In the debate, Wilders lashed out at Fonda Sahla (D66) and Kauthar Bouchallikht (GroenLinks), MPs with an Islamic background. He previously focused on the Turkish origin of the new Minister of Justice Dilan Yesilgöz (VVD). He did so in a tweet in which he expressed his concerns about his security, for which the VVD minister is now responsible. According to Wilders, the same VVD would be out to ‘destroy him’. According to Wilders, this would be apparent from the VVD membership of Soumaya Sahla, Fonda’s sister. Soumaya was previously convicted for her membership of the terrorist organization De Hofstadgroep.
According to Wilders, Soumaya Sahla is an employee of the VVD parliamentary party, but this is denied by group chairman Sophie Hermans. ‘Soumaya does not work for me, not for the faction and has no access to the House of Representatives.’ Sahla is a VVD member and is part of a network club.
Hermans denounced Wilders’ input, which was aimed at people. She wasn’t alone. The coalition partners D66, CDA and ChristenUnie also tried to convince Wilders that his statements about Yesilgöz are more than inappropriate. CDA member Pieter Heerma called the link between Yesilgöz’s origin and personal security ‘reprehensible’.
Guardian of the rule of law
Another part of the House seems to no longer take the trouble to make Wilders change his mind, and looked emphatically at Chamber President Bergkamp during the debate. According to Klaver, the personal attacks on MPs, but also on the press, which Wilders described as ‘lackeys of power’, cross the boundaries of the rule of law. “The chairman must draw a line when it comes to suspicions of democratically elected representatives,” said the GroenLinks leader. ‘You are chairman and guardian of the rule of law. You must maintain.’
Heerma supported Clover. ‘We have limits to monitor in the debate.’ Simons (BIJ1): ‘Following Klaver, I make an urgent request to create a safe workplace for all MPs in your role as chairman. We beg you to ensure our safety and to act on explicitly racist and incendiary statements.’ Pieter Omtzigt also thinks the chairman is too passive: ‘If the football referee does not intervene with yellow and red cards, then nothing will happen.’
According to the Rules of Procedure, the chairman can intervene if a speaker deviates from the subject of the debate or in the case of insults. A speaker can be deprived of the floor. Bergkamp did not, however. She did ask Wilders not to name MPs and other persons who cannot defend themselves in the room. ‘I standardize and intervene’, Bergkamp defended himself. But that seemed to make little impression on Wilders, who then continued on as usual.
The role that chairman Bergkamp envisions in the debate is increasingly becoming the subject of discussion. For the time being, Bergkamp takes the position that MPs should fight each other in the debate and that that is not up to her. But part of the House finds this unsatisfactory. Earlier in the day, Prime Minister Rutte also spoke in his government statement about the hardening of the public debate, which is also reflected in the House of Representatives. Forum for Democracy previously spoke about treason and tribunals. Bergkamp will soon be discussing this atmosphere with all groups, it is then up to the parties themselves whether or not to have a debate about it.