"Dirty Hetero", An Example Of "Partisan Tolerance"


The director of the Center for Equal Opportunities and Opposition against racism (CEOOR), a governmental agency in Belgium, has told the press that the stigmatization or discrimination of majorities is not real discrimination.

These days the CEOOR is distributing 100,000 post cards with the message "Vuile Hetero" (in Dutch) or "Sale Hétéro" (in French), which in English translates to: "Dirty Heterosexual".  In a press release, the center explains that this is a "provocative boomerang campaign" intended to demonstrate "the kind of insults homosexuals are frequently subjected to".

Jan Van Gucht (photo: WTV)

And provocative it proved to be. The campaign led Jan Van Gucht, a 54 year old man living near the Flemish city of Kortrijk, to go to the police and file a complaint against the CEOOR.  He told newspaper Het Laatste Nieuws:

I am a heterosexual man and I did not choose to. I was born this way, and I do not want to be insulted. This campaign will increase the lack of understanding between both groups. We are too far gone when a center against discrimination, which until now I respected, is starting these kind of 'jokes'.

In the same article, CEOOR's director Jozef De Witte laughs away Van Gucht's objections:

I have a number of experts working for me who know what discrimination is. The stigmatization of a majority is not really part of that. Discrimination is something that by definition affects minorities.

If we take De Witte at his word, the South African apartheid regime did not really discriminate against the black majority. It is not the first time that De Witte is making up legal nonsense.  In earlier interviews, he erroneously attributed constitutional status to Belgium's anti-discrimination laws.

Herbert Marcuse

Today Brussels lawyer and law professor Matthias Storme writes in the Dutch section of The Brussels Journal that "there is not much left of 'The Rule of Law, not of men' in Belgium".  Storme defends "the fundamental right to discriminate" and sees the actions of the CEOOR as the application of the cultural marxism of Herbert Marcuse. Storme:


The sad reality is that De Witte is a follower of Herbert Marcuse, who has poisoned the youth with his idea of partisan tolerance: the enemies have to be forced into tolerance, but we ourselves are allowed to be intolerant against them. This is because there are "correct" opinions that are to be preferred, and "incorrect" opinions that have to be fought against with all means. According to Marcuse, a non-partisan tolerance would leave the established values intact, which would lead to repressive tolerance.  Therefore, Marcuse only accepted a partisan tolerance which would have to be "intolerant toward the protagonists of the repressive status quo", or would promote "intolerance against movements from the Right, and toleration of movements from the Left".

This is indeed the kind of partisan tolerance that the CEOOR is enforcing today in Belgium.  Two weeks ago, it threatened our editor Paul Belien (who will be back at his desk next week) with a lawsuit, unless an article was removed from our Dutch section.  In the article, Paul Belien compared the murderers of Joe Van Holsbeeck to "predators" who had "learned at young age how to cut the throat of warm-blooded herd animals during the annual sacrifice feast".  The CEOOR interpreted this as a stigmatization of islam.  In the same article, Mr Belien had written that "it is the duty of the state to protect its citizens against predators", but that when the state fails to exercise this function, citizens should have the right to arm themselves.  While this was essentially a call for the right to carry pepperspray, a defensive weapon prohibited in Belgium, the CEOOR interpreted this as "incitement to violence". In the past two weeks, several journalists and politicians have denounced Mr Belien for "calling to arms against the North African predators that are dwelling our streets".  This is an example of the rhetoric technique to take quotations out of context and to change words and sentences while representing them as literal quotations.  The CEOOR writes on its website that it has "stopped the distribution of a hate article" because the article had "incited to hate" and "amalgamated" by insinuating that all muslims had to be criminals, all criminals had to be North Africans, and "all North Africans had to be muslims as if these two concepts were identical".

The tolerance that the CEOOR enforces is partisan. Apparently it is a crime to insult muslims, Arabs or Africans, but Americans can be insulted ad lib. Only a few months ago, the CEOOR considered the Flemish song "Weg met Amerika" ("Away with America"), which denounced the "pretence and arrogance" of Anglo-Saxons, calling them "megalomaniac unicellular idiots" and inciting to "putting a hot pick up their ass", to be OK. The CEOOR received twelve formal complaints against the song,  subsequently "invited" the singer, Raymond van het Groenewoud, to "explain his intentions", and decided not to sue because it was pleased with the singer's answer.

Make no mistake: I am a strong proponent of freedom of speech, and I think that songs like "Away with America" should not be criminalized. Nor should articles like the one Paul Belien wrote, or jokes like the "Moroccon Monopoly" which led to the firing of a teacher for simply forwarding an email.  Personally I don't think there is anything wrong with the "dirty hetero" campaign itself, as far as it is intended to dissuade insults, but I am appalled by Mr De Witte's sloppy definition of discrimination and by the partisan tolerance enforced by the CEOOR, an agency whose actions in my opinion unintentionally fosters an atmosphere of distrust, social friction and intolerance.


