Brussels: Elected Politician Barred from Office for Leaflet

Today the Belgian Supreme Court, the Cour de Cassation, barred Daniel Féret, the 62-year old leader of the Belgian anti-immigrant party Front National (FN), from running for and taking up elected political office in the next ten years. Mr Féret is a candidate in next Sunday’s local elections in Belgium. The FN, which only puts forward candidates in Brussels and Wallonia, the French-speaking Southern half of Belgium, is expected to gain in these elections. If Mr Féret is elected, as is expected, he will not be allowed to take up his seat.

Professor Marc Uyttendaele, a Brussels lawyer who is the husband of Laurette Onkelinx, the Belgian minister of Justice, said that the ruling also implies that Mr Féret, who is a parliamentarian in the Brussels regional assembly, at once loses his parliamentary seat in this assembly, where he was elected in 2004. Earlier Mr Féret, who is a medical doctor, served terms in the Belgian federal parliament and in the European Parliament.

The Cour de Cassation also ruled that Mr Féret will have to do 250 hours of public service work in the “integration sector,” helping immigrants to integrate. If he refuses, he will be sent to jail for 10 months. Mr Féret indicated recently that he would prefer to go to jail than to work amongst immigrants who, he fears, regard him as a mortal enemy and are capable of lynching him. It is not clear how the authorities are going to protect his safety if he accepts to work among immigrants.

The Cour de Cassation also convicted Georges-Pierre Tonnelier, the 28-year old parliamentary assistant of Mr Féret, to a penalty of 744 euros. Mr Tonnelier will not be allowed to stand for election during the next seven years.

Both men were found guilty of racism for publishing a leaflet against the establishment of a center for refugees and asylum seekers in the Brussels borough of Sint-Pieters-Woluwe. According to the court the pamphlet was an “irrational amalgam inciting racial hatred” and “equating immigrants with thieves, delinquents, criminals, even terrorists.” The leaflet contained a statement that 9/11 was the work of “the couscous clan.” Couscous is a traditional Arab dish. The leaflet also included a cartoon of minister Onkelinx, one of the leaders of the Belgian Socialists, carrying a suitcase of money to immigrants. The court holds that the cartoon leads people to believe that the Belgian taxpayers’ money is primarily spent on foreigners. The court also said that the FN party slogan “Les Belges et les Européens d’abord!” (Belgians and Europeans First!) proves the party’s “national and European preference,” and hence its racism and xenophobia.

Two years ago the Belgian Supreme Court ruled that the Vlaams Blok, the largest party in Flanders, the northern half of Belgium, was a criminal organisation. The VB leaders disbanded their party and established a new one, the Vlaams Belang (Flemish Interest). It is expected to win between 25 and 30% of the votes in next Sunday’s local elections in Flanders.

Yesterday the Belgian authorities announced that court procedures to defund the VB will begin on October 17th.

Belgian political parties are funded by the state in accordance with the number of voters gained in the last elections. It is illegal for parties to accept private donations. On the grounds that it is illogical for the state to fund its own enemies, parties that are considered to be “enemies of the state” can be defunded by the judges of a Belgian administrative court, the Council of State (CoS). Last May a procedure was initiated by the Socialist Party to defund the Vlaams Belang.

According to Marc Uyttendaele, minister Onkelinx’s husband, the VB is an “enemy of the Belgian state” because it rejects the ideology of multiculturalism and aims for the dissolution of Belgium and the establishment of an independent Flanders. The CoS is expected to issue its verdict later this year or in early 2007. The Vlaams Belang has challenged all the French-speaking CoS judges. According to the VB a francophone judge cannot issue an impartial verdict in a case involving a Flemish secessionist party.

