# Talk:Vlaams Blok

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)
No, this would not be deemed correct, the party didn't receive any fundings form the government anymore becasue of the law but the party changed their name and refurbished their program to align more to central right wing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.203.215.254 (talk) 17:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC) 
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)

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.

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].
In other words; The Stephen Roth Institute is racist!
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)
typical - what about this - here's your proof - you're still alive!

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
show it! proof it! what you do is slander - you're the criminal here!
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.
show it - proof it!! where's the link?where's the quote???
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)
your opinion has no value, as you have no facts. = your remarks are racist!

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)
exactly!!
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)
all you're saying is that you're a racist and therefor are willing to believe any lie, as long it's against the Flemish people.
where are the links, the quotes, the proof??
Thank god you're not in officialy politics. This is a great example of the µDumb propaganda VB has been spreading for over 30 years. VB is a neo-nazi, fascist Scam (started by Gladio Gangmembers if you ask me). Probeer ook eens serieuze uitleg te schrijven in plaats van 1 zin exclusief gramatica. Maakt Vlaanderen nog wat belachelijker en vooral blijven roepen en tieren.

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).

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)
I agree. Why hasn't this been done yet? 1652186 16:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Done now. —Nightstallion (?) 09:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

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 Krause 08:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
That party was/is widely considered an "extreme-right" party in Belgium, to the point that there is an agreement between all other (mainstream) Flemish parties not to make coalitions with it. Until now, this agreement extends to the current successor of Flemish Block : Flemish Interest. That (at least) should be mentioned, IMO. --FvdP 16:53, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
As with all other nationalist parties, they seem all to be lobbed in with 'extreme right wing' or 'the far right', even though most of these parties have economic policies that are 'extreme left wing'. This all stems from the propaganda since 1945 that the NSDAP of Hitler was 'extreme right wing' when on average, considering it's policies it should be considered 'centre-left'. Labeling the Flemish Block  'extreme right wing' is socialist POV. --Marcel1975 21:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

This article does not have the same kind of NPOV equilibrum obtained in the new Vlaams Belang article. Please refer to the talk page of that article for more information. 1652186 16:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the POV-check. The article should include some of the party's racist program points, and certainly the 70-steps plan that had as goal the ethnic cleansing of Flanders.
The present article is sympathetic towards the party. --LucVerhelst 11:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
That is not what I meant. Of course you are free to include any authentic program points, but I was referring to the absence of any indication that the trial was possibly politically motivated, as brought forward even by some neutral observers. 1652186 12:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean, "authentic program points" ? Please remember that we are writing a neutral article on the party, not the party propaganda. This means that the reader should get the complete truth about the party, also if it is not sympathetic towards the present party line, or if it are things the party and it's leaders would rather forget.
Please remember that history can't be changed by rewriting or "revising" it. --LucVerhelst/82.174.61.134 09:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
That is exactly what I meant. If you wish to publish these program points, you should copy them directly from a reliable source. The fact that you call it racist program points is an indication of POV. Maybe you don't remember, but the party itself (and therefore the program) was not condemned for racism. 1652186 10:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
The party sensu strictu was not condemned for racism, because 1. in Belgium most parties aren't legal persons, and therefore can't be brought to trial, and 2. for this same reason all party publications are published through the foundations that have been condemned because of these publications.
That is why, of course, the party sensu latu has been condemned. Otherwise, I don't see why it had to be dismantled, and a so called new party had to be created.
On the "reliable source" you mention : I hope you don't mean the party's own propaganda ? --LucVerhelst 10:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, I don't see where else you can find a party's official program points than in that party's program (not propaganda)? Or am I missing something here? 1652186 11:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
You obviously are missing something here. We're not writing a pamphlet for the VB, we're trying to write an encylopaedic article on the party.
Which means that you don't just copy material from the party's program (which of course is part of it's propaganda), because that information is biased, but that you try and describe the facts (the whole "truth") about the party.--LucVerhelst 19:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
This is actually getting funny. I understand that you want the truth and the whole truth. But I don't understand how the bare facts of a political program of a party can be biased. I'm talking about the list of points they want to realize. You either agree with them or you don't. But if you're going to give your interpretation of what these program points mean, then we are getting unencylopaedic... But I'm going to stop it here. Not to admit my defeat, but because reasoning is obviously useless. As you probably know, in Flemish there is a nice saying about that, with an owl, a candle and glasses... 1652186 19:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
An encyclopaedia is not about providing people just with lists of things. If someone would want to know the party programme of the VB, they could just as easily go the the party's web site.
An encyclopaedia is more than that. It is supposed to give background information, that the reader can use to understand, and to look beyond the bare facts.
If you just give the bare facts about the party's programme, a reader that never heard of the VB or Belgian politics wouldn't understand why Belgian democratic parties refuse to form coalition governments with the VB.
You might want to read up on what Wikipedia is about : WP:8W --LucVerhelst 20:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

