October 2nd, 1977 : Karel Dillen establishes Vlaams Nationale Partij (VNP – Flemish National Party). On May 28th, 1979, this party is renamed Vlaams Blok (Flemish Bloc). The party’s statutes include the demand that “a large majority of non-European migrant workers should be returned to their countries of origin within a reasonable time limit.”

June 6th, 1992 : During a colloquium entitled “Immigration, the West has the choice”, the prominent Vlaams Blok member Filip Dewinter presents a plan called “Immigration: the solutions” which includes seventy steps to realise the repatriation of migrant workers. This plan became known as the “seventy-steps plan”.

November 9th, 2004 : The Belgian court of cassation confirms a judgement made by an appeal court in Ghent on April 21st, 2004, which convicted Vlaams Blok on the grounds of racism. The court procedure lasted three years and originated from a complaint filed against Vlaams Blok on October 11th, 2000 by Centrum voor Racismebestrijding (Centre for Fighting Racism) and Liga voor Mensenrechten (Human Rights League). Both the so called “seventy-steps plan” and the Vlaams Blok party statutes were used as evidence of the party’s racist characteristics.

November 14th, 2004 : Vlaams Blok changes its name to Vlaams Belang. The party claims they were forced to do so as a consequence of the judgement made by the Belgian court of cassation. This claim, however, is disputable.

Bad Losers

Known as a party proclaiming strict rule of law, the reaction of Vlaams Blok against the latest application of anti-racism legislation was not quite sympathetic. It was of course the party itself that stood accused. “This is a violation of democracy and freedom of speech”, sighed Blok-chairman Frank Vanhecke on November 9th, 2004 after hearing the final judgement of the cassation court, which confirmed that Vlaams Blok does not think highly of Belgian anti-racism legislation. “I am leaving this court as a criminal, merely because I have strong opinions”, Filip Dewinter reckoned.

The only correct reaction was that of Jos Vander Velpen, a lawyer for Liga voor Mensenrechten: “It’s a victory for justice.” And so it is – even the largest party in Flanders at the time does not stand above the law, even if it is a law they would like to see the back of sooner rather than later. Suppose this anti-racism legislation was abolished – would VB break out of it’s straightjacket and, opposed by nothing or no-one, indulge in severely racist discourse again?

Vlaams Blok itself thinks there are limits to freedom of speech, though it doesn’t see this as one of it’s better assets. In 1995 for example, VB was amongst the parties who voted for legislation against negationism, which forbids approving of,  playing down or denying the holocaust. “A party that is a true supporter of freedom of speech should have strongly refused to take part in this laughing matter”, was the reaction of Voorpost (Outpost) expressed in a letter to the VB party leadership. So even VB thinks that not everyone should be allowed to say what they think – except when talking about immigrants of course.

Rumour has it that Vlaams Blok has now been outlawed. However, this is not true: the verdict of the Court of Appeal in Ghent, which can finally be applied after the cassation court confirmed it, states that VB should pay three fines of 12,395 € each, plus moral damages to the two prosecuting organisations, all of which adds up to 45,155.76 €. The court has not disbanded the three associations – at which the court case was aimed - which form the basis of Vlaams Blok.

Furthermore, Vlaams Blok is also at no risk of losing it’s official subsidies, the simple and disgraceful reason being that there still has not been a vote on the executive decisions of this legislation, and these plans now seem to have been sidetracked. Even if the legislation comes into being, the most severe sanction will be the loss of one year’s worth of subsidies, which VB would effortlessly survive because of it’s well-filled piggy banks. On top of that, such a sanction would not have been part of the current verdict – it would require a totally separate procedure.

The procedure hasn’t quite gathered such a momentum. Also, there is absolutely nothing that forced Vlaams Blok to change it’s name or to disband itself. This is a phantom image that the party loves to put on display, and it is utter nonsense, just like the claim that anyone who is a member or is merely associated with the party, such as postmen delivering party pamphlets or publicans renting out their upstairs room for a party meeting, could now be prosecuted.

The only true consequence of the verdict is that VB will have to adapt it’s party manifesto to exclude any racist material.

According to a number of journalists and politicians, the party has already put this into effect by abolishing the “seventy-steps plan” and by adapting the party statutes. With their current manifesto, they say, the party could not be convicted anymore. Above all, this is a claim spread by VB itself, but it hasn’t been thoroughly investigated yet. It is surprising to see how little proof some need to believe in what they would like to believe in.

The only certainty about VB today is that it is a racist party. Even without the seventy-steps plan, “Adjust or go back” is still the party motto. Just because “non-European migrant workers should be returned to their countries of origin” has been scrapped from the statutes, it doesn’t mean the party isn’t considering turning their dreams into reality one day.

What was it again that Filip Dewinter once said? “Those who wear a headscarf will be kicked out.”

Didn’t Frank Vanhecke once reason that “in Europe, there is no place for Islam”?

Adjust or get out? Get out!

translated by Michael Wuytens