The lack of respect for each others language (or culture) is not due by the citizens but by the thoughtless behaviour and incompetence of the politicians. Taking as example for what happened to the Flemish language in France is not accurate because France has only one recognized official language. Seems goes for your example of a Spanish speaking in Germany. Why don't you take an example of Canada, where if more than 10% of the inhabitants of a municipality speaks an other language requires automatically the bilingualism of the public authorities of that place? Same goes for the USA, where in countries like Florida or California some municipalities are bilingual?

Of course cultures differ and instead of discriminating each others we better take advantage of it. But for this we need grown-up and skilled politicians instead of blindfolded populists playing childish games on the people's back. Also most of the media here have a huge responsability in this crisis because they act more as tabloïds by pumping up minor incidents and mainly echoïng the sayings of unresponsible pseudo-politicians.

Culture and language forms a region, not a nation. No nation in the world has a uniform culture or language and even regions are formed by different ones.

Flemish candidates filed election lists in the Walloon part of Brabant so don't say that they're not allowed. The fact that you mention that there was a Flemish elected in the Walloon parliament contradicts your statement and if he was pushed aside, there should have been a reason for it.

I don't see how Flemish territory can be lost by the fact that French speaking people have the opportunity to get official documents in their language. What you suggest here is purely paranoia and mainly suggested by the fact that the Flemish side is stubbornly refusing language facilities to them. And, PLEASE, don't mention crossing a "border" in the same country, this sounds too hollow.

If in your opinion the Belgian state does not exists, in my opinion you and I have to pay taxes for that unexisting state. Furthermore, if the French side screams when a confederation is mentioned, perhaps it's because no one knows what it really is about.

"A part from the economics which seems to have little influence on the political tickle-tackle going on now and since, the main tumblestone is the tongue. With the best will of the world I can't understand why the use of a language jeopardises the existence of a whole country."

Because there is no or at least insufficient respect for the communities. Francophones wanted unilingual regions and a Brussels capital region bilingually administered. BCR is an anomaly in the rethoric of unilingual regions divided by a linguistic border. You reap what you sow, the Francophones wanted to turn Belgium into a predominanlty unilingual French state which would have lead to the destruction of our culture. As the French have down to the Flemings in Nord/Pas de Calais.

"The mothertongue might be part of the cultural foundation, after all it's only a communication tool."

Language is part of culture and mentality, these seem to seriously differ between the Flemings and the Francophones.
It is not merely a communication tool. Culture and community forms what is sometimes called a nation. Nationstate forms the basis of a liberal state...not a state with 2 nations. Basic human attitude, everybody needs a home and that home has to feel like home not like a hotelroom.

"Using the language as a political weapon sounds not very serious because:

"- at the time that Brabant was splitted, why did'nt they clear the BHV at the same time ?"
Don't know, guess someone compromised or decided to cut corners, the federal construction as it is now is a failure.

"- the fact that French-tongue candidates are allowed to be present in the BHV area is harmful for who - the citizens or the local politicians ?."
It is discriminatory because Flemish politicians do not have automatic representation in their language in Walloonia (the unilingual French speaking region). There used to be a Flemish elected regionally in Walloon parliament but they forced him out of their regional structures or something.

"- to my knowledge no one has ever been prevented from speaking his own language in any region."
No, but if you continue to speak only Spanish whilst you reside in Germany you're not going to go far. It is the least bit of respect one can have, you come living in Flanders you learn the local language. Same if you move to Walloonia. In Brussels CR it is best to know both as it is administered bilingually...but try speaking only Belgian Dutch the whole time...you'll notice that you're not prevented from speaking your own language but you won't always be helped either when communicating with public officials, despite the law stating that anyone working in a governmental public function must be bilingual in Brussels CR.

"- if -rpt- if french speaking citizens are the majority in a village, then this has to be respected like the Flemish call on respect for their majority in the country."

No. If you move across the linguistic border then you're expected to adapt to the local community. Flemish in Flanders, French speaking in Wallonia. It does not give you grounds to claim territory. Imagine French moving into a German village and forming a majority and the French population decides to turn over the sovereignty of the German village to France...you don't do that and it wil not be accepted. More importantly, it forms a casus belli. Same in Belgium, you move across that border then you're expected to adapt, always been that way always will be...if not, Belgium will vanish.

"Further, I still find it highly undemocratic that 4 million citizens have to accept political leaders for which they can't vote. Federal elections should therefore be held apart and all candidates should be eligible all over the place. That's democracy ..."

Liberal democracy only works in a nationstate. The Belgian nationstate does not exist. If you want to increase democracy then you'll have to move to a confederacy as this is the reality in the political field. But then you'll hear the Francophones screaming about the end of Belgium...sometimes one has to grow balls and have the guts to reform. Belgium is a conflict state, only way you solve it is by a 'peace process'. But that will never be understood.

30GW states: Het gebruik van de in België gesproken talen is vrij; het kan niet worden geregeld dan door de wet en alleen voor handelingen van het openbaar gezag en voor gerechtszaken. Roughly translated: The use of in Belgium spoken languages is free, it cannot be regulated except by law and only for the dealings/action of public authority and for court cases. Article 30 stipulates that the citizen may speak his language freely, except in regulated cases such as stated above.

Nationalism isn't inherently 'evil', except one has to form a political and cultural community...which does not fit for Belgium. The Federal State is the boss, the regions/communities (which Flanders wanted, not the regions) should be boss and only through co-operation can a Belgian State exist. Except there is little co-operation and more people are getting fed up with that.

