Mr. Feret should be banned for life. HIs comments clearly show a deep seated hatred for Muslims. Mr. Feret and his assistant should have no say on what their punishment would be. They should be punished accordingly. LEt them work in the integration center. If they are both lynched, so be it. He showed no mercy in the leaflets, then show them the same mercy.

@ De Bruycker

I strongly disagree with your 'racist' viewpoint.  I do not use the word 'racist' here as an insult, but I simply observe that you have a 'race-based' deterministic view on the evolution or development of individuals.  And I certainly defend your right to express such 'racist' opinions.  I think that there are much worse opinions - than 'racist views' - commonly held in Belgium today.  For instance the widespread opinion that it is OK to ban or criminalise 'divergent' opinions (divergent that is from the ruling cultural orthodoxy) through legislation is much worse (than your theoretical racist opinion) for it undermines democracy, and thus ultimately it will destroy individual freedom.

I see the world primarily as consisting of individuals, not groups, but I recognise that individuals live in societies or communities which will inevitably give rise to distinct 'cultures'.  There is an infinite variety of factors that will influence the development and evolution of certain cultures, and both the individuals and their specific cultures will influence each other in numerous ways.    

I do not think that cultures exist on their own, i.e. separate from individuals.   Cultures exist only IN or THROUGH (certain specific) individuals.  Your notion of "original nature" might perhaps make sense applied to individuals, but it is certainly bogus when applied to cultures or 'groups'.  There is no such thing - there cannot be - as an "original nature" of a group, any group! 

It is quite sensible for you to be concerned about the impact of 'different' immigrants on the future evolution of 'your' culture.  But that concern can only be rationally based on the different cultural behavior patterns or adherences of those immigrants, and not on their physical features.   

@ De Bruycker

......

So, yes, preach self-reliance, self-responsibility, self-determination for your own people (in the sense of 'culture')....throw out the political bums and do 'control' immigration...and restore free speech in Europe, etc... But, never descend into the primitivism of 'racism'. Judge people, I mean INDIVIDUALS, by their actual behavior, their values, their 'opinions'......by things that they can 'control'.  Not by Godgiven features they do not control and that they cannot change. 

The central problem in Belgium is not that there are people of different ethnic origin. The problem is that there are many 'whites' (and others) who do not respect 'democracy' by undermining the free speech of others, so that society cannot adjust to changing circumstances and cannot maintain its individual 'democratic' freedoms.

@ De Bruycker

I agree with you that as a matter af empirically-observable FACT (not as a matter of 'predestined nature') that the freedom map largely coincides with people of "European descent".  However, that does NOT suggest that freedom has a "genetic origin". It suggests that freedom has a CULTURAL origin.  Why?

-- There are numerous individuals of other ethnicities who have shown themselves to be much better adherents to a freedom agenda than many 'whites'.  They surely are exceptions IN OTHER CULTURES (and perhaps even in western cultures), but it proves that the crucial factor is culture and not physical appearance!  

-- The past century has clearly shown that 'European' countries can easily break with their earlier emerging-democratic traditions, and thus lose their 'freedom'.  Being 'white' is no guarantee against eternal totalitarian tendencies or depredations of 'human nature'. 

Today, democracy in the west is primarily under siege from white naive-lefties in Academia, who - for two generations now - have preached extreme moral-relativism and perverse selfhatred for their own culture/civilisation.  They have found numerous ways of justifying bad (criminal) behavior internally, and bad behavior of foreigners abroad (and at home).  These people are 'white' or 'European', and they are responsible for the demise of 'European' (cultural) Enlightenment values in the west.  It is absurd to blame people of other ethnicities for the ideological failures of western 'elites'. 

@ De Bruycker

I have no idea who Paul Kurtz is, but he is entitled to his opinions, even though they may seem naive (based on your description). 

