The cabinet said there should be no misunderstanding about this on Wednesday: the debate about the right to demonstrate is “about that small group that abuses its right in a disruptive way,” Minister Judith Uitermark (Home Affairs, NSC) emphasized. And so “that large group that demonstrates in a problem-free manner” has little to fear. Uitermark: “The limit is at criminal offenses.”
Yet she and Minister David van Weel (Justice and Security, VVD) were unable to reassure the left-wing opposition parties. They wonder whether the coalition will continue to sufficiently protect the right to demonstrate. The cabinet already agreed in the government program that the “sharper distinction [gaat] between disruptive actions and peaceful demonstrations.”
According to Van Weel, this is necessary because the number of demonstrations “that are getting out of hand” would increase. Out a police analysis last year it turned out that this is not the case: incidents occur at 3 percent of all demonstrations. Compared to the growing number of demonstrations (from just over two thousand in 2015 to over six thousand in 2022), the number of incidents would actually decrease relatively.
Confusion
Left opposition parties such as the SP, Party for the Animals (PvdD) and D66 believe that the government should make a better distinction between peaceful and non-peaceful demonstrations, because the concept of ‘disruption of the peace’ causes confusion. For example, demonstration experts and lawyers argue that disrupting public order can be part of demonstrating. “If it does not loosen tongues, demonstrating has no effect,” demonstration expert Marjolein Kuijers of Amnesty International previously stated. NRC.
During the debate, parties from the PVV to the Christian Union argued for all kinds of bans: a legal ban on demonstrations near vital infrastructure such as highways, a national ban on facial coverings and a ban on demonstrations at memorial gatherings.
In that light, the House of Representatives was unable to stay away from bickering about what demonstrators can get away with in specific cases. “Occupying private property, does that cross a border?” Derk Boswijk (CDA) wanted to know from Christine Teunissen (PvdD). He was referring to the stable occupation in Boxtel in 2019. Dozens of animal activists became activists at the end of last year acquitted on appealto the annoyance of the CDA and the BBB, among others.
Commemorations
Teunissen, who requested the debate more than two years ago, warned the House against passing a “political judgment” on specific demonstrations. Especially when the judge has already ruled on the criminality. “For what purpose are you bringing this up… to come up with a generic ban?” She believes that politicians should stand up for the right to demonstrate, instead of “criminalizing” demonstrators. Teunissen: “The fact that it is annoying should not be a reason” for further restrictions.
There was also a long discussion about the demonstration at the opening of the National Holocaust Museum in March last year. “I was terribly annoyed by how that happened,” said Mirjam Bikker (CU). She was referring to demonstrators who shouted at a Holocaust survivor and his grandchild, who were guests at the opening. Various parties therefore want memorial gatherings to be better protected. “The right to commemorate takes precedence over the right to demonstrate,” says Ingrid Michon-Derkzen (VVD).
Minister Uitermark said he understood this “very well”. At the same time, she warned against a general ban on demonstrations during commemorations. “Who decides whether something is a commemoration?” Apart from Remembrance Day on May 4, this is “quite a complicated puzzle” for other gatherings, according to the minister. As far as she is concerned, more research must first be done into the relationship between commemorations and demonstrations.
More police capacity
Municipalities are not helped by further restrictions, Amsterdam mayor Femke Halsema said on the talk show on Tuesday evening. Bar Let. According to her and other mayors, politicians in The Hague could do better to increase police capacity. “And also help us by respecting local authority” when taking action against disorder, “because that is what we do.”
Nevertheless, a majority of the House wants the cabinet to look at tightening laws, such as the Public Manifestations Act. Minister of Justice Van Weel “did not want to anticipate” the “adjustment” of current laws and regulations regarding the right to demonstrate, because he first wanted to wait for comparative research into the right to demonstrate from the knowledge institute WODC. That will come this summer. Uitermark was slightly more generous: it has promised to explain in a letter before April 1 what the options are for a ban on facial coverings.