Apparently in Belgium race does not exist. But ‘racists’ do.*
The two basic articles of the Belgian Anti-Racism Act of 30 July 1981 are the articles 1 and 3.
Article 1:
By “discrimination” in this bill is meant each form of distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference, which has or may have as its aim or consequence that the recognition, the enjoyment or exercise on an equal footing of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social or cultural sphere or in other areas of social life, is destroyed, affected or restricted.
Punishment with imprisonment for one month to one year and a fine of fifty francs to one thousand francs or with either of these, is applied to:
1 whoever incites to discrimination, hatred or violence against a person on the grounds of his so-called race*, his colour, his descent or his national or ethnic origin;
2 whoever incites to discrimination, segregation, hatred or violence against a person, a society or the members thereof, on the grounds of so-called race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin of these members or some of them;
3 whoever publicizes his intention to discrimination, hatred or violence against a person on the grounds of his so-called race, his colour, his descent or his national or ethnic origin;
4 whoever publicizes his intention to discrimination, hatred, violence or segregation against a group, a society or the members thereof, on the grounds of so-called race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin.
Article 3:
Punishment with imprisonment for one month to one year and a fine of fifty francs to one thousand francs or with either of these, is applied to whoever belongs to a group or society which clearly and repeatedly practices or teaches discrimination or segregation on the grounds of so-called race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin, as well as to whoever cooperates with such a group or society.
Contrary to the European anti-discrimination treaties, the Belgian bill (art 1) not only prohibits distinctions that have restrictions as their aim or consequence, but also distinctions that may have these restrictions as their consequence.
Note also that the Belgian bill does not speak of race but of so-called race. According to the politically-correct politicians who wrote the bill, human races do not exist. Racists, however, do exist. According to art 3, everyone who “cooperates” with them (in whatever way), is a racist too.
The Court of Appeal in Ghent convicted three constituent organisations of the Vlaams Blok (a party representing twenty percent of the Flemish electorate) on the basis of this article 3, because of texts published by local chapters of the party between 1996 and 2000. This conviction is a precedent allowing the prosecution of every politician, even every member, of our party.
The verdict of the Court of Appeal in Ghent (21 April 2004) states literally: “By ‘belonging to’ a group or society is meant that the culprit […] is a part of the group or society […]. It is not necessary for him to have conducted any activities within the group or society. Similarly, ‘cooperating,’ by which is meant any form of support for the functioning of the group or society, does not imply the execution of criminal acts. The punishability of ‘belonging to’ and ‘cooperating’ follows from the mere knowledge that the group or society, to which one belongs or with which one cooperates, […] commits discrimination.” The aim of the verdict is to kill the Vlaams Blok. This, too, is stated explicitly in the verdict: “Rendering punishable every person who belongs to or cooperates with a group or society […] serves as an efficient means to suppress such groups or societies, as the lawmaker intended. Rendering punishable the members or collaborators of the group or society inherently jeopardizes the continued existence or functioning of the group or society […].”
The Belgian Anti-Discrimination Act
The Belgian Anti-Discrimination Act of 2003 broadened the concept of criminal “discrimination” (same definition as above) to every “discrimination” on the grounds of “gender, so-called race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin, sexual preference, marital status, birth, wealth, age, religion or philosophy, present or future state of health, handicap or physical characteristic.” Moreover, it reverses the onus of proof. The complainant does not need to prove that the accused “discriminates” or propagates “discrimination;” it is up to the latter to prove that he does not.