.

Where am I going with this you're probably asking? Well, it would seem that any comment or minor edit to the page immediately errupts in to a huge political debate, with both sides dragging up points which have little or nothing to do with the matter at hand and doesn't help the actual article in any way. I hope you can both try to keep your political opinions to yourselves and objectively re-evaluate the page.

Please don't construe this as an ad-hominem on either of you. To be honest I think you both make fair points but the truth, as is so often the case, lies somewhere in the middle. Regards Unicron 00:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your evaluation, but as you say this article now is fairly balanced and I agree with you on that point. Moreover, we aren’t the only ones to think like that, see under “Pretty neutral” just above. But in that case, the NPOV tag should perhaps better be removed, isn’t it? --Jvb – April 28, 2006
Agreed, that is also the reaction I was hoping for Unicron 11:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
You have the honour. --Jvb – April 28, 2006
I agree on removing the POV tag. 1652186 15:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree with the statement that it would be (nearly) impossible to write a NPOV-article about a political party. I do agree that an environment like Wikipedia makes it more difficult, than when it would be written in an environment where there is redactional control.
On removing the POV-tag : I don't think that would be wise.
As mentioned in the article, the identity of the party is a hot issue in Belgium. There is a lot of antagonism between the party's members and followers, and the rest of Belgian society. I believe that the POV-tag is a kind of protection of the article against edit wars or vandalism.
The way the article is now, quite some followers of the party will see it as negative towards the party, while for the other readers it is far too favorable. When we remove the tag, both these groups will try and modify the article towards what they believe is right. With edit wars etc. as a consequence.
The tag makes clear to a reader that the article indeed is not perfect, but that someone apparantly is working on it. He/She might be persuaded to think twice before starting an edit war.
--LucVerhelst 21:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Luc, what you are saying boils down to the same as the others: the article in its present form is a middle ground and therefore the POV tag should be removed.
Editorial control, if desired, should be exercised in another way, see the sprotected-tag on the George W. Bush article, which is listed under the Category:Semi-protected.
--Jvb – May 2, 2006
That tag is used in the first place against vandalism, or to stop banned editors from editing. That's not what I'm talking about (although I know that you see certain legitimate changes as vandalism). Semi-protection is "not to be used to deal with regular content disputes" (Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy) --LucVerhelst 18:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Luc, I don’t see regular content disputes as vandalism. You obviously are referring to our macro-economic discussion above under “217.136.122.96 and the free market”, a discussion that was apparently to havy going for you.
You also didn’t answer my remark that the article in its present form is a middle ground and that therefore the POV tag should be removed.
Is another tag needed? That’s the next question. Full page protection is to stop edit warring or severe vandalism. Semi protection is only for vandalism. I you want one of those policies to be implemented, then it is up to you to start the request (after removing your POV tag).
--Jvb – May 2, 2006
Johan, it was you who suggested to implement another policy, not me. I think the present tag is just fine. --LucVerhelst 13:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I suppose you are talking to me. The present tag is not fine. I explained why, but you still refuse to answer. It should be removed, such as the others agree. I only wanted to “help” you by suggesting another policy, just as another idea, nothing more. But of course there is no obligation.
--Jvb – May 2, 2006
I don't refuse to answer. Look : "On removing the POV-tag : I don't think that would be wise.
As mentioned in the article, the identity of the party is a hot issue in Belgium. There is a lot of antagonism between the party's members and followers, and the rest of Belgian society. I believe that the POV-tag is a kind of protection of the article against edit wars or vandalism.
The way the article is now, quite some followers of the party will see it as negative towards the party, while for the other readers it is far too favorable. When we remove the tag, both these groups will try and modify the article towards what they believe is right. With edit wars etc. as a consequence.
The tag makes clear to a reader that the article indeed is not perfect, but that someone apparantly is working on it. He/She might be persuaded to think twice before starting an edit war."
(BTW, you seem to be living in the past. Litterally, this time.) --LucVerhelst 16:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
You are focussing on (possible) edit warring/vandalism. If that is your concern, then you should try to implement Full page protection/Semi protection, but not the POV-tag. The protection policies are the official Wikipedia policies in such cases. Full page protection is to stop edit warring or severe vandalism. Semi protection is only for vandalism.
Only to help you, I give you the page where your (possible) request can be put.
--Jvb – May 3, 2006
Semi protection can't be used, and full page protection is overkill. The present tag is just fine. --LucVerhelst 19:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
By saying that full page protection is overkill , you in fact are saying that according to Wikipedia conventions there is no edit warring or severe vandalism. Furthermore you say that Semi protection can't be used, but without explication.
At any event, neither the POV-tag can be used in this case, because it contains the mission “to check the article for its neutrality”. After the check the tag should be removed. And therefore, 3 Wikipedians want your POV-tag to be removed and only one, you, want to keep it.
--Jvb – May 4, 2006
Jvb, you're right. The POV-check-template wasn't exactly what is necessary. I changed it to the simple POV-template.
BTW, I did explain why semi-protection can't be used, look : "Semi-protection is "not to be used to deal with regular content disputes" (Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy)" --LucVerhelst 13:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Luc,
Unicron says that this article now is fairly balanced.
I agree with him/her.
Below that, 1652186 agrees on removing the POV tag too.
You yourself wrote:- The way the article is now, quite some followers of the party will see it as negative towards the party, while for the other readers it is far too favorable.
My conclusion is that the POV tag should be removed to stay honest towards the Wikipedia reader and that’s what I did.
--Jvb – May 4, 2006
I tried to make the article a bit more NPOV. Since it was immediately reverted, I re-inserted the POV-tag. --LucVerhelst 19:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
But you didn’t respond to my remarks:
See: Vlaams Belang versus Vlaams Blok (title above): not only name change / the claim of a political trial exists / ”own people first” IS only occasionally used now / Vlaams Belang ALLEDGES social conventions changed
--Jvb – May 4, 2006
Since you plainly reverted (in stead of changing point by point), and did this before any form of discussion, we can only assume that you have no intention to really discuss, or to accept even the smallest change.
I put to you that the changes I made were all NPOV, and even made the article better editorially, by dumping some irrelevant information. --LucVerhelst 19:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
What a pity that so much Vlaams Belang party views are irrelevant to you and that you even want to dump them. Views which are apparently not irrelevant in the polling booth. How otherwise can the Wikipedia reader understand what happens in Flanders? --Jvb – May 4, 2006
Wooh. I'm afraid this discussion is getting "to havy going" for me.--LucVerhelst 19:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
About the use of the Vlaams Blok motto, Eigen volk eerst ("Own people first") we both will always differ about the notions “occasionally” or “regularly”. Therefore it’s better to leave them out.
Some indeed call Vlaams Belang a fascist party, so I agree to let that notion stay.
But by saying let’s not make the article “too heavy”, I only meant that you were using twice “opponents and observers” in the same opening sentence as if it was a conviction text. I did not mean that the explanations about the different attempts to kill or harm the Vlaams Belang party outside the voting booth should be deleted.
--Jvb – May 5, 2006

Roots

User 157.191.2.17, who put back the POV tag, argues, among others, that this article is in need of a more balanced view on the Nazi links and a non-misrepresentation of Vlaams Belang’s amnesty position. Instead of only criticizing the article and meanwhile inciting LucVerhelst, can User 157.191.2.17 please simply do specific suggestions to improve the article by saying in which direction things should be changed? --Jvb – May 8, 2006

