Whose judgment weighs the most in the issue around three Islamic preachers, who are on the program of Ramadan Expo in Utrecht this weekend?
The District Court of The Hague ruled on Thursday that Minister Marjolein Faber (asylum and migration, PVV) insufficiently explained why the three men would be a danger to public order. On Friday, Faber said he did not agree with the statement, and that she wants to have it investigated “whether we can do anything, so that we know for sure that we have done everything to refuse these kinds of people.”
The asylum minister wants to prevent the British Mohammed Hijab, Ali Hammuda and the Australian Abu Bakr to come to the Netherlands because their views could “contribute to a climate of hatred, hostility and glorification.” Someone can be denied access to the country when he has been convicted of serious crimes, such as terrorism, or when there are specific indications that crimes will be committed during the planned visit.
Fillet
The cabinet is questioning the ruling, despite the sharp filleting of Fabers, the judge concludes. The three Islamic preachers are indeed ‘hated sowing’, said Justice Minister David van Weel (VVD) on Friday. He had read their statements, and saw “calling for violence.” At the same time, he acknowledged that it can be pretty difficult to deny the men who will speak in Utrecht on Saturday and Sunday. Van Weel was willing to help Faber investigate new possibilities. “I am not going to argue about the judge’s judgment, but I don’t think you should be tolerant of the intolerants,” said Faber.
She sees herself supported by “the vast majority of the House of Representatives.” She also points to the mayor of Utrecht Sharon Dijksma, who had asked ‘for measures’.
But “social indignation in the media” and “political and administrative pressure” do not dismiss the minister from the duty to check with appropriate care whether she can deny people access to the country, the District Court of The Hague ruled.
Fabers Ferme’s attitude contrasts with her restraint in the Chamber about the issue around the three preachers, where she hurled back and forth between a political and legal reality. So she came into action later than she said to MPs. The arrival of the preachers would be in before the first reporting De Telegraaf have been on her radar: she had already been busy before 4 February “to investigate how or what,” she said in response to questions from the VVD and the PVV. However, the judgment of the court shows that the IND did not ask for more information about the men until 5 February – “Following reports in the media” – the National Coordinator of Terrorism (NCTV). Faber also advised against a motion that called for her to keep the Islamic preachers from the country.
Preach
“I am also against any form of hate preaching,” she responded in mid -February the motion from the VVD and JA21. They demanded that the minister would stop the arrival of the three men, partly because they would glorify pedophilia and deny that Hamas committed murder attacks on 7 October. “In a general sense, I agree,” Faber said about the requirement to keep the men.
Yet she advised against the motion because the IND was still investigating the men. “These are individual matters. If I have a ground to deny these people access to the Netherlands, I will be the last not to do that. ” The motion was eventually adopted by a large majority (119 votes). Faber promised to make an effort against their arrival.
At the beginning of this week, the IND of the NCTV received the requested “Quickscan” about the men. The content of this ‘person -oriented interpretation’ is secret, although the conclusions are shared in the judgment of the court. After studying a limited number of sources about the men, the NCTV did not see any convincing starting points to consider them “extremist” speakers. In addition, the comment was made that the service “does not have the capacity” has “to view the whole of hundreds of hours of video material and thousands of posts on social media.”
Context
On Thursday, the judge signaled in his ruling that Faber did not explain a word or and why it can be said about the three preachers that they are a danger to public order, with reference to European judicial conditions.
In that light, she ignored ‘the context outlined by NCTV in which statements were made by the preachers. From original videos, according to the NCTV, it can be concluded, for example, that a preacher has precisely opposed aggressive statements by other preachers about non-believers, Jews and Christians.