Yesterday the Flemish leftist newspaper De Morgen revealed that Murat Denizli, a candidate of Mrs Onkelinx’s Parti Socialiste in the Brussels borough of Schaarbeek, is a member of the Fascist Turkish organisation Grey Wolves. Ironically, apart from the Vlaams Belang and the Front National, all the Belgian parties – Christian-Democrats, Socialists, Liberals and Greens – have put forward far-right immigrant candidates for the elections. Mr Denizli is the past president of the Association Culturelle Turque in Schaarbeek. The ACT is a subsidiary of the Turkish far-right Nationalist Movement Party (Milliyetçi Hareket Partisi, MHP). “Officially I am no longer far-right,” Mr Denizli said in a recent interview. He claimed that the MHP is “an ordinary right-wing party.” It would be interesting to compare the leaflets of the MHP about Armenians and Kurds to those of the Belgian FN about Muslim immigrants.

Mr. Feret should be banned

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.

Feret should be appointed head of Immigration

Feret should be appointed head of Immigration. He is not blinded by political correctness and stupidity.

Sadly, those who speak the truth are being punished and having THEIR free speech rights stripped from them.

Furthermore, the people who voted for Feret and his group are being denied THEIR RIGHT to choose THEIR representation.

The "leaflet" pales in comparison to the evil of the PC crowd in thier actions against Feret.

Leftists and Socialists are simply thugs against freedom with a kinship to Communists and Fascists, i.e. all are enemies of freedom.

"The court holds that the cartoon leads people to believe that the Belgian taxpayers’ money is primarily spent on foreigners".

True and most of the radical Muslims in Europe are on the dole as were the 9/11 bombers. The taxpayers are subsidizing their own enemies, i.e. Islam.


@ 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' 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.

Two Factors

We cannot adequately account for the progress of the whites without an assumption of race differences. This assertion does not warrant the inference that culture is determined by race. A great multiplicity of factors have brought about the progress of the whites. The wide divergence of culture among the whites and progress of other races under the guidance of the whites are sufficient proof that culture can never be interpreted in terms of race. The same race will, under different conditions, give rise to a great variety of cultures. It is because this is so that we should be interested in seeing that conditions for the whites are as favorable as possible.

Yet when we find that the same conditions confronting different races give rise to cultures radically different, we cannot neglect the factor race. We are no more able to do this than we are able to neglect original nature in the character of an individual. The same original nature will develop into a given character under certain conditions, and into another character under other conditions. But different original natures, when subjected to the same influences, will give rise to characters that are different. And so with races and cultures.

Subject one race to different environments, different cultures will result. Subject different races to the same external influences, and different cultures will result. In one case an abundance of resources provides the basis for a magnificent culture; in the other the resources are left untouched. In one case religious beliefs are effective barriers to progress; in the other they are overridden. it thus becomes apperent that an adequate inetrpretation of culture can never be given unless two factors - race and environment - are taken into consideration.


@ 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'. 

Kurtz 2

@ 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.  



In fact you argue that it is

In fact you argue that it is not about race, but about "a common core culture", implying that if 100% ( or at least the majority) of the population believes in classical liberal pluralist democracy, it doesn't matter whether 70% of them are "white" or only 5% are, that it only matters whether the peoples who will live in the lands of Europe are reconciled to pluralist, classical liberal democracy.

However, I fear that a classical liberal pluralist democracy is ultimately dependent upon the quality, the intelligence and character, of those who compose its content. Which means: how can the preservation of our culture be maintained without the survival of our genetic heritance?
Consider the following consideration to validate this presumption:
"The Map of Freedom" (published annually by Freedom House) graphically demonstrates that free forms of government generally track population concentrations of people of European descent, a strong suggestion that freedom has a genetic origin.The world of the free is largely the world of the Western European.
The European tradition of ordered, self-governing liberty is probably part of our genetic heritage. Throughout the third world, governments range from anarchy to dictatorship. That too, is surely genetic. Those few non-European countries that appear to be free have generally maintained democracy through intimate contact with the West.
If Europeans are marginalized and ultimately absorbed by the third world, the idealism of Western classical liberalism that permitted the third world invasion will have proved to be a lethal genetic flaw. - cf. "The Morality of Survival" by Michael W. Masters.

