Discrimination experts, including the National Coordinator against Discrimination and Racism, believe that the cabinet does not go far enough by recognizing that there was sometimes institutional racism at the tax authorities. The ministers must also recognize that there was direct discrimination, the experts tell NU.nl. Anyone who engages in direct discrimination can be prosecuted for it. This is not possible with institutional racism.
“Whether there was also direct discrimination must be assessed and established per case or group of comparable cases,” said State Secretary Marnix van Rij (Tax and Tax Authorities) on Monday. Moreover, he said there was “no policy at all” behind the blacklisting of innocents, it was done “unknowingly” and “without bad faith”.
The National Coordinator against Discrimination and Racism, Rabin Baldewsingh, believes that the cabinet is not showing the whole picture with these statements. “Why does the cabinet not want to talk about direct discrimination? Tables were made on the basis of nationality and religion. That could not have been an unconscious act on the part of civil servants? The system has been very emphatically leading here, and not so much unconscious action.”
Baldewsingh therefore does not understand that Van Rij says that he “wants to create awareness” at the tax authorities. “Very nice that he has recognized institutional racism. Now he has to push through. He says he will do that with awareness. But what if this exclusion was not a matter of consciousness, but was caused by the system?”
‘Cabinet must accept legal consequences’
The Netherlands Institute for Human Rights (CvdRM) also thinks the cabinet’s story is not enough. “Openness about the mistakes that have been made is part of the recognition”, the Institute said. “If this has legal consequences, then the cabinet must accept them.”
Moreover, according to the Board, Van Rij does not do justice to the matter by saying that there was no question of malicious intent. “It is true that institutional racism does not necessarily involve malicious or racist intent on the part of officials. But that does not detract from the seriousness of the consequences for individuals affected.”
What did the tax authorities do wrong?
- There was institutional racism in the Fraud Signaling Facility (FSV) of the Tax Authorities.
- That FSV had a ‘black list’ on which people were listed because of their nationality or, for example, a gift to a mosque.
- People or entrepreneurs on the blacklist were unjustly picked out because the tax authorities thought they would commit fraud more quickly.
- Being on the list could sometimes cause problems: for example, you could not pay in installments if you were short of money due to a tax assessment. Debt restructuring also became more difficult.
- PwC researchers who studied the FSV find it difficult to say how often this work instruction was applied. They also cannot find in which departments or in which offices this happened.
‘Have the tax authorities render account externally’
Movisie researcher Hanneke Felten also thinks the intended “cultural change” proposed by Van Rij is not enough. She argues in favor of an external authority to which the Tax and Customs Administration should be accountable for its policy. “Being accountable to, for example, the National Coordinator against Discrimination and Racism or the Human Rights Board means that the non-commitment is gone. The Tax and Customs Administration can then be checked for equal treatment.”
Another option, according to Felten, is for the Tax and Customs Administration to justify the policy to experts by experience. This could be, for example, a group of victims of the benefits scandal, supplemented by substantive experts.
Only focusing on the culture change at the tax authorities mentioned by Van Rij will not help, according to Felten. She believes that not only what people think, but also what they do should change. “It was not about unconscious prejudices at the Tax Authorities. It is of very little use to be aware of your own prejudices about people with a migration background if you are subsequently instructed to keep an extra eye on them.”