Forced closure of Brussels NatCon conference ends “democratic” pretences

The forced closure of the National Conservatism Conference in Brussels by Belgian police on Tuesday, acting on the orders of Emir Kir, the socialist mayor of the municipality of Sint-Josse, is a landmark moment in the advance of leftist tyranny, intolerance and suppression of free speech in the Western world. It crosses a new red line in the Left’s increasingly shameless and aggressive drive to deny public expression to any opinions that contradict the cultural Marxist consensus.

Only because the organisers had the grit and determination to take their case to the Belgian conseil d’état, the country’s supreme administrative court, which found in their favour, has the conference now been permitted to resume its deliberations. This followed upon global media reaction deeply embarrassing to the Belgian government, which caused the prime minister Alexander de Croo to condemn the closure of the event as  “unacceptable” and “unconstitutional”.

The conseil d’état took the same view, citing article 26 of the Belgian constitution, which “grants everyone the right to assemble peacefully”. So, the conference has resumed its session, but only after the entire world has had an opportunity to see how fragile democracy now is within the EU and how brutal is the determination of the leftist establishment to silence all opinion contrary to its own. The mediation of a court of last resort to enable the continuation of a peaceful gathering that should never have been interrupted does not disguise the dire state of freedom of expression in Europe.

The pathetic, transparent pretext claimed by mayor Kir was to “prevent any public order problems from being caused by this controversial meeting”. In fact, as the extensive footage from various news outlets shows, there was never at any time the least prospect of even the mildest disorder. In this context, a gathering of mainstream politicians, academics and thinkers was controversial only in the sense that Mayor Kir disagreed with the philosophy of freedom and nation-state sovereignty they were expounding.