Jvb, you must admit that the links between the Vlaams Belang and the nazis (present and past) aren't documented in the article. See also my remark on inserting a paragraph on the roots of the party. --LucVerhelst 11:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Roots of the party? You mean former Vlaams Blok president Karel Dillen? There is no trace of collaboration with the Nazis. Being a Flemish nationalist, otherwise he would certainly have been condemned. BTW, why then not speak about Napoleon I of France, the Belgian French-speakers’ shining example? --Jvb – May 8, 2006
You're making a joke, aren't you ? --LucVerhelst 12:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
You don’t seem to be conscious that in French-speaking Wallonia, each year, even the most out-of-the-way village is celebrating their beloved historical leader, cheerfully shooting in the air with their old (but certainly not registered) guns. Moreover, Napoleon’s progress propaganda still IS alive. This is no joke. Never seen historical documentaries about Napoleon on the RTBF? Perhaps that’s another reason why Belgian Minister of Defense Flahaut is systematically moving units and depots to Wallonia [33]. Not only the Vlaams Belang, me too am wondering what kind of a hidden agenda the Walloons might have. --Jvb – May 8, 2006
Right.
I hear they are even sending covert signals through the national tv, hypnotising the Great Flemish People, taking over control over our minds ! --LucVerhelst 16:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I also heard weird things. About a covert operation to steal each year more than 11 billion euro, coded “anti-racism”. Mind Control would indeed be involved. --Jvb – May 8, 2006
Sure, Jvb. That's a good boy. --LucVerhelst 21:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I'v adapted a couple of points on the Brussels and facilities situation (essentially deleting red herrings). On amnesty, I would like the Vlaams Blok position quoted verbatim, rather than Jvb's free interpretation. On Nazi-links, I have already given plenty of examples previously, just suggest a couple and I'll tell you if I think they are sufficiently representative. As an example, since you mentioned Karel Dillen, could you mention he was the translator of the first Holocaust-denial book by Maurice Bardèche in the 1950's ("Nuremberg of the promised land")? 157.191.2.17 21:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Out of curiousity, is there a neutral source that confirms the dillen translation and what was translated? Intangible 22:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
To 157.191.2.17:
Quoting the Vlaams Belang position on amnesty “verbatim” would take far too much place. We must summerize. I deny your allegations about a free interpretation.
Do you have more (neutral) information about those so-called Dillen translations? Wasn’t Dillen a professional translator? If indeed he translated some incriminating texts, did he also express approval with the content?
You removed the red herring of Francophones (there stood: Brussels parents) sending children to Flemish schools , because as you write, it does not signal "conversion" to Flemish (you certainly mean Dutch), but rather realization it helps to get a job . So you don’t deny that the statement is factual correct. To dig in the psyche of persons would lead us too far. There are so many bilingual people in Brussels, even after generations.
--Jvb – May 10, 2006
I removed the paragraph "partly due to migration from Wallonia (32% of the Belgian population), but also because of the social dominance of French. However, since the 1980s, many Brussels parents have preferred to send their children to Dutch-speaking schools, realising that this helps to find a job." because I feel this is factual information that doesn't belong in a text about the Vlaams Belang party platform. The main point here is that the Vlaams Belang wants to incorporate the largely french speaking Brussels region into Flanders. I don't see why we should elaborate on the sociological context, or the successes of Flemish vs Francophones or vice versa. --LucVerhelst 13:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
The rational for their platform stanches is indeed not important, unless Vlaams Belang elaborates on it in its own party platform, like with the social security transfers to Wallonia. [34] Intangible 15:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Karel Dillen

For those of you expressing doubts about Karel Dillen's tranlsation of Bardèche's work, I suggest you type "Bardèche & Dillen" on Google. You will get about 8 pages of links explaining the close relationship between the two. I hope you will find at least one that you will deem reliable. You will also realize that Dillen's job was much more than in the context of his regular translator work. Besides, why on earth would you translate a book on Holocaust denial if it's not to propagate those nefarious fantasies? Of course, if the very fact of providing that information makes you consider a source doubtful, then I'm afraid you're well on your way to Orwell's "1984". Benbel 12:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Now I understand. User 157.191.2.17 is good old Benbel.
I read a review from the most important competent authority in Flanders on the subject, Gie van den Berghe [35] One of the arguments is that Bardèche simply is no Holocaust denier. Seems very, very complicated to me. At any event, the Vlaams Belang article is not the place to discuss such complicated historical matters.
--Jvb – May 11, 2006
"Bardèche didn't deny the killing of the jews. He 'just' thought that the French made too much fuss about it, after all, they were only jews. Insufficient reason, according to Bardèche, to turn against the Germans, that had better be kept as allies in the fight against the real enemy, the communists."[36]
I don't know which is worse, someone who denies the holocaust, or someone who is fully aware, but doesn't care, because it's about jews.
I don't know which is worse, someone who propagates denial litterature, or Karel Dillen, who propagated litterature that claims that the Holocaust was a good thing. --LucVerhelst 21:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
If I understood well, in that book is written that the Holocaust is not enough a reason for eternal enmity with the Germans. I also read that Bardèche flew off the handle because after the liberation he got in trouble only for being the brother-in-law of infamous fascist Robert Brasillach, which also had consequences for Bardèche’s style. But concluding that translator Dillen (°1925) propagated litterature that claims that the Holocaust was a good thing, seems too far-fetched to me. --Jvb – May 13, 2006
If I understood well, "the most important competent authority in Flanders on the subject, Gie van den Berghe" (your words) calls Bardèche a fascist of his own right, who minimized the importance of the holocaust. --LucVerhelst 18:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
He did not minimize the Holocaust. Only, for him it was not important enough a reason for eternal enmity with the Germans, certainly not at a moment when they were needed as allies. --Jvb – May 15, 2006
Can you provide a source where Bardèche is talking about eternal enmity etc. ? As far as I know, he just wanted France and Germany to be allies against communism, and the Holocaust was just a detail in history, compared to the struggle against communism.
If you don't consider that minimizing the Holocaust, then you and I have a different view on what can be called minimizing the Holocaust. --LucVerhelst 09:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I don’t want to “defend” Bardèche, but at least I neither do read in that review that Bardèche explicitely wrote that the Holocaust was just a detail in history. What I do read in that review, is that the only fact that Dillen has translated the book, incited Vlaams Blok opponents (for short term political reasons) to claim that Badèche also was a Holocaust denier, but wrongly. --Jvb – May 15, 2006
I actually didn't know that Dillen was a Holocaust denier. Thanks for the info. --LucVerhelst 15:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I suppose you meant “was no Holocaust denier”. But didn’t you read Benbel’s statements above yet? Benbel is the archetype of Belgian French-speaking caricatured history practise. --Jvb – May 15, 2006
No, you implied that Dillen was a denier, confirming Benbel's statements. --LucVerhelst 17:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
In [37] we clearly read: “wordt de fascistische revisionist Maurice Bardèche gedegradeerd tot negationist”, which means in English: ”the fascist REVISIONIST Maurice Bardèche is (in the text) downgraded to a negationist. So Dillen translated the book of a revisionist, not that of a negationist.--Jvb – May 15, 2006

School facilities

I deleted again the school inspection as an alternative to the abolition of facilities. Jvb, I would like you to stop this edit war. If you can show a text by the VB where they say they would be ready to keep school facilities for French-speakers if the inspection were in the hands of the Flemish Community, then I could agree to restore this section. Otherwise, introducing this as an alternative is misrepresentation. Benbel 12:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a misunderstanding about the word “alternatively”. It is about whether or not to change the law. The wanted inspection aims at a better application of the existing language laws. On the contrary, abolition of the language facilities is only possible after the law has been “changed”. The latter is done in parliament.
--Jvb – May 11, 2006

Amnesty

I restored again the exact text of the VB regarding amnesty. The introductory sentence reflects I think accurately VB's rationale on amnesty. Jvb may feel free to bring other elements to explain VB's views better, but I would object to adapting the meaning of their own words to make them look milder than they actually were. The purpose of WiKipedia is not to protect VB against alleged communications mistakes it may make.

