Miriam Madam's facts are irrefutable and remain relevant for all time to come. Why do we keep talking about holocaust though it is not "recent"? Mass murder is mass murder - recent or not.

Second, so-called "Human Rights" consciousness is the recent awakening among the Whites. We have had no such feeling when the American Indians or aborigenes of Australia were being decimated or raped or stalin and mao caused millions of deaths far in excess of the number of holocaust victims. No holocaust museums for these or Rwandan atrocities, right?

Think about this: Mass murders of "insurgents" in Iraq or Lebanon or Palestine is ok if done by us not on Kosovar savage insurgents by Milasovic or Shia/Kurd types by Saddam!? Why not capture them and put them into legal due process like a civilized society?

Pakki savagery on natives of Baluchistan and maoist savagery on Nepali civilians are happpening right now. No one in the Hague is going to raise any red flag or jail the Charles Taylor types in the pakki army or ISI who are also complicit and legally liable in barbaric jihadi violence in Kashmir for one more decade..
Reference: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5289880.stm

@ Kapitein Andre

I trust that you can judge my response to your "Fiji-scenario" comparison on its own merits, and that you will not be diverted by the ridiculous 'strawmen' that are being brought forward by an extremist 'nutcase' like "Miriam".  With the latter I certainly do not intend to engage into any useless dialogue any more.  

It would be absurd to make direct comparisons between the RECENT developments in a small island country like Fiji and developments of several centuries ago in the continent-wide USA.  The confrontation between western civilisation and 'native americans' on the North American plains (or in the South American Andes) has absolutely nothing to do with modern migrations (of Indians to Fiji and elsewhere, or of muslims to Europe).

Even 'immoderate (all muslim-hating) Indians', like "Miriam", are all too eager to parrot the perverse western selfhatred they read in the useful-idiot western media today.  Of course, Miriam hasn't got a clue about the real nature of these native cultures in the past. Today, 'native' Americans have the same rights as any other Americans, and a large percentage of 'white' (and other) Americans are very proud of their partial 'Indian' heritage (and will gladly tell you what they claim is the estimated percentage of their particular 'Indian' blood). By the middle of the last century there were almost no non-integrated 'Indians' left, and the fact that some of them live AGAIN on "reservations" (i.e. government handouts) is a rather recent phenomenon.  It is only since the late 1960's and the rise of the 'victimisation-culture' in western Academia that numerous 'white' Americans suddenly seemed to have rediscoverd their (partial) 'Indian' heritage in order to get special treatment and benefits from government.         

Corrected statement applicable to India in a silmilar context: "the immigration of large numbers of 'islamists' during colonial mogul times has led to a loss of "selfdetermination" of the 'natives'..." of India (i.e. indigenous Hindus) who are even now ruled over by islamist and Christian remnants of the mogul and British colonialism.

(Another comparison: Immigrants into Fiji were basically 'slaves' and are not dominating FIJI while less than 10% chinese immigrants of Malaysia and Indonesia are clearly dominating the economic scene in those countries).

Yes, Miriam Madam is right in the sense that natives have been brutally subjugated and enslaved by the White immigrants all over the world for many centuries like in Africa, Australia, the Americas including by so-called "civilized" Whites of Canada, USA, ..etc.

Colonialism by immigrants into Africa and Asia has been particularly brutal and beastly, especially in Congo and India.

What an absurd comparison!? Fiji is a case similar to USA where slaves were brought in. Is it right to say Mr Obama is taking the political space of the whites of USA or for that matter so many Blacks in high posiitons usurping what belongs to the whites?

Blacks of USA have more rights than Indians of FIJI! Hardly any violence is seen on the Blacks while Fiji Indians are abused physically and verbally often. And converted into christianity by force. There are so many Black colleges and universities while none for exclusively for the Indians as far as I know.

Ok talk about the rights of American Indians who were the first settlers of USA and indeed all of the AMERICAS!! That is a big joke.

Hitler's holocaust on the Jews can be aptly compared to the holocaust on the Red Indians who still live in ghettoes called "reservations" after mass rapes and repeated genocidal pogroms on them by the white immigrant invaders.

White immigrants are still ruling over all of the AMERICA'S natives. A few natives like Bolivia's leader are slowly waking up to smell the stench of white supremacist savage hegemony for the past two centuries or more. Let us be honest and not twist facts to serve our own greedy twisted ideology of fascists hegemony over natives.

@ Kapitein Andre

......

You can see the differences with present-day Europe.  One cannot seriously argue that the mass immigration of muslims to Europe in recent decades has led to 'improvements' in Europe's economy and in its politics or political systems. And, neither could one argue that the 'native' cultures in Europe did not prepare the 'natives' well for individual competition in a 'multi-cultural' environment.

