Brussels airport, victim of linguistic fights and environmental craziness in Belgium

Quid, I get your point.

However, I'm appalled that a person like Ward Churchill can be a Professor (oh, I knew him before, but it's the first time I hear about his remarks about tossing grenades under officer's beds).

"University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill suggested to a forum on conscientious objection they might be more effective in opposing war if they supported the "fragging" or killing of line officers."

Sheesh. Civilizations die indeed of suicide, not murder.

Ahem.

On free speech: The right to free speech in the US means that the government can't interfere with free speech. A private entity may decide not to provide a forum for any kind of speech. This is a matter of great confusion even in the United States.

This past week Ward Churchill (no relation to Winston) told a group that he thought that the murder of military officers by their subordinates was an ethical thing to do.

http://www.worldn...

He was advocating murder, but not a specific murder, so his speech is protected. He wasn't conspiring to commit a crime, and he wasn't inciting a person or group commit a crime there and then (he said "It's ok to kill Jews" not "Kill the Jew!" to use the analogy above)

Belgian 1 doesn't get it even though he/she is a regular reader of this blog. Freedom of expression is one of the top two basic freedoms (the right to defend oneself would be #1 in my opinion). Intolerance isn't wishing someone would shut up: it's forcing them to shut up. The Left in Europe is monumentally intolerant of speech they don't agree with and it begins with labeling. Luc: how many times have you been called a Fascist?

Belgian No. 2, if you think that Briggs was serious when he suggested to nuke Brussels, you are completely gaga.

Belgian N°2.

You seem to be unable to understand that there is a etnical conflict between the North & the South. Between Flemings & Walloons. May I remind you that Brussels is historically Brabantian & Dutch-speaking and that it is solely through mass-immigration and the arrogance of those populations that Brussels is what it is today, a 95% "French speaking city".

Unfortunately for you, I do not agree on the "Immigration = Land grab is ok"-principle and I will defend my territory.

Explain to me what is exactly Fascist about my comments ?

The fact that I will not surrender territory to immigrants ?

The fact that I'm solely defending my ancestoral grounds, regardless of the harsh "solutions proposed".

Perhaps you ought to transfer yourself into a different point of view instead of a belgicist one. As far as I'm concerned Belgium is merely another occupying force that will crumble sooner or later.

Furthermore might I suggest you to READ the entire comment and not to remove words out of their context.

My proposition to restore the Brabantian - Dutch speaking - Character of Brussels is a State reformation towards a confederation whereby Brussels DC is placed under full Flemish control. As concern for the possible "harrasment" tactics (as I presume you'll call them) there is no problem to use those....afterall its the same tactics used by the French-speaking to bully the Dutch-speaking population.

NOT by Nuking Brussels; that was a harsh reaction to another comment...where there was the suggestion to enlarge Brussels DC. With that reply I implied that one might as well nuke the entire goddamn area since the territory will be culturally & linguistically raped anyhow if you increase Brussels DC. Therefor there is no proposition to "Nuke Brussels" as you put it, probably a fault by bias.

Additionally do you know what Barbarian means ?

Quite interestingly a professor once explained that it came from the Greeks and solely means : He/She who doesnt speak the language or he/she who doesnt belong to the people.

The French population in & around Brussels DC quite fits the description of Barbaroi or Barbarian in the Greek sense of its meaning.

One thing : Where is there a call to "kill the barbarian French-speaking"?

Instead of Flaming LVB and be bitching about freedom of Speech perhaps you ought to read what is written in its full context instead of interpreting it with your own bias.

Furthermore if you trust the people, as one would in a democracy, then you will also trust the people's decision and their ability to decide which stance is the one to take & which political stance is bollocks. It is through Freedom of Speech that the people can enjoy the full scope of propositions and it is solely the people who is to decide what is appropriate to be said using "Freedom of Speech".

No court, no individual person and certainly NOT you but solely the people. However harsh the propositions laid before the people, it will be the people who will decide what is acceptable and what is not.

So if there is a fascist amongst us, I rather would bet my money on you...afterall you're willing to reduce Freedom of Speech. Allow me to use your deduction capacity..since you wish to reduce Freedom of Speech...you indirectly say that the people is uncapable to decide...therefor it could be better to remove the people from power.

