"Belgiums to wed 'against rascism'"

[r(2)Truth]

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6476115.stm)

Belgians to 'wed against racism'

Mr Van Bellingen says he lives with racism on a daily basis
More than 500 Belgian couples are to symbolically wed in a Flemish town where three couples had refused to let a black official marry them.
Deputy Mayor Wouter Van Bellingen was the first black councillor elected in St-Niklaas in northern Belgium.

In response to the snub, Mr Van Bellingen decided to organise the anti-racism protest to coincide with the International Day against Racism.

The mass ceremony will consist mainly of vow renewals.

Wednesday's events will kick off with hundreds of people joining in a "mass cuddle" before exchanging or renewing vows to be overseen by Mr Van Bellingen.

There will then be a huge wedding photo, a "multicultural dessert buffet" and a wedding dance.

One of the couples renewing their vow in St-Niklaas, Ian Coots, who is originally from Liverpool, and his wife MJ de Richter, want to show solidarity with the councillor.

"I thought it was really nasty how the couples refused to get married because he was black - that's really racist, if you're not going to get married because of that, where are your priorities?" Ms de Richter told the BBC.

Daily racism

The Rwandan-born councillor was adopted by a Flemish family at birth.

He was elected councillor in the town of some 70,000, 50km (30 miles) north of Brussels, in local elections in October last year.

At the same elections, the anti-immigration Vlaams Belang got 26% of the vote.

"It was the most primitive form of racism. Nothing but the colour of my skin," Mr Van Bellingen said of February's incident, in which three couples insisted on all-white weddings.

"Like all coloured people, I live this on an almost daily basis," he told the Associated Press news agency.

At least 2,000 letters and emails have poured in since the incident in February, the AFP news agency reports.

Thousands of people marched last year following the killing of a woman of African origin and the two-year-old girl she was a nanny for in Antwerp.

"We have to take away the fear of the unknown. If you are unknown, you are unloved," Mr Van Bellingen said.




I never though this would happend in Belgium. Though I don't know anything about the Flemish.

[Henkie]

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6476115.stm)



I never though this would happend in Belgium. Though I don't know anything about the Flemish.

Belgium has a lot of issues with racism. In the 19th century the Belgian king conquered the larger part of central Africa (currently known as Congo) and a bunch of the locals there eventually moved to Belgium, this has been actualized by the rise of the Flemish nationalist(/racist) party 'Vlaams Belang' (after a conviction for racism renamed as 'Vlaams Blok'). This party is the centre of several very fierce debates, amongst others on Racism and as a result Belgium has an pretty strong anti-racism movement (not as clearly or strongly organized, though). This all explains why 1) the dude was elected, 2) people refused to get married by him and 3) why it's such a big deal.

[assengrabben]

It seems like mass immigration almost always leads to racist backlash. It's happening here in the US with Mexican/Latino immigration.

Is there a similar reaction in Europe with Muslims?

[Devastation]

So they don't want a black guy to marry them, so what?

[Henkie]

It seems like mass immigration almost always leads to racist backlash. It's happening here in the US with Mexican/Latino immigration.

Is there a similar reaction in Europe with Muslims?

As far as we've had mass immigration from Muslim countries, it was mainly in the '60s on our own request (we needed the labour), now that we've forgotten that the racist backlash seems to be shaping up...

And @Dev: he's an elected official and a black one. Refusing to be married by him is both racist and anti-democratic...

[Devastation]

And @Dev: he's an elected official and a black one. Refusing to be married by him is both racist and anti-democratic...
So? It's their personal feelings, so let them feel that way.

[GotheriK]

So? It's their personal feelings, so let them feel that way.

Linear dialect is impossible with the European left.

Anyway, I think a disturbing trend is developing in Europe. I just wonder how much longer it will be until your government starts outlawing speech and actions is deems "In-Tolerant".

Forgive me here, I read somewhere that it's illegal to fly the British flag in some parts of England because it's "Offensive to immigrants and blacks". If Europe is really following these trends, then frankly I'll be glad to see it go. Anyone who would play along with such things deserves to suffer a most painful demise in my opinion.

[alex_de_large]

So? It's their personal feelings, so let them feel that way.


