In Wednesday’s debate about manners in the House, a majority called on the chairman to intervene not only in the case of obvious threats, intimidation or statements that are contrary to the rule of law, but also in statements that rub against it.
“There is a gray area that the House should discuss,” said Sophie Hermans (VVD). But the debate in the House of Representatives is currently being conducted so fiercely that the President of the House must also set standards in that gray area. ‘When in doubt, the President of the House must catch up.’
With the House-wide support for Bergkamp, the House of Representatives hopes to put the genie back in the bottle. Notable absentee was the PVV. FvD only joined the debate when it was time to make its own contribution.
Derailments
More and more political groups are concerned about the hardened debate culture in the House. The tone could be a bit milder. Words like ‘crazy’, maybe don’t do it anymore. Although part of the House looks back on this with the necessary self-reflection, the greatest concern is in expressions that lead to threats, intimidation and violence outside the meeting rooms of the House.
‘The derailments in the debate have repercussions on the relationships in society’, says Gert-Jan Segers (ChristenUnie). ‘Threats against journalists have increased, GGD employees have been attacked, scientists are intimidated at their front door and the first thing ministers see when they step out the door in the morning is a police post,’ said D66 member Jan Paternotte. He links the examples directly to statements by FvD MPs, who, among other things, threaten other parliamentarians with tribunals or label the government a dictatorial regime. Jesse Klaver (GroenLinks): ‘FvD contributes to a spiral of violence.’
That went too far for Gideon van Meijeren (FvD). In his opinion, the House should deal more cautiously with a causal link between what is said in the House and the hardening in society. ‘Threats are timeless.’ In addition, the party itself also faces threats and intimidation.
‘Display’
Van Meijeren skipped the first part of the debate. In protest. On the one hand, because he finds the debate about one’s own manners in times of war threat in Europe and rising energy prices a ‘delusion’. At the same time, according to Van Meijeren, freedom of expression is also at stake in the debate. “Less and less can be said under this chairman.”
If it is up to Bergkamp, there will be no forbidden glossary, but the changed debating culture does require a different approach. Bergkamp has already seen that stricter action is being taken in recent times. She herself intervened when FvD called for civil disobedience. Vice-President Martin Bosma (PVV) declared an FvD motion out of the order of the debate.
That the presidency is tighter was shown again in the debate when deputy chairman Henk Nijboer (PvdA) drew a line with statements by Van Meijeren. Nijboer denied the floor to the FvD when he linked GroenLinks to the murder of Pim Fortuyn. “There’s no evidence of that.”
Bergkamp: ‘We have already started standardizing.’