Cheers

Of course the comments of a lot of readers are not liberal. So does that make me a Flemish nationalist?

I never take the time to moderate these comments? Of course not, not because I don't have the time, but because moderation is against free speech. Moderation would be very un-liberal. In fact, I am amazed even by your suggestion that I should "moderate" comments to be a "liberal".

It would have been better to give an example of what I have written, instead of what my readers are writing, wouldn't it?

Cher Belge-Francofile:

We never asked for Belgium. It was duting 175 years 'your particular French idea'. We never asked for 'district Bruxelles', a city that was politically forced to become 'french'.

A member of the not as such represented Flemish majority of 62% of the population of +10 000 000 people that produces about 80% of the national product of this anti-natural never asked anti-Flemish state of Belgium.

A Flemish

<I>Furthermore collaborating politicians such as Guy van Hengel of the VLD need to be weeded out of the political spectrum. Politicians like him undermine linguistical laws on a daily basis in Brussels 'D.C.'</I>

I totally agree. Guy Vanhengel is a despicable Quisling.

@Belgian: your statement that "I share THE opinions of the Vlaams Belang", in the same message where you call them "fascist" and where you call Bert Anciaux "a racist" is so ridiculous and laughable that I will not spend much effort to counter it. And yes, I sometimes "give voice" to politicians of Vlaams Belang. I sometimes even give voice to socialists!

I do not agree with the anti-immigration opinions of the Vlaams Belang, nor with their 'solidaristic' economic viewpoints. I do not agree with their separatist opinions, since I am for confederalism, or for a unitarian Belgian where the Dutch-speakers can fully use their majority rule without any limitations and where there is full linguistic reciprocity in all domains (which is impossible with the current mentality of cultural superiority in Francophonia).

And yes, I am vividly against all limitations on freedom of speech, limitations of which the Vlaams Belang is an obvious victim.

Belgian nationalism is used nowadays as a means to continue socialist dominance and support to unproductive parts of the economy. It will be very hard for you to find anti-socialist libertarians in Flanders who fulfill your criteria of "good Belgians".

Mind you, the Flemish population is asking for a center-right government for 17 years now, but for 17 years it gets a center-left government. In the current political constellation, a center-right government in Flanders is only possible in one of two ways: a minority government of liberals and christian-democrats that is supported from the opposition by Vlaams Belang (as Jean-Marie Dedecker proposes), or a government in which Vlaams Belang participates.

Let me remind you: 100 years ago, socialism was considered an Enemy of the State by the Belgian establishment. The Belgian state has splendidly succeeded in totally recuperating socialism for its own interests and for its own continuation. That was a good thing, since it is a good strategy to incorporate, assimilate and recuperate all potential internal political threats. But the Belgian state has miserably failed to recuperate, to assimilate and to incorporate Flemish nationalism. It is only because of this failure by the Belgian state to recuperate and incorporate its lost sons, that Flemish nationalism remains a threat today, more than ever, since it is the largest political party in Flanders now.

As for linguistic matters, I am simply for the application of current linguistic laws, which nowadays is sufficient to be called a fascist, a nationalist or an intolerant.

"Are you insane, a bigger Brussels?"

Maybe you didn't understand me correctly. I mean it should be better with one city "Brussels" the size of the currently region instead of those 19 municipalities. Not a bigger region. I said the frenchspeaking parties want a bigger Brussels region (add the municipalities between Brussels and Walloonia and the Brussels surroundings to the region) and with the current "Flemisch federal politicians without balls" that could become possible. It's clear I don't support that!

I also don't want to give up Brussels! In the current situation, with the 19 municipalities and bad government, Brussels is getting (economical) weaker. If we want Brussels here (in Flanders), we want a strong Brussels. So, I do want a strong Brussels! Don't let it be demolished by the current local government.

Brussels needs to remain the capital of an independent Flanders, but in the current situation, with the current leaders, that's impossible.

Are you insane, a bigger Brussels ?

Why dont you just nuke the damn place instead of letting those Barbarians run the place and destroy our culture.