@De Bruycker

So, I should advise this good friend of mine to send his adopted girl back to Angola? Despite her good grades at school? Should I tell him that her “quality, the intelligence and character” are fatally inferior?. Should I explain him that this is his duty as a good citizen, because her genes will eventually corrupt ours and thus bring the “freedom” of my offspring in danger? Could you provide me with some assistence?

freedom of speech


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).  

I agree

I agree, my comment was actually more pointed to the end of the article. I will defend any person from exercising his natural right of free speech, however I do not accept that this right of free speech mean that people can misuse it to be part of any political association. If Dutch-Turkish politicians want to hold on to their "we did not kill Armenians attitude," they should start their own political party, not protest the Labour Party from expelling them. In the case of Féret, he was not barred from his own political party, it was the state who infringed on his freedom of speech. Indeed, a monstrous act by the Belgian government! If people don't like mr. Féret, they have a democratic option, namely not vote for him, no need for the Belgian government to interfere with this process.

Agree #2

@ markpetens

Thanks for the clarification. Of course, any private 'association', including political parties, should be able to freely arrange their own affairs, including expelling members. However, I still do not understand what you mean by "misusing free speech to be part of any political association". How can "free speech" be so "misused"? I readily admit that I know nothing about the particular case of these Turkish-Dutch politicians, but I cannot fathom the general point of free speech being misused. Surely these Turkish-Dutch are entitled to "protesting" their expulsion, and surely the Dutch Labour party is entitled to sticking to its 'principles', if it has any?

With regard to the Belgian Feret case, it would seem more a "monstrous act" (or failure) of the Belgian political system at large (especially the judiciary), and less of the "government" (in a narrow sense of the 'cabinet'). The 'cabinet' will naturally try to suffocate political opposition, but it has to act and remain within the law. The real culprit here is "the law", and the blame for that should primarily be shared by the legislature and the judiciary. The judiciary for going 'along' with unconstitutional 'law', and the parliament for making such undemocratic laws in the first place. All the voters share the blame, secondarily, for maintaining such 'kind' of politicians in power.


The 'misuse' of freedom of speech was pointed to those candidates who were expelled, and their supporters. They claimed that on the basis of freedom of speech, these politicians could not be expelled from their political party. That's the misuse.

According to Paul Kurtz,

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.


Well I feel better...

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 gov't & democracy a farce...

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?

turkish candidates

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.

1 Million members

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.

It would seem to me that if,

It would seem to me that if, in fact, VB has 30% support in Flanders, there is no way a court will be able to stem the tide. At some point, it turns from political party to full-fledged social movement.

The danger to democracy occurs when large segments of a politically-active population are disenfranchised, which seems to be the case here.

My question to you Europeans? Is there any threat to democracy in Europe, in general, and to Belgium, in particular, from the right? What would the EU do if an excluded right were to try to seize power by force in Belgium? Would the Beligian military and police defend the state under any circumstances?

@ sonomaca - danger from the right?

Danger from the right? Juicy question.

I'm a Spaniard, I don't like being shoved around, not by Man, not by God. And I'm deeply ashamed of the modern, so wholly un-Spanish cowardness my contrymen are now displaying.

If the flabby body of a failing democracy needed the corset of a military dictatorship to upheld the society (as in Spain so often), would I be very upset?

That's the real "danger from the right": as long as it is what one might call a "popular" military dictatorship - I wouldn't. To paraphrase Kissinger - yes, they are assholes, but they are OUR assholes!


Well, I am a supporter of democracy, but not a subverted democracy as you have in Europe. So, I would agree that a rightist uprising which put an end to Eurabia, sent the Muslims packing, cleaned out the EU bureaucrats, and restored democracy to Europe would be a worthwhile enterprise.

At present, as has been demonstrated by Fjordman and others, democracy in Europe is a fiction. What I don't understand is why Europeans are so docile, lambs to the slaughter as it were.

I do really want to know what the chances of a "restorative" uprising would be. Eurabia dosen't seem to have subverted the police and the military. Are there sympathetic elements there?

If you do nothing, it seems to me that in 20 years time you will be living in a semi-authoritarian state controlled by elements in the Middle East.