Belgium has gone insane, and the elite politicians in Brussels have gone down the toilet. When the head chopping (sawing) Islamics stop calling me an infidel, stop threatening to kill all non-believers, stop blowing up innoncent people, stop trying to turn the world back thousands of years,  then maybe I will stop being  racist.



I assisted tp tje Medea conference this monday in Brussels. Real Eurabia stuf with a lot of European dhimmis present.
Hope to write, if time, an article about my personnal observations, but the following can't wait: Mr De Witte of CEOOR has given a speech to the honorable assembly, but the level was that as a speech for adolescents of 14 years old.

I felt ashamed as Belgian towards all other people sitting around me and asking le if I was from the same country. How is it possible to give such a person such an high visibility job when he only can have the speech of a lowergrade teacher?

- Sedert 1 mei 2004: directeur van het Centrum voor gelijkheid van kansen en voor racismebestrijding.
- 1 februari 1998 tot 30 april 2004: secretaris-generaal van 11.11.11, Koepel van de Vlaamse Noord-Zuidbeweging, Brussel.
- 1 mei 1992 tot 31 januari 1998: directeur Verkoop en Marketing bij Alma Universiteits-restaurants te Leuven.
- 16 november 1991 tot 30 april 1992: administrator bij BVVO, Bond van Vormings- en Ontwikkelingsorganisaties, de pluralistische koepel van het vormingswerk voor volwassenen.
- 1 februari 1988 tot 15 november 1991: coördinator fondsenwerving en massacommunicatie bij Amnesty International Vlaanderen, Antwerpen.
- 1 november 1981 tot 31 januari 1988: coördinator Tweedekansonderwijs te Mol en voor de Federatie van Tweedekansonderwijsinitiatieven in Vlaanderen te Leuven.
- 1977 tot 1981: diverse jobs (1 jaar opvoeder, 1 jaar zelfstandig meubelmaker) en verschillende interim-jobs.

No more comments needed... and maybe we will have to give him also a second chance

What Marcuse got right

I am happy to learn that, when in Belgium, I can insult the Belgians without any legal problems.

More seriously, I think that Marcuse should be taken seriously by those of us who dissent from the "repressive status quo" in Europe. We might learn from Marcuse how this consensus has been "manufactured".

Let me be clear: my political ideals are totally opposite to Marcuse's, but I can still agree that the status quo is repressive; though not as repressive as North Korea, of course. And by the way, I am also opposed to partisan tolerance: clearly, not everything can be tolerated, but the limits to tolerance should be prescribed by law, not by political opportunism.

Suppressing Dissent

Opponents of gun control in America had better pay close attention to what is going on in Belgium.  Over there to even suggest that someone should be allowed to carry pepper spray can make you the subject of a crippling law suit and a nationwide smear campaign. 



In Belgium as it is in the UK and as it ultimately will be in America the goal of the gun control movement will be to criminalize self defense itself.  You do not breed a nation of docile sheep until you purge out the concept of standing up for yourself in any context from the population.


Bashing "straight, white males"; Marcuse

There is little real difference between the enthusiasm of today's Leftoids for bashing "straight, white males" and the attacks of a 1950s Klansman on "niggers, Jews, commies and queers". The Left has indeed become a type of Peronism, that is Fascism under a leftist, populist cover ideology, and in the process invented a new kind of racialism, with white males rather than "the Jews" being the objects of emnity, and "people of color" emerging as the new Aryans

As a Marxist revolutionary alumni of the Frankfurt School, Marcuse became a key practitioner of revolutionary theory in America. In 1947, he argued the case for a Soviet republic and welcomed disintegration and catastrophe to bring about revolutionary change. He preached the Great Refusal: the struggle for the ultimate form of freedom, a refusal of repression and injustice, a form of radical resistance and opposition to all forms of domination.
His primary thesis was that revolutionaries such as university students, ghetto blacks, the alienated, the asocial, and the turd world could take the place of the proletariat.
His infamous essay Repressive Tolerance is nothing less than the definitive blueprint for the "political correctness" movement that ails us to this very day. He pronounced that liberating tolerance meant tolerating the excesses of the left but not those of the right; indeed, he contends that the right is deserving of intolerance.
The greatest living (and mass-murdering) example of Marxism in practice, the Soviet Union had long enshrined the values of repressive tolerance in its legal framework. Despite Article 50 of the Soviet Constitution, guaranteeing "freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly, meetings, street processions and demonstrations", several other Articles eviscerated this "right". For example, Article 39 proclaimed tyrannically, that "Enjoyment by citizens of their rights and freedoms must not be to the detriment of the interests of society or the state..."

Dirty Hetero

Uh, Dirty Hetereo, I though that might be the fall line from Dolce and Gabbana. Besides these are pretty lame for anybody to be scandalized by. These guys aren't even trying to offend.

Islamists and Marcuse

It sounds like the Islamists are strict Marcuseans. The whole institution of dhimmitude rests on the concept of "partisan tolerance": non-Muslims must tolerate every offensive facet of Islam, but Muslims must not tolerate non-Islamic rules and behavior. To do so would be oppressive to Muslims.