You seem to be confusing democracy (and individual freedom) with mono-ethnicity.  The United States has alwas been a multi-ethnic and multi-racial society, and is the longest-continuous democracy in the world. It is certainly not "an artificial and unnatural social aberration" as you seem to think. Indeed, it is one of the few countries in the world where there exists genuine freedom of speech (under the Second Amendment) , which is what enables society continually to adjust to new circumstances.

If a multiracial society has been "enforced by legal intimidation" in Belgium, then the problem resides in the "legal intimidation", not necessarily in the multi-ethnic character of society.  The current 'multicultural nightmare' in parts of Western Europe today is the result of naive-left immigration (and other) policies in recent decades, and of the moral failure by the judiciary in NOT preventing unconstitutional legislation that has undermined free (political) speech.  

Multi-ethnic and multi-racial societies can in principle be great democracies, as long as there is broad adherence to democratic principles and to a common core culture.  In fact, democracy is much more likely to survive longer in the multi-ethnic societies of, for instance, Australia, India and USA, than in less ethnically-diverse countries in Western Europe.   The key factor is not 'ethnicity' or 'race', but the democratic quality of society's elites and, ultimately, its voters.  

@markpetens

The article is a complaint about the lack of freedom of speech in Belgium today.  If Holland wants to remain a democracy it has to respect the constitutional freedom of speech of its citizens, including nutty speech about the Armenian genocide.  Your reference to Dutch-Turkish politicians being "negationists" about the Armenian genocide is thus besides the central issue at hand. It misses the core point of the article.  It does, however, point to the inherent hypocrisy and arbitirariness that inevitably are associated with the Belgian laws w.r.t. 'negationisme' and racism.  All such laws undermine democracy, because they replace "the rule of law" by "the rule of men" (who prescribe what others can say).  

According to Paul Kurtz, "the highest good is intermarriage between people of different ethnicities, races, religions, and cultures. People who intermarry are contributing to the new human species that is emerging on this planet. You can see it clearly in the United States: in fifty years we will have a non-white majority. This frightens many people."

Me too! The multiracial society is an artificial and unnatural social aberration enforced by legal intimidation. A society in which there is no natural sense of belonging, requires unchallenged control over the media and education system to promote and inculcate unnatural interracist beliefs and values; to islolate those who express pro-Western ideas, portray them in a distorted and hostile manner, and create a discouraging environment inhibiting the expression of such ideas.

The freedoms, rights and values which are central to our tradition are eroded, threatened and abrogated whenever they interfere with the rising power of the non-European invaders!

It could be expected that those who love their race, and possess intuitive infeeling for its interests and concerns are disturbed, bewildered, rebellious, ill at ease, irritated, hurt and angry.

I went to the Cour de Cassation website and sent them a message under their contact link.

Asked them were did they learn such "tactics" from the Nazis and they simply cowards fearful of the Islamic terrorists. So much so that they would give up the freedom of the press and freedom of speech.

Said a few more things that ought to set them off...

Belgian is not a legitimate democracy, but a farce ruled by tyrants who impose their "view" of the world.

No freedom of press or speech in Belgian. Reminds of what Nazi Germany must have been like.

Did the Belgiuns learn this "technique" from the Nazis to quell free speech and press?

Talking about Armenians: in the Netherlands, where national elections are held in November this year, already 3 Dutch-Turkish candidates have stepped down because of the issue of the Armenian genocide (which they refuse to accept). Another candidate, the #2 on the list for the Labour Party, Nebahat Albayrak, is being very quite now, and is avoiding questions by journalists if she accepts the party line or not. Leon de Winter, writer and journalist, has opined in Elsevier (alas in Dutch) that anyone who votes for the Labour Party, votes for someone (Albayrak) who denies the darkest page of recent Turkish history, and therefore supports racial hate.

I wonder how many local candidates are negationists, I doubt the screening process for local politicians is better than the one at the national level. I doubt the case for Belgium is any different.

So if they succeed in defunding the VB, and private donations are forbidden, the only way of fundraising might be membership contributions.  The Vlaams Belang may gain up to 1 million members this way.