I rephrased the point on other countries in a way which is I hope more neutral.

Regarding the Vermeylen law, I removed the mistakes and quotes that an editor who didn't know what he was writing about introduced in the article. This law is not "recent", but dates from 1961... it is not "possibly" that it grants amnesty: thousands of people benefited from it. If you want the exact text, check on the Belgisch Staatsblad, and for more info, just google "Vermeylen & amnestie"... I would expect further changes to this will be better informed. Benbel 13:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I was rather referring to recent discussions to ease that Vermeylen law [38]
There are different sources which claim that on the ground it doesn’t work, that on the ground there simply is no amnesty in Belgium, see [39]and [40] . At any event the Vermeylen law is no general amnesty such as in the other European countries.
For Vlaams Belang’s point of view about amnesty, see [41] A resume should be built on that text.
--Jvb – May 11, 2006

Roeland Raes once more

I still have my doubts regarding the inclusion of the Roeland Raes stuff in this article. Intangible 15:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I know what you mean. That's the trouble with this NPOV-thing. You have to give all the relevant facts, not just the ones that are favorable of the party. It's a pity, but that's the way things are, I'm afraid. --LucVerhelst 15:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think Roeland Raes is relevant to the Vlaams Belang article, that was my point. You can always start a Roeland Raes article, or add to the current Flemish Block article. Intangible 16:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree. Anyway, we've had this discussion before. --LucVerhelst 17:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Raes is relevant in this article in that he is an example of the nazi and anti-semitic roots of the party. I can live with the removal of the Raes-paragraph if we insert a neutral and comprehensive text on the roots of the party, including Dillen's nazi war history, the relation with neo nazi groups like VMO, etc. This can include the party's efforts to move it's identity towards a more traditional -but hardline- conservative party (although we also have to recognize that this is believed by many to be only window dressing).
This paragraph obviously should also include the relevant information on the Vlaams Blok and it's conviction for racism, plus a bit on the question whether the Vlaams Belang is a new party or not. --LucVerhelst 08:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, clearly Vlaams Belang is a new party. Otherwise, I suggest you to propose a merge. Intangible 16:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

This is called Democracy?

"it has no direct power due to the Cordon Sanitaire, a pact between the other Belgian parties that rejected Vlaams Blok from any governing coalition because the party's views were considered to be morally unsound" -

I can't believe what I am reading. Major political party, hence, a large part of the population, in a Democratic country are legally disenfranchised and are ruled by unrepresented minority. Democracy liberal style has trule become a cruel joke. This cannot stand. This will only result in future rise of violence. You cannot suppress forever a man's desire to be free. This is a defacto admission by left-wing fascists that they have no legitimacy. Views morally unsound???? I was not aware middle Ages were back in Belgium. But now it fits right in with trials against Nick Griffin and Le Pen. Is this what so many generations of Europeans fought for? So one day a bunch of left-wing pro-islamic extremists could turn Europe into Eurabia?

You obviously haven't got a clue. "Legally disenfranchised", "ruled by unrepresented minority", where did you get that idea ? The Vlaams Belang still has all the rights other parties have. They can still compete in an election. They can even enter a government, if they find another party to form the government with.
And they even get an annual state subsidy, which amounts to 1 USD per inhabitant. Imagine an American opposition party (the American communists, for example), that receives a Federal allowance, paid by the tax-payer, of 250 million USD per year... Now how is that for democracy.
I hope you don't want to advocate that the other parties are obliged to form a government with the Vlaams Belang. That's not very democratic, is it ? --LucVerhelst 20:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Isn't the state subsidy to the VB going to be cut next week? They did that to the SGP in the Netherlands, because of women not being granted full membership in the party. Of course it would be better to have no party subsidies at all, but if you do have them you cannot just start excluding parties at will. Intangible 21:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
True. You have to have very good reasons, and the exclusion has to be based on strict rules, that are clear to all. Which is the case.
To return to the Wikipedia article. If our ignorant friend thought that Vlaams Belang was outlawed, shouldn't we clarify the article? Obviously, the article isn't clear enough for an outsider. --LucVerhelst 21:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Vlaams Belang indeed is under constant threat of being outlawed or to lose their funding. That it didn’t arrive yet/again may be seen as a miracle. It is a constant costly legal struggle. But don’t underestimate the consequences, for instance, among much others, they have to keep a huge "war treasury", a problem the other parties don’t have.--Jvb – May 13, 2006