No you don't understand, we need to wipe out the rednecks of the world not give them room to grow.

[Devastation]

No, you think personal freedoms only apply to a certain type of people.

They weren't hurting anybody by turning him down, so I don't see what the problem is.

And rednecks is good people.

[alex_de_large]

Linear dialect is impossible with the European left.

Anyway, I think a disturbing trend is developing in Europe. I just wonder how much longer it will be until your government starts outlawing speech and actions is deems "In-Tolerant".

Forgive me here, I read somewhere that it's illegal to fly the British flag in some parts of England because it's "Offensive to immigrants and blacks". If Europe is really following these trends, then frankly I'll be glad to see it go. Anyone who would play along with such things deserves to suffer a most painful demise in my opinion.

I'm fine with hate speech laws because it is not restricting anyones freedom except the stupid racist dumb asses of the world. If a nation overwhelmingly supports the law, such as the case in Canada, then the people of the nation have decided to "be free" from hateful racist bigotry. I am all for freedom of speech but I honestly think that racists don't deserve it because all of what they say is slander anyways.

Some people are just too FUCKING DUMB to speak and I fully support the government silencing these people so that their ignorance doesn't spread to the next generation. Freedom of speech for everything except hate speech.

[GotheriK]

I'm fine with hate speech laws because it is not restricting anyones freedom except the stupid racist dumb asses of the world. If a nation overwhelmingly supports the law, such as the case in Canada, then the people of the nation have decided to "be free" from hateful racist bigotry. I am all for freedom of speech but I honestly think that racists don't deserve it because all of what they say is slander anyways.
Is that what you really think? That all people you deem racist are just "Stupid Dumb Asses"? To be honest, in my opinion that statement seems more like a cop-out due to a lack of a valid argument. We don't all live in trailer parks playing banjo, you know.

Regardless, I can understand your thinking, and to an extent, I could agree with you. But what you have to realize is that a society should never give their government the ability to regulate what the populous says or believes, no matter how worthy you think the cause to be. Situations like this are inherently a "Pandora's Box" so to speak, in that if you give the government an inch, eventually they will take a yard, and move on to other aspects of society that they wish to outlaw.

I seem to remember a case several years ago, the Iranian author of a book called "The Satanic Verses" was forced to flee Iran after being branded "In-Tolerant", and a bounty was placed upon his head (Literally). Therein lies the problem with hate-speech laws. "Intolerant" is a phrase that can be branded on anything, for instance, if George Bush decided that any criticism of himself was "In-Tolerant", he could use the very laws that you campaigned for to persecute any critics of his person.

The same goes for this society. If I were to post a news article that seemed, in some way or another, critical or derogatory of blacks, I could be thrown in prison for merely posting facts. The fact that you don't see a problem with this is disturbing.

[jn_powell]

I fully support the government silencing these people so that their ignorance doesn't spread to the next generation. Freedom of speech for everything except hate speech.

That's mighty white of you.

[alex_de_large]

Is that what you really think? That all people you deem racist are just "Stupid Dumb Asses"? To be honest, in my opinion that statement seems more like a cop-out due to a lack of a valid argument. We don't all live in trailer parks playing banjo, you know.

Regardless, I can understand your thinking, and to an extent, I could agree with you. But what you have to realize is that a society should never give their government the ability to regulate what the populous says or believes, no matter how worthy you think the cause to be. Situations like this are inherently a "Pandora's Box" so to speak, in that if you give the government an inch, eventually they will take a yard, and move on to other aspects of society that they wish to outlaw.

I seem to remember a case several years ago, the Iranian author of a book called "The Satanic Verses" was forced to flee Iran after being branded "In-Tolerant", and a bounty was placed upon his head (Literally). Therein lies the problem with hate-speech laws. "Intolerant" is a phrase that can be branded on anything, for instance, if George Bush decided that any criticism of himself was "In-Tolerant", he could use the very laws that you campaigned for to persecute any critics of his person.

The same goes for this society. If I were to post a news article that seemed, in some way or another, critical or derogatory of blacks, I could be thrown in prison for merely posting facts. The fact that you don't see a problem with this is disturbing.