I personally favor Independance for Flanders, but I'm not the only citizen in Flanders...some do not wish to have independant but almost complete autonomy. Hence, my minimal position is that we turn the Federal state from a 'topdown' to a 'bottom up' run state with 2 Länder (perhaps 3 with the German community) who have a federal parliamentary representation in the Senate. Federal electoral districts on Länder level, introduction of subnationality to differeniate immigration regulation and to allow electoral transfers (French speaking in Flanders voting for Francophone politicians only, Flemings in Walloonia voting for Flemings...or adapt to the local subnationality). Brussels Capital region disbanded, full linguistic facilities for the current Francophones untill the last of them have died. Take it or leave it, I would say.

Belgium is not a nation, it is a STATE.

That's what they're already starting to call for...why are we not all bilingual, wouldn't 'Belgium' be beautiful if we all were bilingual...mostly a sound which now comes from the Francophone side. They were the ones who wanted to remain unilingual even when Flanders proposed to be bilingual. It's only now that they want to hear about bilingualism and their community is the least bilingual of all!

Neither have linguistic facilities been refused on the Dutch speaking side. Besides, we already have a bilingual experiment...it is called Brussels Capital Region and never has it fully & correctly applied the linguistic legislature in disfavor of the Dutch speaking community. The Bilingual experiment has failed and now they're asking for an 'adaptation to the reality' which means bilingual service instead of personnel and most Dutch speaking have fled the area because of the racist policy waged against them (besides the usual urban problems).

It is the citizens to acknowledge in which community they come and live and to adapt to that community, not the other way around. If you move to Germany you're expected to adapt to their language. The same is within Belgium, unilingual administered regions...then you adapt to the region.

"I still persist to say that the actual federal voting system is undemocratic and I have no knowledge that this exists anywhere else." Maybe because a working liberal democracy has its basis on a nationstate and not on a state without a soul. If you want to have some level of 'democracy' you have to reform the Belgian state into a German Federal model whereby the power is placed at the level of the Länder.

"Further, isn't it highly undemocratic that candidates for the federal government are only eligible in their region and not all over the country? Why one side should have to accept a leader they where not allowed to vote for? This is the kind of situations which needs to be changed in the Constitution."

A federal electoral constituency will not change that. Each side sticks to its politicians. Each sticks to the politicians of their own 'nation' or Political/cultural community. Additionally a federal electoral district is problematic because it will lead to demands of a Bilingual Belgian state over the entire territory which in reality will lead to Flanders being bilingual and the rest not. This is going back into time. If Francophones can vote in Flanders, they should be given linguistic facilities...that's their motto.

By installing subnationality and regional electoral districts you can transfer the votes and only allow them to vote for their politicians (as they do now anyway, except: today those living in Flanders can't vote for Francophone politicians except in BHV, and Flemings in Walloonia simply can't vote for Flemish politicians at all). It will democratically correspond more to the reality of the Belgian federal State: 2 regional States combined form the Belgian federal State...not the Federal State that is made up out of regional subordinate sidekicks. Forces more co-operation or implosion if co-operation fails.

Brussels Eurabia

Dutch journalist Arthur Van Amerongen ... interviewed ... concerning his upcoming book, "Brussels Eurabia" ... “Brussels is a timebomb, there will certainly be an attack.” ... I infiltrated the muslim community of Molenbeek and Marolles for one year. These folks want nothing to do with Belgium, they hate the Belgians. ... I was among them, I speak arabic. They hate the Belgians, they have nothing to do with Belgians, nothing, nothing. ... they hate us. The moroccans hate us. ... They want a caliphate; quite simply they want a government that directs the umma from Bagdad to England.

etc.

What Reynders said about Leterme is partly correct. If you have the ambitions to be Prime-Minister of the federal government you should act and behave federal.

Further, isn't it highly undemocratic that candidates for the federal government are only eligible in their region and not all over the country? Why one side should have to accept a leader they where not allowed to vote for? This is the kind of situations which needs to be changed in the Constitution.

What signal do we send out to the Walloons if we'd split it, after they've passed the emotional phase and have come to their senses? Take Brussels, it is yours. The Walloons only want one thing: enlarge the Brussels Capital Region in order to have a territorial linkage with Walloonia and eventually combine both: 2 systems in one government (like China and Hong Kong).

What have we -Flemings- always wanted? To put an end to the frenchisation, to put an end to Belgique à papa (the Francophonic view of Belgium...dominated by the French speaking minority population & their culture). Enough is enough.
They know all to well that they live in our territories and they know all to well what was expected from them. The linguistic border dividing Belgium has been fixed since 1962/3, to the North should be the unilingual Flanders, to the South the Francophonic area with the German speakers incorporated.

The bilingual Brussels capital region acts as Forward Operating Base for the enfrenchisation not against it. It must be wiped out of the structures of the federal State.

Subnationality must be put into place to distinguish Flemings from Francophones, to put an end to the political abuse of immigration. It should allow us to restructure the electoral system: Francophones can only vote for their politicians for the federal chamber, Flemings only for Flemings. The Senate filled in by the parliaments of the regional states which will form the backbone of the Belgian federal system (bit like the German federal system).

Those French-speakers living in the BHV area will be given linguistic facilities for a restricted period of time and only to them, not to newcomers.

Let us fix the glitches in the system and defeat the Egmont pact.

Didier Reynders, threats sending stormtroopers to do it again on flemish MPs?