Talk:Vlaams Blok

Banned, really?

Is this correct: "Because of Belgian funding laws the party was effectively banned."? Has the party been really banned? I don't think so. Can anybody confirm? -- Edcolins 19:28, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Above part removed. Needs confirmation. Not what is reported in [1] (IHT): "The verdict cannot lead to an immediate ban on the party"... -- Edcolins 19:40, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, what the party could loose is is its public funding as well as its fund raising associations, not its existence as such. Anyway, the sentence has been brought to appeal and will have no consequences until confirmed.

Some details on the "cordon sanitaire" (the ban by other parties that doesn't allow a coalition between Vlaams Blok and other parties) should definitely be discussed on the Vlaams Blok page. --Aliekens

The verdict got confirmed [2] but the head of the flemish parlament says he is not willing to kill the funding of the party. --pvaneynd 14:26, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The banned question; The VB itself has nog legal identity. Three non-profit organisations that formed the core of the VB (funding, propaganda, etc) were charged for racism in the VB trial. (Racisme commited between 1999 and 2001 (when the trial started)). The result was a conviction and a fine. That was it. No further implications. The party hasn't been banned and judges can't do that in Belgium. However, there is legislation (it is already voted and published but without the needed "executable decisions") in the pipeline that could deny racist parties their subsidies. The arrest of 17 november could not lead to a loss of subsidies, because there were no executables (sorry, but I don't the Englis term - if there is one - for this juridical concept) for the law. From the juridical point of view, the VB only needed to cease comiting racist crimes. The 17 november arrest did lead to the creation of a "new" party, the Vlaams Belang. This was a carefull prepared marketing move. The party's organisation is still the same, but the leaders try to look softer. (Hoping that this will eventually lead to a coalition with other parties). There are also some other mistakes in the article, more nuance is needed in regarding to the institutional structure of Belgium, and very little is said about the driving forces after the success of the VB.

Antisemitism

Is Vlaams Blok an antisemitic political party? I tend to believe it is the case when I read from the article:

"In 2002 party ideologue and vice-president Roeland Raes publicly cast doubt over the murdering of 6 million Jews by the Nazis and the existence of gas chambers "at such a scale"."

Also supported by the Guardian [3]. The Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Anti-Semitism and Racism at Tel Aviv University wrote about Vlaams Blok:

"Its founding members included former World War II collaborators (such as ex-members of the Flemish SS) and leaders of the neo-fascist, neo-Nazi and Holocaust denial movements of the period." [4].

The burden of proof is on you to explain why Vlaams Blok would not be antisemitic despite these elements. --Edcolins 22:24, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

I added some info to clarify the statements that Raes made. Regarding the use of the word anti-Semitic, I would err on the side of caution and not use it until evidence is presented that either:

1. The Vlaams Blok party currently holds anti-Semitic positions as policy

2. Party officials have made anti-Semitic statements while acting in an official capacity (speaking for the party, not themselves) which have not later been repudiated by the party.

IMO both of these are likely to exist but I have yet to see any examples (I can't read Dutch). Until evidence is presented I recommend moving the claim from the first sentence where its anti-Semitism is being declared as a fact to the second paragraph where the charge of anti-Semitism can be attributed to someone. For example: "The party has been characterized by the international media as being neo-nazi, racist, and anti-Semitic..." --Milquetoast 13:51, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I did a quick search in the official programme which can be found on their website, and in the integral text of the "70-points programme" of 1992, and in none of these two I found the Word Jood (Jew in Dutch) or its plural form. Hence, I would propose to remove antisemitic from the first sentence, but a bit further in the text mention that "Although the party as a whole does not specifically talk about Jews in its programme, some of its individual members have made antisemitic statements in the past." Would everyone agree with this? Fhimpe 20:06, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Even though Fhimpe's proposal is better than the original form, I would rather opt for Milquetoast's solution. The "characterizing by the (...) media" part along with the paragraph about Roeland Raes's interview looks fine to me. Modified accordingly.

Have a look at the new issue now, on Vlaams Belang's talk page... --Edcolins 21:16, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Well, now that I've been thinking a bit more about it, I don't think the two proposals exclude each other. First could come the sentence about the perception of the international media, and in the next sentence a clarification that although nazism and antisemitism are not part of the official programme, some of its individual members have made nazistic or antisemtic statements in the past. Fhimpe 09:18, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The true story of Roeland Raes (and of the fatal trial in Ghent)

Anonymous I.P. added here on Nov 25-26, 2004 a long text which is a mere copy of a blog entry elsewhere (by the same author, I suspect). Original here. Removed from this talk page by --FvdP 17:24, 13 May 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Move to [Vlaams Blok]

Like it was done for Vlaams Belang, this article should probably move to Vlaams Blok (short discussion in Talk:Vlaams Belang#Name). I can't do that because [Vlaams Blok] already redirects to here : admin wanted. --FvdP 17:29, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removed from intro

I changed far-right to right-wing. Nothing in this article shows Vlaams Blok is "far-right", and that term isn't much more than an invective, anyway. I also took out "The party had been characterised by the international media as being neo-nazi, racist and openly antisemitic"—this kind of broad generalization needs to be sourced, if it is to be included at all. - Nat Kraus e 08:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]