Realistically this is the sole solution. Increasing Brussels is only playing in the hands of the French population and culturally destroying the entire region whilst the struggle has always been to assert its Brabantian Dutch-speaking Roots. It is possible but it would require some serious bluffpoker and some guts from all Flemish parties...so basically you can forget it, yes.

Thing is you could say: We need another reform, use your majority and move to a confederation. If you move towards a confederation Brussels will have to be placed somewhere as neither side will allow it to become a single area.

Now, I'm aware that most people would be cowards and let Brussels go because its "in French hands" but then we might as well give up everything up to Gent...afterall Frenchies are there too.

No, Brussels needs to remain ours, in fact it is ours historically and I'm not going to give up terrritory to immigrants. If Brussels isnt returned the continued enfrenchment will blow Belgium apart (since its a source of conflict), doubt the South really wishes that...besides if they dont play ball a certain political party will make gains; under the motto : Save the Kingdom...surrender Brussels.

In this matter the inhabitants of Brussels will have no say since they're immigrants. They dont belong there and its historically our territory. Sounds quite radical, is quite radical but its the only way to regain the city and halt this madness. I have no compassion for the French talking population of Brussels, why should I they have non for the Flemish talking population..otherwise they'd fullfill the bilingual laws and stop harrassing people...wherein they miserably fail.

The Ultimate failure however lies among our own politicians who cowardly surrendered Brussels and ineffectively "solved" the Enfrenchment wave.

Naw...just dismantle the Brussels Capital District, 4 reasons:

BHV will be easier to crack, Brussels INTL will be saved, the "EnFrench"isation process of the Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde Region will be stopped and could be reversed, We'll also be able to restore the city in its old glory and clean up the mess whilst setting a set ahead towards full autonomy.

Yes it will mean mayor investment but it will be good for the local economy and we could make Brussels viable once again.

Clean up the illegal immigrants, crack down on crime and restore the city. Let us re-open the old harbor, purify the channels...return it to its old glory...Kinda like Bruges or Amsterdam.

Hard reality of Zaventem INTL is that its situated on Flemish territory and not in Brussels.

The hard reality is that the people who moved there bought houses at cheaper prices being well aware of the noise.

You cant MISS the noise levels. Hard reality as well is that the problem is Brussels which has risen its ecological stance towards the noise problem practically banning all flights.

The best and less noisiest way for planes to take off and land is a straight departure or landing but this is impossible because of Brussels's ecological norms.

The hard reality is that this is a linguistical fight between Flemish & French-speaking. Its not Ecolo on its own, ECOLO is meaningless without the PS. Both have important issues on Brussels and I doubt they would keep votes if they would allow planes to fly over Brussels instead of the current vectors. Furthermore it is a fact that Durant privileged the French speaking population in the area around Brussels when she concentrated flights on Vilvoorde-Meise-Grimbergen.

Durant probably attempted to gain political weight in those regions but since all Walloon parties mainly agreed there was no political shift.

But this isnt solely for local political gains, there is a bigger aspect to this which we all tend to forget.

Walloonia wants a 2nd 'Belgian' international airport and that can only be in Walloonia. Hard reality is that the French community has always been jealous about Brussels INTL being Flemish. Now they hold the power to undermine Zaventem/Brussels INTL and push for a new airport.

Its nice to know that a puny airport like Charleroi is considered as Brussels South and I'm confident the Walloon politicians would just LOVE to construct a new booming airport which would mean more investment in their economy and more taxe income at the expense of Flanders.

It would also be a further measure to 'save Belgium' since somehow they believe that by cripling Flander's economy they will be able to convince the north to remain united in "their best interest".

I find it quite annoying that Brussels keeps demanding money whilst it triomphantly attempts to destroy Zaventem INTL which is one of the few areas left in Brussels where there are employment places for people coming from the Brussels Capital District. And undermining a cornerstone of Flemish economy in Flemish Brabant.

What needs to be done is the dismantling of Brussels Capital region and full integration into Flanders together with a Flemish govermental initiative to restore those territories.

This way BHV will be solved, the Walloon Colonisation will be stopped and pushed back over the linguistic border and Zaventem INTL will be saved. This will, however, mean a step towards a confederation or more...as far as I'm concerned Walloonia has a choice...either confederation or piss off.