Other facts and allegations

What's up with the political shoutcast. I thought wikipedia was an encyclopedia and not a blog. Intangible 16:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean ? --LucVerhelst 16:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Are you going to include a description on every Vlaams Belang member? Intangible 16:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
No, only on a few of those that are an example of the true nature of the party. If you know of relevant facts that fit in the section, and that are positive about the party, please add a few. --LucVerhelst 16:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Luc, I think you are forgetting Rob Klop. You know, one day I'm gonna do the same for the PS, but that's gonna take a lot of time, more than I foresee to have in the near future.1652186 17:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what the 'true nature' of the party is. Likewise, I doubt its members are an equalitarian bunch, to be represented by just a few examples. Intangible 17:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I have added the bit about the Simon Wiesenthal Center because this is an international organisation of some importance. Next to that, the paragraph is imporant, because an important Jewish organisation denounces the Vlaams Belang. This is contrary to the support the party is trying to get from the Belgian Jews. A third reason why this paragraph is important, is the fact that the party explicitly shuns "skinheads, extremists and other parasites".
We could add Rob Klop and his sympathetic family, if you insist. But the fact that one member of the party has personality problems isn't very relevant, is it ? This would become important if these problems had broader consequences, or were an example of the nature of the party. But I don't feel this is the case. --LucVerhelst 17:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
That institute is of course entitled to its own views, but that is what you get with political parties, a lot of criticism. May I remind you for example, that the article Republican Party has no such a section. You would wonder why. Intangible 17:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
One reason would be that the article on the GOP is encyclopaedic, well balanced and well written. At the moment, we're still struggling to NPOV the Vlaams Belang article as good as possible. Wikifying and turning it in an encyclopaedic article will be the next step, if we ever arrive there. When we're there, this section can be removed. For the time being, I think the section is necessary to balance some of the blatantly POV paragraphs. --LucVerhelst 18:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
There is any easy way to get to know the party's identity. Vlaams Belang has an election program and a foundationalal program. Enough pages from which a concise wikipedia entry can be made. Intangible 18:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
No, Luc is of the opinion that Vlaams Belang's election and foundationalal program are POV propaganda, and therefore unfit for an encyclopedia. See the discussion 'POV check' on the Vlaams Blok talk page. 1652186 19:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. (1652186, we're in danger of becoming a good team.;-))
Intangible, I think you might want to read a bit about what Wikipedia is all about, like Wikipedia:The perfect article. --LucVerhelst 19:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Which point are you refering too? How can the Vlaams Belang party program in any way be biased? Intangible 19:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Are you serious ? --LucVerhelst 20:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
A party program (platform) is intrinsic to any political party. It's just the way of the beast. You can agree with it or not. Doesnt mean it;s biased. But if you cannot agree to this, maybe mediation or a visit to the village pump might bring consensus closer. Intangible 20:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
For the record, that is what I tried to make clear on the other page. 1652186 17:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
A good idea. Please go ahead. But please remember I warned you. --LucVerhelst 20:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
A third reason why this paragraph is important, is the fact that the party explicitly shuns "skinheads, extremists and other parasites". Ahem... Good I added that then... And for the record, my Rob Klop remark was sarcastic.1652186 17:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Don't you like the way cooperation improves Wikipedia ? --LucVerhelst 18:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely. But I find it rather weird if you refer to my change as one of the reasons why you made the addition in the first place. 1652186 18:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Is that the way you understand it ? I thought of the way how to formulate things, that's why in the first sentence I wrote "I have added", while the next two paragraphs I wrote "this paragraph is important". I didn't want to ascribe your addition to myself. My apologies if you think I did. The fact is that your addition improved the paragraph, and added an important reason to keep it in the article. --LucVerhelst 18:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. No, I certainly didn't think you wanted to attribute the sentence to yourself, I thought that you wanted to use it as a late excuse for having created the paragraph. My apologies in return if that wasn't the case. (I'm also not used to you thinking that I improve things ;-) ) 1652186 19:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

One reason would be that the article on the GOP is encyclopaedic, well balanced and well written. At the moment, we're still struggling to NPOV the Vlaams Belang article as good as possible. Wikifying and turning it in an encyclopaedic article will be the next step, if we ever arrive there. When we're there, this section can be removed. For the time being, I think the section is necessary to balance some of the blatantly POV paragraphs.

You do not just balance an article with paragraphs that are POV with entering more POV text in another section. Instead you either rewrite a particular section in a NPOV way, or remove the gibberish. What is the "Other facts and allegations" section supposed to counter? Intangible 15:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I would be very glad to rewrite the article in a NPOV way. Please talk to Jvb, will you ? --LucVerhelst 15:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Err... I don't know whether that is true. Not long ago, everybody except Luc agreed the article was NPOV. See 'Pretty neutral' above. 1652186 17:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
You better check the article's history, then. I was the last to remove the tag, see [42]. After that, it was immediately put in again by someone who clearly didn't agree the article was NPOV again. (After which Jvb performed one of his rv-tricks again, forcing me to rv his unwarranted rv). --LucVerhelst 20:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm still waiting on an answer why this section is included in the article. Hans van Themsche has never been a member of Vlaams Belang. What is going on..... Intangible 21:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

This section was included in the article because the Simon Wiesenthal Center, who asks for an investigation on the Vlaams Belang after the shooting, is an international organisation of some importance. Next to that, the paragraph is imporant, because an important Jewish organisation denounces the Vlaams Belang. This is contrary to the support the party is trying to get from the Belgian Jews. A third reason why this paragraph is important, is the fact that the party explicitly shuns "skinheads, extremists and other parasites".
I think you're right if you think to much attention goes to the shooting in Antwerp itself. I believe the focus of the attention should remain on the fact that the Simon Wiesenthal Center (among others) links the Vlaams Belang with the racist murders. But I'm not responsible for this. You had better talked to Jvb, who again thought it necessary to drown the relevant information in proza. --LucVerhelst 21:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but the Simon Wiesenthal Center itself is not neutral in this respect, they have their own opinion in critizing the Vlaams Belang. That shouldnt mean we should expand on it in the article, opinions of wikipedia editors are not to be entered, so why should those of a random NGO be? Intangible 21:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
The Vlaams Belang is not neutral on itself, it is rather pro. Does this mean we have to remove all information coming from the Vlaams Belang ?
You're right that a random reaction by a random NGO has no place on the page, but I believe I elaborated enough on the reasons why I feel the action by the SWC is important enough to be mentioned.
One more reason, next to the three I gave, is that the reaction by the SWC is an example of other reactions in Belgium. --LucVerhelst 21:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I have to emphasize that Vlaams Belang "shunning skinheads, extremists and other parasites" is not at all connected to the Simon Wiesenthal Center controversy and can therefore not be used as a reason to include the latter. 1652186 16:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
There is no controversy about the SWC, there is controversy about the role of the Vlaams Belang in creating an atmosphere of racism and hatred against minorities. --LucVerhelst 16:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I meant the controversy on Wikipedia, about whether or not including the SWC. 1652186 16:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Luc, I didn’t “again” think it necessary to drown the relevant information about the Simon Wiesenthal Center in proza. I simply exposed the fact that the SWC was (probably by design) misinformed by someone. And then, after adding my “proza”, suddenly the story wasn’t interesting any more for you to put Vlaams Belang in the wrong with it and then you dropped the paragraph.
Indeed, there is nothing faulty in the story as such:
In May 2006, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, named after the famous nazi hunter, asked the Belgian government to launch a "complete investigation [...] into the activities of the Flemish Interest and its associates", after a racist shooting in Antwerp, where an African woman and a white child were killed, and a woman of Turkish descent was wounded. The Wiesenthal center added : "Despite the condemnation of these killings by the extreme right Flemish Interest Party (formerly Vlaams Blok), it is clear that the impunity granted to their Skinhead retinue and the tenor of their website links have encouraged a rising wave of racist violence in Belgium." [1]
Although the father of the 18 years old who committed the murders was a member of the party, his grandfather fought for the Flemish Legion and his aunt was a Vlaams Belang member of Parliament, the boy himself was no party member, he had always been of good reputation.[2] He neither had far-right tattoos, nor did he wear any far-right symbols and the police didn’t find indications that he had visited far-right web-sites. The father called the policeman who shot his son a “hero” who had prevented further bloodshed. Vlaams Belang condemned the crime and stresses that skinheads, extremists and other parasites are not welcome in the party. The fact that the murderer had been sent from school for smoking may have triggered his actions. He declared to the police that he had been nagged by "foreigners" during his youth, although in his farewell letter he didn’t refer to that. There are strong signals that he was influenced by computer games in which people are randomly shot, Hispanic immigrants included.
--Jvb – May 18, 2006
No problem, Johan. I put it back in. I was just trying to find some middle ground, with 1652186 and Intangible discussing the paragraph. --LucVerhelst 20:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Content of the article