On the "political trial"-thing : I don't think the racism trial against the Vlaams Blok was a political trial. It is true that the laws have been changed to be able to punish the party for its racism, but in my views that's part of the normal legislative process.
You can't and shouldn't regulate everything. There are some acts of which it is that obvious you can't do them, that a law against them would seem unnecessary. For example : it's obvious that you shouldn't rape children. A normal person doesn't do this. A law against raping children was only voted, when it became clear that common sense wasn't enough, that some people actually raped children, and therefore had to be punished by law.
The same goes for racism. It is obvious that a normal person (and certainly a party) doesn't discriminate, based on so-called race. But when it became obvious that a certain party didn't have the normal moral standards, it became clear that the common sense wasn't enough, and that it had to be made possible to punish these crimes, committed by that party, by law.
Is this therefore a political trial ? No, it's not a trial against the party, it's a trial against the crimes, committed by the party. Of course, if these crimes constitute the core business of the party, the result of a punishment would be the destruction of the party. But that was not the aim, that is a consequence. --LucVerhelst/--82.174.61.134 09:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
The fact that you write a whole paragraph about this proves that there is doubt about the nature of the trial. Again, you are absolutely free to include this opinion, but then you should also allow others. 1652186 10:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Of course there is doubt about the nature of the trial. You doubted it. --LucVerhelst 10:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Is some vague, unspecified charge of 'racism' really the equivalent of raping a child? Moreover, if 'racism' in the Vlaams Blok sense -- i.e. that Flanders should be preserved for Flemish people -- then normal people everywhere outside of the West are 'racist' , e.g. Japan, Han Chinese in Singapore, India. None of these countries allows significant levels of immigration of those not of their ethic/racial group. Let me correct, the Han Chinese of Singapor manipulate immigration to ensure their continuing majority in that city-state.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.31.56 (talk) 20:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 

The racism charge is not vague, nor unspecified.
Racism is a crime in Belgium, as is rape.
Japan, China, Singapore and India are not Belgium.
--193.190.154.22 (talk) 11:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Could somebody please explain for non-dutch/flemish speakers, the difference between 'Vlaams' and 'Vlaamse'? Why is the page located at 'Vlaams Blok' but the article begins 'Vlaamse Blok'?

I think it was a typo. -- C mon 07:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
It was a typo, because "Vlaams Blok" is a proper noun. Used as a common noun, "a Flemish bloc" would be translated as "een Vlaams blok", where as "the Flemish bloc" would be "het Vlaamse blok" and "(the) Flemish blocs" would be "(de) Vlaamse blokken". (See also Declension) --LucVerhelst 07:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
But Steve Jobs' co-workers aren't Apples ... ;)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.165.195.246 (talk) 02:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC) 

This review is transcluded from Talk:Vlaams Blok/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 00:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.
Disambiguations: Two found and fixed.[5] Jezhotwells (talk) 00:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Linkrot: Two found and repaired.[6] Jezhotwells (talk) 00:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


### Checking against GA criteria
GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
The article is reasonably well written. I made a number of copy-edits, mostly for grammar.[7]
Complies sufficiently with MoS.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
Well referenced, sources appear RS, assume good faith for off-line sources, no evidence of OR.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
Sufficient detail without excessive minutiae
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
NPOV
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
Stable, no edit warring
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
Suitable licensing, FUR and captions.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
I find that this article complies sufficiently with the good article criteria to be listed. The prose could be improved, but it it "reasonably well written". Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 01:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Vlaams Blok. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110223222339/http://www.flemishrepublic.org/ to http://www.flemishrepublic.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)