I see your point, and understand where you are coming from however it is up to the citizens of a country to stop it from going any further. Here in Canada we have had such laws for some time now and we have retained our freedom of speech in every other aspect. Plus, I find your George Bush example to be extremely unlikely and for that to happen you would have to have the most apathetic country in the world. And hate-speech does not stop you from being critical, but it does stop you from making up facts. For instance if a study was done and someone posted in the newspaper "In a study conducted at such and such university it was found that african americans commit more crime then caucasians. This would be fine. "Niggers are all dirty low life criminals" on the other hand would not be OK.

It spreads lies and it does A LOT of damage to society. Because it does such damage (mainly by fueling false stereotypes enough to survive in our future generations) it should be illegal.

[GotheriK]

It spreads lies and it does A LOT of damage to society. Because it does such damage (mainly by fueling false stereotypes enough to survive in our future generations) it should be illegal.
*Sigh*

I'm not sure what I expected when I made my reply, but certainly you haven't gotten it.

Token for thought: you may have all the greatest intentions, but the reality is not all people have an ounce of common sense. I've been branded racist for simply saying that I don't like rap music, I've been called racist for saying I'm proud to be white, and I've been called racist for pointing out that black neighborhoods are statistically more violent than white ones. I've been called cracker, honkey, and Hau-Oui (Whatever the fuck that is), and none of those people will ever face prosecution. But if I happened to go to Canada and utter "Nigger"...

The point is: noone can define where it ends. If the way the world is developing maintains its course, it could be racist for me to win a job over a black. I know not many people have the foresight to see how gradual societal changes work, therefore I'll just be called paranoid.

[alex_de_large]

*Sigh*

I'm not sure what I expected when I made my reply, but certainly you haven't gotten it.

Token for thought: you may have all the greatest intentions, but the reality is not all people have an ounce of common sense. I've been branded racist for simply saying that I don't like rap music, I've been called racist for saying I'm proud to be white, and I've been called racist for pointing out that black neighborhoods are statistically more violent than white ones. I've been called cracker, honkey, and Hau-Oui (Whatever the fuck that is), and none of those people will ever face prosecution. But if I happened to go to Canada and utter "Nigger"...

The point is: noone can define where it ends. If the way the world is developing maintains its course, it could be racist for me to win a job over a black. I know not many people have the foresight to see how gradual societal changes work, therefore I'll just be called paranoid.

Look, I SEE what you are saying and people do seem to have a varying degree of common sense don't they? If you were to go to Canada and say nigger it is likely that nothing would happen. If you were to go on tv or the newspaper and say it however it would be a different story which is what I want since media hits way more people then just one person uttering it under his breath. But you are right about what is considered racist by some. Not liking rap music is DEFINITELY NOT racist. So for now I would be happy if they just made the racial slurs illegal. "Nigger, heeb, kyke, honkey" etc.

Hate laws also keep down groups like KKK and others because it is illegal in these types of groups.

[Henkie]

So? It's their personal feelings, so let them feel that way.

There is a big difference between lynching people and making a counterstatement saying that it's basically racist bullshit (which it is). For all intents and purposes those couples are entirely free to make a statement about their personal beliefs regarding other races. Some 700 couples have decided to make their own statement about they're personal beliefs on other races and racist bastards. Freedom of speech has two sides, both the liberty to make a statement and a counterstatement. When people call you honkey, you can call them racist (to which you'll get some kind of reaction, probably) that's freedom. Danish people are free to make cartoons and Syrians are free to protest against those and stop buying Danish stuff. Freedom of speech includes both racists and the 'politically correct'-extremists. In the end you can be ridiculed, dispised and hated for your opinion, but you're free to have and express them.

[Devastation]

Who said anything about lynching people? Of course that's wrong. All these people said was that they didn't want to be married by a black official. Yeah, it's close-minded, but who cares?

[Henkie]

Who said anything about lynching people? Of course that's wrong. All these people said was that they didn't want to be married by a black official. Yeah, it's close-minded, but who cares?

And they weren't married by a black official. What's your point? All that's happening is that by a positive statement of their own opinion a bunch of other people are showing they think that's stupid, racist, etc. Tolerating and respecting are two very different things.

[Devastation]

I respect that.