This article will always be 'pro' Vlaams Belang, because of the simple fact that we include it in Wikipedia. The information from the Vlaams Belang is neutral in the sense that some things are intrinsic to a political party, like a party platform, a party bureau, (elected) members, election lists, election program, election results etc. (see pretty much any other political party article in Wikipedia which does not have a NPOV label). These can be described pretty much objectively in a Wikipedia article. About NGOs critizing political parties, I still believe Wikipedia is not the place to enter this information, because NGOs are part of a political process. You said that the Vlaams Belang is trying to obtain Jewish voters. That might as well be, except that there is no explicit notion for this from the Vlaams Belang party, so how can you expand on it in the Vlaams Belang article, that in itself would be editor POV! This is not the Policical Strategy of Vlaams Belang wikipedia article (which probably would be deleted anyways). Intangible 22:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean.
I invite you to read the article on the GOP, the example you gave. In the section on "Ideological Base" for example, there are several mentions on how the Democratic Party has a different opinion or approach. There is also mention of different factions within the party, and that the party is split on a number of subjects. This is not information that you will find in the party programme or platform, or in the party communication. This is information, gathered from other sources.
If you are writing an encyclopaedic article about a party, you have to give as much as possible of the relevant information the reader needs to get to know the party. That certainly has to include things like a party platform, a party bureau, (elected) members, election lists, election program, election results (altough some of this information can be seen as irrelevant for the average reader), but it also has to include more indepth information, about the way the party functions in society, about its history, about the way it is looked upon by its voters, its opponents and neutral observers, etc.
We've been through this before, please read my examples of 17 December in the section "POV-check".
--LucVerhelst 10:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Campaign poster

I removed the paragraph about the campaign poster in the "elections" section. The fact that the party changed the poster in itself is not relevant, and therefore shouldn't be mentioned. The relevancy of the fact lies in why the party did this. They did this because there has been a racist shooting, for which part of the public, including the parents of the murdered child, blames the Vlaams Belang party. The party changes the poster because it wants to distract the attention away from these facts. I removed the paragraph because Intangible apparently is planning to start an edit war over the word "racist". --LucVerhelst 20:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The party changed the poster because there is a likeness of the murdered child with the child in the poster, that's all I know, the rest is just speculation. Intangible 20:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
You had better done some more research, then.
Why is this fact so important, according to you, to introduce it in the article ?--LucVerhelst 21:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Because it is not an everyday event that a political party changes a campaign poster due to an event outside of the party. Intangible 21:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
And why did the party decide to change the poster ? --LucVerhelst 21:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
According to the Vlaams Belang, they changed the poster "because of sincere detestment of the event and for respect for the victims and their families". Intangible 21:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Why is this a sign of respect ? --LucVerhelst 21:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't know. That's not relevant. Intangible 22:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Bull. Because the party is being blamed by the parents and part of the public opinion for the death of the child. Keeping the poster would be "adding insult to injury". And by changing the poster this quickly, the party shows that it agrees with this. --LucVerhelst 07:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely. The party changed the banner because it is being blamed by a (small minority) of the public opinion. This does however not mean that they agree with the allegations. Their exact words are that they don't wish to add oil to the flames. I don't see the relevance of this not/too discussion though. 1652186 07:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Intangible kept removing the word "racist" in "racist shooting", starting an edit war. We were just proving my point that the word "racist" is important for the reader to understand the importance of the withdrawal of the poster. --LucVerhelst 09:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
That remains pure speculation. You can start a political blog if you want to expand those ideas. Intangible 12:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Who says I want to expand those ideas ? I thought we were discussing, in an adult way, why a certain way of putting things in the article is important.
I have the idea that you are more concerned with painting a positive image of the Vlaams Belang party, than with writing a good Wikipedia article. --LucVerhelst 19:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Municipality of Antwerp and Brussels

Intangible, you changed the text and footnote about municipality of Antwerp being the largest in the country. I changed it back, because the text, and certainly the footnote, made no sense anymore.

Antwerp in effect is the largest municipality in Belgium, since there has never been a fusion of the 19 Brussels municipalities. That's why the city council of Antwerp is the largest in the country. Of course, the geographical city of Brussels is larger, but this geographical city consists of 19 administrative municipalities, with 19 different, smaller, city councils.

I hope you understand now. --LucVerhelst 09:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I hope the footnote is even clearer now. Intangible 13:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
No it is not, but I can live with that.
Are you a civil servant ? --LucVerhelst 14:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Lol. Why would you say that? Intangible 17:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
You over-emphasize the judicial and administrative side of things, while on the other hand it is clear that you didn't study at university, so you can't be a lawyer. Just a hunch, though, I have been known to be wrong... No offense meant, either. --LucVerhelst 08:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

TCS Daily reference

I really don't know what LucVerhelst is up to now. He always is the one to claim that things have to be encyclopedic, but I don't understand the following:

  • He twice removed the sentence Some see it as a political trial inspired by the Belgian establishment., which was referenced by [43]. His rationale is Sorry, but I don't read any proof for the fact that it was a political trial, and that it was inspired by the establishment. Of course you don't, that's why it says Some see it!
  • However, he uses the same reference to claim that opponents and some observers see it (Vlaams Belang) as far right and racist. However, this really isn't mentioned in the article, which was published a mere week after Vlaams Belang's creation. The article even questions the definition of racism used to condemn Vlaams Blok.