My point is that one must judge 'group' or mass migrations against a standard, preferably a moral one.  While I do agree with you that cultural "self-determination" of peoples is an important value that deserves 'respect', I do think that individual "self-determination" (individual freedom) is morally superior.  I do not accept the extreme moral-relativism of the current naive-left orthodoxy in Belgium, which would justify the oppression of individuals on the basis of 'native' culture.

And one must also start from the present, not from some 'ideal' alternative that could have been.  One cannot 'undo' history, but one can certainly try to 'controll' the future.   Therefore, one must start with the populations 'in place' and organise society in ways that promote 'democracy' (which means the guarantee of individual freedom as opposed to group tyranny) and economic wellbeing.

In short, not all migrations are 'equal', and one must be careful in making 'comparisons' across time (i.e.,from different time periods).   

@ Kapitein Andre

I lived for a couple of years in the Fiji Islands, including at the time of independence from Britain in 1970.  While your "Fiji scenario" is correct in some of its details, and wrong in others (e.g. 'native' Fijians are mostly Melanesians, not Polynesians), the important question is wether it is relevant for the Belgian, or wider European, context today.  I have serious doubts about that.

It is true that the immigration of large numbers of 'Indians' during Fiji's colonial times in the end has led to a loss of "selfdetermination" of the 'natives' (or ethnic 'Fijians') in a cultural sense, i.e. in the sense that the society has moved on from a group-based 'collectivistic' culture to a more 'individualistic' society.  However, it is not really true to say that "the situation continued to worsen for native Fijians".  Certainly not in an 'absolute' and in an economic sense.   But it did so in a relative sense.

In terms of less-crime, in terms of building 'democracy' (democratic institutions), and in terms of wealth creation (the economy), there is no doubt that the past immigration of many 'Indians' (through their descendants) has had a very large positive impact on Fiji society.  Without the Indians, the Fiji society would be less 'democratic' and much poorer economically!!  But it remains true that the 'native' culture of the ethnic Fijians did not serve them well in economic competition with 'others' (the Indians, and small minorities of Chinese, 'Europeans', and mixed-race people).     

....

In referring to the Rwanda and Yugoslavia scenarios, I was highlighting the chaos and violence that both "states" experienced - more importantly Yugoslavia as it was an "artificial" state composed of separate ethno-national groups. A further addition should be Iraq, which was similarly "created" like Yugoslavia...

W.r.t. Fiji: as a member of the commonwealth with British-style laws and regulations, it became a destination for Indian immigrants, whose numbers started to overwhelm the native Fijians. The Fijians are Polynesian Pacific Islanders, and were not used to the socio-economic and political competition that ensued. The Indians began treating the natives as second-class citizens and made impressive gains in the political sphere as well. Eventually, a coup was launched by native police officers and military personnel, in an attempt to return the island to native control. However, despite assurances of fixed representation (ala Lebanon) and the appointment of natives to specific government posts, the situation continues to worsen for native Fijians. Indeed they have lost their self-determination and all of the "Fijians" I have thus far encountered are of East Indian descent...

The Fijian scenario is more likely for us here in the West than say Rwanda. Of course, what will happen in the West will be a unique phenomenon; comparisons can merely help illustrate it.

Who belongs to those gangs? Or is that a stupid question...?

I know this line very well and can confirm this has been going on for years with very little reaction from the police itself. During years the railroad station of Braine-l'Alleud that's on the stops became a dangerous place to be after 20h. Situation is now somewhat better under control by video-cameras.

Ann,

It is the lust for everybody that portrays him/herself as weak or victim. They are more equal than others.

Unfortunately, it takes publics some time to accept that a challenge exists, and then even longer to openly confront it. Already the proverbial spears have been hurled at the towers of the establishment which is infested with people still operating on the socio-economic conditions of the 1960s fallout. Governments always seem to be one era behind their electorates, but in light of the increasing possibilities of Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and Fiji-style scenarios, there is a clear and present danger facing the West, and it is in the proportions of the Third Reich and the Iron Curtain.

However, the Belgian people will stand up, just as the Dutch and others have begun to do, and it will gradually be reflected in politics - indeed Europe is becoming hard-line w.r.t. immigration and multiculturalism.

Of course, just because Neo-nazis advocate immigration "reform" doesn't mean that immigration is not an issue; nor does it mean that believing it is makes one a follower of Hitler.

...why there isn't at the very least an instinct for self-defense and/or self-preservation??!! I.e. to fight back, physically or legislatively. Has the Belgian government and/or people lost all lust for life?