Now that is something unencyclopedic. 1652186 15:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Where in the TCS article do you read that the trial was political, and that it was inspired by the Belgian establishment ?
Of course I used it as a reference for the party being racist. The article was published after the founding of the Vlaams Belang, and apparantly the author didn't see that much difference in both party manifestos or platforms, or he simply didn't believe that the Vlaams Belang was a different party from the Vlaams Blok. Now why would that be ?
But I can live with the removal of the racism bit, for now. I will not have trouble in finding another reference, don't you think.
Meanwhile, I'll leave the political trial thing, until someone can find some real reference. I'm sure Jvb will be able to come up with something. I was wondering why he hasn't opened his archives yet...--LucVerhelst 15:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
At your service. Here is professor Matthias Storme interviewed in the Dutch Katholiek Nieuwsblad. He literally, not only as a description, says that it was a political trial and that it was inspired by the Belgian establishment [44] --Jvb – May 21, 2006
Hm, Jvb, I'm feeling a bit stupid now, but I don't seem to find the passage where Storme says that it was a political trial, and that it was inspired by the Belgian establishment. What paragraph is it in ? --LucVerhelst 09:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Any reference to Storme should mention that he is an eminent NVA member, a libertarian and a Flemish secessionist. If you don't believe me, just go to his website. That helps the reader put his comments in the propose context. 156.109.10.17 19:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Not that eminent an N-VA member anymore, I thought, after his faux pas regarding the Vlaams Blok trial...
Anyway, there is a link to his Wikipedia page, that should be enough. --LucVerhelst 19:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Luc, please see [45], title : “Krankzinnig arrest inzake het Vlaams Blok” (insane Vlaams Blok judgement)
1) Political trial: In de Vlaams Blok-zaak hebben twee rechtscolleges beslist dat het een politiek proces (political trial – Storme’s interpretation) was dat niet in een rechtbank thuishoorde. Tenslotte heeft men een derde rechtscollege gevonden dat op 21 april 2004 een van haat vervuld arrest heeft geveld dat strijdig is met de meest fundamentele vrijheden.
2) "U vraagt wat ik onaanvaardbaar vond aan het Vlaams Blok-arrest en of het de taak niet is van de rechter om de wet toe te passen? Welnu, de antiracisme- en antidiscriminatiewetgeving is schandelijk, en de eerste verantwoordelijkheid daarvoor ligt bij de politici die ze gemaakt hebben, of te laf waren ze tegen te houden. (infamous legislation – and some politicians were too spineless to prevent this anti-discrimination legislation – said in connotation with the Vlaams Blok judgement).
--Jvb – May 22, 2006
I think your interpretation of what Storme said is a bit far fetched.
1. The political trial thing : in Belgium, court cases concerning "political" crimes, crimes with political intent, normally go to the cour d'assises, a court with a jury. The first two correctional courts Storme is talking about, decreed that this was a trial on a crime with political intent, hence were out of their jurisdiction. That is what Storme meant with "two courts decided that it was a political trial".
So, Storme only said that someone else (the courts) said that it was a political trial, and the words "political trial" didn't mean "trial with political intent", as you imply, but "trial on a crime, committed with political intent". That is a huge difference.
2. I don't find any proof that Storme said that the trial was inspired by the Belgian establishment : "You ask me what I find inacceptable about the Vlaams Blok-decision, and whether it is the job of the judge to apply the law ? Well, the anti-racism and anti-discrimination legislation is a disgrace, and the first responsability for that lies with the politicians that made it, or were to cowardice to stop it".
--LucVerhelst 07:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
1)In the previous sentence, Storme says: In de Vlaams Blok-zaak hebben twee rechtscolleges beslist dat het een politiek proces was dat niet in een rechtbank thuishoorde. (…a political trial that didn’t belong in a court). So your interpretation is not the right one.
2)Politicians caused a legalistic disgrace and other political cowards supported it. Here we are talking about the Establishment.
--Jvb – May 22, 2006
1) I can understand how you come to the conclusion. If you really stretch it, the sentence could mean what you say. But I still find it doubtful. Reading it, I would say that Storme, knowing that it was a boutade, wanted to imply that the trial was political, but didn't want to have it said in so many words.
2) Here you are pushing your interpretation of what Storme said. You can not write in the article that Storme thought the trial was inspired by the establishment, based on this sentence. It really would be a lie.
--LucVerhelst 12:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
The Establishment, that means those who are in power for the moment. Did they inspire the trial? Yes. The Establishment politicians caused a legalistic disgrace and other political cowards supported it. Then, what other motive (inspiration) can a politician have than to destroy or harm his competitors?
Next step, the implementation: …finally a third court was “found” that pronounced a sentence full of hatred in defiance of the most fundamental freedoms (...tenslotte heeft men een derde rechtscollege gevonden… ) A court was found: thus they were also searching for the right court, not only for the truth.
--Jvb – May 22, 2006
And Storme said all that ? Whoa, you really can read between the lines, can't you.
Let's stay serious, shall we ? --LucVerhelst 13:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Well actually, the Vlaams Blok was sued by the Centrum voor gelijkheid van kansen en voor racismebestrijding many times. This organization falls directly under the responsibility of the Belgian Prime Minister. Intangible 13:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
And where did Storme say all that ? --LucVerhelst 14:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Luc, Storme says that the politicians caused a legalistic disgrace and that other political cowards supported it. Who else than Establishment politicians could have been meant by him? And indeed they changed the law, because they created this legalistic (not legal, mind you) disgrace, such as Storme says.--Jvb – May 22, 2006
Wow. I haven't checked this page for a day and I don't recognize it anymore. Anyway, I agree with those who say that [46] shows that Storme thinks it was a political trial. I think the sentence In de Vlaams Blok-zaak hebben twee rechts­colleges beslist dat het een politiek proces was dat niet in een rechtbank thuishoorde. Tenslotte heeft men een derde rechtscollege gevonden dat op 21 april 2004 een van haat vervuld arrest heeft geveld dat strijdig is met de meest fundamen­tele vrijheden says enough, even though he doesn't say it literally. Not reading in between the lines isn't good either, certainly not in politics. 1652186 15:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Paul Pataer in Knack (Liga voor Mensenrechten) said the whole idea of the case against the Vlaams Blok was to break up the party. This was one of the reasons why the first court handling the case said it had no authorization over the case, because it believed the case is about political delict by the Vlaams Blok, and thus should be handled by a different court. Intangible 15:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, well, Intangible, please read my arguments above, which you confirm. A trial about a political delict as you call it, can't be described as a political trial. A political trial is a trial with a political goal. I agree that you could say that Storme implied this, but you certainly can not say that the courts called the trial a political trial. Please try and understand the difference.
Furthermore, Jvb, you just can't say, based on the heemland article, that Storme said the trial was inspired by the establishment, or that the law has been changed for the purpose of this trial. It's a lie, unworthy of Wikipedia. --LucVerhelst 18:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
See next title. --Jvb – May 23, 2006

The factual accuracy of this article is disputed.

I have added the template "disputed" : "The factual accuracy of this article is disputed". See my argumentation in the section "TCS Daily reference". My edits keep getting reverted. I've tried several times to enter a "citation needed"-tag, but that has been erased too. --LucVerhelst 18:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Better now? 1652186 18:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. I tried exactly the same version earlier, as one of my attempts to find a middle ground, but it soon was reverted by Jvb. We'll see how he reacts now... --LucVerhelst 19:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Never such a tag was deleted without explication. And meanwhile I found another link so that the word “Establishment” can be recuperated.[47] --Jvb – May 23, 2006

selectivity

Who is being selective? I've selected these other people because they have a clear role in the party's organization. What is your reason to promote these other two to have any role in the party? Intangible 21:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Because they are known by the outside world, have or had some influence on the party, etc.
You don't think that Rob Verreycken, one of the lawyers on the Vlaams Blok trial, and for a long time a parliamentarian for the party, should be mentioned ? --LucVerhelst 08:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
All those in the Others category should go. They might be mentioned in the Vlaams Blok article, but there is no objective reason to include them here, since they are not elected members for the party or play a role in its board. Intangible 13:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree. You can mention them if they said or did anything important, but they should not appear in the list. 1652186 15:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge Blok and Belang articles

I think I'm going to propose a merge between the "Vlaams Blok" and "Vlaams Belang" articles. I'm reading an interview with Filip Dewinter in Humo (the left wing Flemish weekly), No. 3429 of 23 May 2006, page 56 : "[...] HUMO : [Roeland Raes] still is a member of the party council, the highest organ within the party. DEWINTER : As a former senator he automatically has the right on a seat in the party council. But I don't think he appears very often.[...] "

This is strange. Roeland Raes is a former senator of the Vlaams Blok, but resigned his senatorship a couple of years before the Vlaams Blok was "disbanded" and the Vlaams Belang was formed. Therefore he is not a former senator for the Vlaams Belang. Then why would he have the right on a seat in that party's council ? Because even the Vlaams Belang knows that it is in fact the same party as the Vlaams Blok.

What do you think ? --LucVerhelst 18:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that if you want to make yourself ridiculous, go ahead. Vlaams Belang is not the same as Vlaams Blok, it's its successor. That's also why Vlaams Belang members are currently still in parliament on the seats won by Vlaams Blok. 1652186 19:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
You know as well as I do that there is a huge difference between membership of the parliaments (regulated by law) and membership of a party council (regulated by the party's own rules). Apparently, at least according to your great Leader, the Vlaams Belang statute book recognises former Vlaams Blok members of parliament as its own former members of parliament. Now, what I would want to know, is whether this is formulated as such...--LucVerhelst 19:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
The Vlaams Blok was disbanded and 24 hours later a new party was founded: the Vlaams Belang. But more important, in the weeks before the disbandment a completely new party platform was put into words. We thus have a different party. --Jvb – May 24, 2006
There are several examples of parties that completely changed their party platform, but remained the same party. That's not convincing me. --LucVerhelst 14:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
But here the party had to be disbanded because of a trial. --Jvb – May 24, 2006
But it didn't. --LucVerhelst 16:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm starting to doubt whether we should treat Luc as a serious discussion partner. Apart from the above, see the talk page of Frieda Van Themsche for the reason. 1652186 17:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
On of the main reasons why I would believe in the "new party" theory, is the program differences between Belang and Blok. The most important difference to me is the abandoning by the Belang of the 70 steps plan, the plan for ethnic cleansing of Flanders. Apparantly, Intangible doesn't seem to agree, since he removed that part from the article. So I'm even more convinced that Blok and Belang are one and the same party, and the ethnic cleansing of Flanders is still part of the (hidden) agenda. --LucVerhelst 17:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
'ethnic cleansing' is a term best to be avoided. Intangible 17:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
That is the problem with you political correct types. One can't even use the terms one wants. --LucVerhelst 17:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, well not even Josef Stalin is being described as an ethnic cleanser, so this is just selective indignation on your part. Intangible 18:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
What? We are the politically correct types? I think tou might want to read Political correctness to see what that term actually means.
And oh yes, of course, the hidden agenda. I can imagine many Belgian politicians who may have a hidden agenda, but people who are so outspoken that they are being sued, I don't think they have anything to hide... 1652186 19:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm starting to doubt whether we should treat 1652186 as a serious discussion partner. Apart from the above, see the talk page of Frieda Van Themsche for the reason.--LucVerhelst 10:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
If both were one and the same party, the Vlaams Belang simply couldn’t function any more by the Belgian law. --Jvb – May 29, 2006

fortuyn and de morgen

Actually the qualification 'quality newspaper' does not mean a thing, even the 'quality sheets' can gaff (see the NY Times for the last 5 years or so). The column of fortuyn in HP/De Tijd actually seems to contradict De Morgen's article, so therefore it is inclusion-worthy. Intangible 14:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

We've been through this before, there was a concensus to keep the De Morgen qualification in the article.
Qualification of De Morgen as a quality newspaper is important, for the reader to be able to assess the truthfulness of the published interview with Pim Fortuyn. If a newspaper is a quality newspaper, there are more guarantees that the published information is truthful, because of the higher standards the newspaper upholds, and because a newspaper that sells itself as a quality newspaper can't risk to be exposed as publishing wrong information.
If the column of Fortuyn contradicts his interview in De Morgen, this should be entered in the article as such. We should bear in mind that a column is a deliberated piece of communication, while an interview -and especially the utherance by Fortuyn that Dewinter is fascist- is a reproduction of a conversation, that wasn't necessarily thought over. --LucVerhelst 14:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually stating that De Morgen is a 'quality newspaper' is POV. Even the NY Times 'gets away' with publishing wrong or fabricated information. Intangible 15:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't see why stating that De Morgen is a quality paper is POV ? Newspapers generally are divided in up market (quality), mid-market (popular) or down market (sensational). Flanders doesn't really have down market/sensationalist newspapers. The newspapers belong in one of the two other definitions : De Standaard, De Tijd and De Morgen are upmarket/quality papers, Gazet Van Antwerpen, Het Nieuwsblad, Het Laatste Nieuws, De Nieuwe Gazet are mid-market/popular. Noting POV about it. --LucVerhelst 17:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Linking to newspaper of record is useless, the classification on that page is highly POV, and no such legal status exists in Belgium I recall. Somehow you think that De Morgen should be a more authoritative source just because it caters to higher income or higher educated groups. I think such a belief is hopelessly POV. Intangible 23:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- This has not much to do with legal status.
- I don't see why that page would be POV. But there is not much sense in talking about that page's merits on this talk page, is there. --LucVerhelst 07:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
No, but if the GVA would have printed this Fortuyn bit, would it have made a difference? Intangible 15:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Good thinking.
If Het Laatste Nieuws would have printed it, I wouldn't defend the presence of the phrase in the article that much. Now, the GvA is a different matter. The newspaper has never been very critical of the Vlaams Belang, so if they had printed that Fortuyn called Dewinter a fascist, commentators would have seen it as a major blow to the party. The GvA would therefore only have printed it, if they were absolutely sure, and if it would serve the goal they would have for it. --LucVerhelst 15:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
The HLN knows its ways around the photoshop software too, I came to know today :) Intangible 04:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits by TedMundy and LucVerhelst

I feel compelled to direct my attention to this article once again, because of the recent content deletion by TedMundy and LucVerhelst. The disputed content is the following:

Party supporters, as well as law professor Matthias Storme, see it as a political trial. Discrimination is a human right Some also claim that the Belgian establishment has changed the law for the purpose of this trial I've seen the future: it's scary and Belgian.

It thus concerns well referenced and relevant (see the content preceding this part) facts. The content has been up for months (as a compromise after a lot discussion in the past) and is now aggressively being removed by these two users, without any discussion or rationale. It has now come that far that these two users are on turn reverting the restored content, in order to try and make the other party violate 3RR. In my eyes, this tends more to vandalism than an edit war, let alone constructive editing. In order to prevent being accused of personal attacks, as happened in the past, I will no longer discuss this here. If however the content is removed again, I will follow the Wikipedia procedures that I seem fit. That is, put up the Factual accuracy tag and initiate DR. 1652186 16:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's stay a bit closer to the truth, shall we ? Please check the page's history, user TedMundy did in fact give a reason for removing the sentences : "This should go in the "Vlaam Block" article". What more do you need? I saw the edits made by TedMundy reverted without any "rationale" whatsoever by Intangible. TedMundy was fully in his right to edit the article, and didn't have to confer with anyone, as per WP:BOLD. The reactions by Intangible were far from civil. So I came to the rescue of TedMundy (and fully enjoying it).
As a matter of fact, I am glad that an apparant outsider as TedMundy drew attention to these two sentences, as they indeed are irrelevant to the Vlaams Belang article. On the other hand, the fact that you insist on keeping the paragraph, for me is another argument to believe that Vlaams Blok and Vlaams Belang are one and the same party, hence both articles should be merged.
Maybe we should request some sort of mediation or third party advice. --LucVerhelst 16:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Done. [48] 1652186 17:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

0110 Controversy

I just noticed the following sentence in this article: "The Antwerp mayor Patrick Janssens (SP.a) disapproved of the concerts." And I also happened to read the source on which the editor in question claims to have based that sentence, it literally said this: "Antwerps burgemeester Patrick Janssens (sp.a) liet weten het initiatief niet echt een goed idee te vinden." That last sentence is in fact translated as "Antwerp mayor Patrick Janssens (SP.a) let know that he thinks the initiative is not really a good idea." That is something entirely else than "disapproving" of the concerts. He doesn't "disapprove" of them, he just thinks they're not really a good idea, or at least that's what the source the reference linked to said. --Ganchelkas 20:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm the editor in question. I don't think the present sentence is very far from what Patrick Janssens meant. Let's not forget he has his voters to take in account, with elections coming up in october.
In any case, the present sentence is better than what was there before : "the event is sponsored by [...] local governments". But I admit, I didn't think very long before writing it, I lost Janssens' nuance. So please by all means go ahead and correct the article if you think it necessary. --LucVerhelst 21:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Free market

The Vlaams Belang does not support free market politics. Its party manifest states loud and clear that they prefer governement interventionism and reject strong support for the free market. A person who accepts the free market and is not a person who supports the free market in a true sense of a word. For example, we can see the same policies that some members of Vlaams Belang wants with some members of the Christian Democrats and the VLD in Belgium. Are the Christian Democrats then free market orientated. Free market supporters believe in the power of the free market before government, however the Vlaams Belang (just like the CD&V) does not believe in the free market but says that government intervention is essential and puts that in the first place, before the free market.

Secondly, is it important to show that these "new" so called free market points are created by some members of the party to attract other people, but it is obviously that certainly the mayor part of the party does not accept them. The Vlaams Belang is still a very divers party. The Vlaams Belang has the same points on taxes as the CD&V and the VLD.

The VLaams Belang also support some kind form of protectionism: Om de bedrijfsvlucht of de zogenaamde 'delokalisering' te stoppen stelt het Vlaams Belang dat een eerlijke vrije handel slechts mogelijk is met landen met gelijklopende sociaal-economische inzichten. Daarom eisen wij een concurrentie met gelijke middelen. Het Vlaams Belang pleit er dan ook voor dat de EU pragmatische beschermende maatregelen neemt tegen landen die niet dezelfde hoge sociale en ecologische normen hanteren. Op die wijze kunnen we ook vermijden dat levensnoodzakelijke economische takken uit Europa verdwijnen. She wants measures against CHina and Eastern Europe. This is not free market.

In a question surrounding sunday shopping was senator Creyelman of the Vlaams Belang opposed against more sunday shopping. Again not for a free market.

The also want some kind of "international agreements on international companies". This is again not free market that consist out of idea that the market will create ethic rules. Vlaams Belang opposes globalisation! Entry made by 213.224.117.173

(moved edit to bottom of page) --LucVerhelst 20:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I want to discuss the changes I have made and that are constantly changed. I wrote a little comprimise that I hope will not be changed. Wikipedia is a sensable environment, so let us discuss about it.

(moved edit to bottom of page) --LucVerhelst 14:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The party is in favor of free markets until it collides with the more fundamental issue of secession. Intangible 01:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Why isn't this in the article ? --LucVerhelst 14:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
It was. See the current ordering in the intro. Intangible 19:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
You can't possibly be serious ? --LucVerhelst 20:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually it would be better to refer to free trade instead of free market economics. VB has argued that, as small country, Flanders needs to have free trade in order to be wealthy. It cannot just produce everything on its own, like t-shirts, which they would happily import from China. Intangible 20:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

What about the protectionism surrounding China and Eastern Europe? How does this collide with tbe issue of secession?

What protectionism? Intangible 19:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
User:213.224.117.173, do you have a reference for the above quote in Dutch ?
(It would help if you got yourself a username...) --LucVerhelst 20:01, 29 July 2006

http://www.vlaamsbelang.org/index.php?p=21&id=7 Call me Portalis, (or do you want I become a member?, no problem) http://www.vlaamsbelang.org/index.php?p=21&id=7 Necessary and appropriate action against countries with other measures and standards then owers. This stand on the website of the VLaams Belang. I suspect that the Vlaams Belang is also opposed to the Bolkestein directive? (in his old form), what was hailed as a free market oriented directive. And Intanglible, it is not that you want the Bolkestein directive that the Flemish Interest wants the Bolkestein directive. I also remember fierce protest of the Vlaams Belang against the Generation pact (pension reform in Belgium), especially by the ex miss belgium who's name I have forgotten.

The Bolkestein directive is about migration, not about free markets. That goods can travel freely does not mean that every human should as well. Intangible 00:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

And that is why I again changed the page.

What is the sense of this talk page as some people do not want to talk but only want their version of the article and their view about their party on WiKi? I will not change unless you explain or come with a comprimise.

(And by the way: Stubbornness Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them on an article's talk page, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is a matter of regret — you may wish to see our dispute resolution pages to get help. However, it is not vandalism. from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism)


I removed the Free market bit from the intro. The link from the party program, provided above, clearly states the party wants a corrected free market. This puts her in line with all the other Belgian parties. Therefore, I see no reason to put it in the intro, since the intro should be used to paint a picture of the party in a few lines, pointing out especially the program items that makes the party stand out. --LucVerhelst 21:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this change. May be Intangible can make a new chapter in the article in the article in which he gives an overview of the economic propositions the Vlaams Belang (that some) members of parliament want. (I am getting the hang of it so ignore the fact of my complete lack of knowledge of the wiki community in the beginning)Portalis 00:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The information can be found here [49].

Neoconservative party platform

I added the following well referenced sentence to the article : "By writing the party platform after the condemnation of the Vlaams Blok party, Vlaams Belang party leaders were inspired by the ideas of the American neoconservatives." Reference : (Dutch) "De neoconservatieve mosterd van Gerolf Annemans en Philip Dewinter" ("The neoconservative mustard of Gerolf Annemans and Philip Dewinter"), De Morgen, 17 November 2004.

User:Intangible again thought it necessary to plainly revert my edit, with the remark : "a neoconservative party platform 3 days after the court verdict seems impossible". Apparantly, Intangible knows better than professional journalists of a quality newspaper.

I'd argue that the trial which led to the conviction of the Vlaams Belang was going on for a couple of years already, and that the party leaders could see the conviction coming for nearly a year. That's ample time to write a party program.

I propose to reinsert the sentence. What do you think ? --LucVerhelst 15:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The article talks about the "Neoconservative Mustard" of the Vlaams Belang and mentions Pat Buchanan, the CATO institute and Thomas Jefferson. Sigh. Intangible 15:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
And try to lay down De Morgen once in a while. The rag is hardly worth mentioning. Intangible 15:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Quote : "'In het normen- en waardendebat ben ik sterk uitgegaan van wat in Amerikaanse kringen van de neoconservatieven allang wordt gezegd. Ik kan die beïnvloeding niet ontkennen.' In het weekblad Knack zegt Vlaams Belang-kamerlid Gerolf Annemans dat hij de banden met de transatlantische geestgenoten in de toekomst nog meer wil aanhalen. Ook Europees parlementslid Philip Claeys spreekt openhartig over de neoconservatieve inspiratie van de kopstukken van het Vlaams Belang. 'We hebben er organisatorisch zeer veel van te leren.'"
" 'In the debate on moral values, I started from what since long is being said in American neoconservative circles. I can't deny the influence.' In the weekly Knack Vlaams Belang MP Gerolf Annemans says he wants to fasten the ties with likeminded Americans. European MP Philip Claeys is open about the neoconservative inspiration of de Vlaams Belang leadership. 'We have a lot to learn from them on organising ourselves.' "
Enough said, I should say. --LucVerhelst 16:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)