Khadija Arib slammed the door with a bang after being accused of transgressive behaviour. The damage is immense. For Arib himself in the first place, but also for the President of the House, the Presidium, the PvdA faction, the registry and for the House of Representatives in general. The Committee for the Working Method of the House may sweep up the shards. He can start reading the last part of the advice on the matter from State Attorney Pels Rijcken. Under point 8, the State Attorney asks for special ‘care and proportionality’ in dealing with the Data Subject, with a capital B. That Data Subject is Khadija Arib.
But what else could she have done but slammed the door, even if the accusation wasn’t in NRC had been leaked but communicated to her, as intended? Arib’s antenna is well adjusted, because these kinds of allegations don’t help mother dear. Cross-border behavior is a forest fire without extinguishing water nearby. I hardly know of any cases where anyone who has survived this accusation unscathed.
This time it’s not about rape or assault, but about ‘an unsafe work environment’. Then we find ourselves in the twilight zone of decency and feelings. Officials spoke of a ‘reign of terror’, but there were also officials who spoke highly of cooperation with the same Arib. It won’t help her. Anonymous reports of feelings of insecurity, there is no cure for that.
We in the press knew of dissatisfaction with Arib. In The Hague we are in principle not averse to anonymous sources. Politicians negotiate in the proverbial back rooms and anyone who wants to write something about it cannot do without ‘insiders’ or ‘well-entered sources’. Nameless allegations against a person, that’s another chapter. Last spring, on the eve of the election of a new Speaker of the House, RTL published a large article, full of evil stories about the regime of Khadija Arib. And all without an identifiable narrator. Especially the accusation that she pushed the PVV in the Chamber to get the support of Wilders, was harmful.
I read Pels Rijcken’s advice and thought of that RTL article. The state attorney pointed out the ‘duty of care’ towards the ‘person involved’, but at the same time did not consider it necessary for Arib to read the anonymous letter that started this snowball. Duty of care sounds very sympathetic, but is an empty slogan if you cannot defend yourself.
It is said that the House is so busy with itself – and that is true. But the Chamber is also the mirror of society. Transgressive behaviour, feelings of insecurity and hurt, these are dominant themes in a society that looks inward – everything has been done to me and I want redress. The House itself has no fewer than three institutes for complaints and integrity issues. This also includes a complaints committee with a confidential counselor who – please note – only handles a complaint if the name of the complainant is known. That’s not for nothing. After all, the old rule is that whoever claims must prove.
But times are changing rapidly and feelings of insecurity have become so weighty that old rules no longer hold. After the above-mentioned anonymous letter, the top officials visited the Presidium of the House to indirectly refuse to cooperate with Arib. The civil service dictated the law to politics and that is the world upside down. The presidency should never have let that pass.
The media have also adopted new mores when it comes to indecent behaviour. The shortage of identifiable spokesmen is then made up for with increasing numbers of accusing fingers. Dozens of witnesses have been spoken to, is then listed in a box in the corner. The justification for the new anonymity rule is that anyone who speaks out by name will stick their neck out and that is exactly what needs to be fought. One of the objections to Arib was her backstabbing. But it is precisely the acceptance of anonymity that leads to gossip and backbiting, and to the reversed burden of proof that nowadays also comes with the right tone. After all, the complainants are hiding in the forest and the person concerned has little choice but to grab her bag.
For the kinds of objections that exist against Arib, a firm conversation is the appropriate answer. Pels Rijcken’s report states that several attempts had been unsuccessful and that two clerks, two directors and the staff of the PvdA faction were apparently no match for her. The state lawyer was then called in. As a result, a question of decency has escalated into a legal battle. If you order a lawyer, you will not receive whipped cream cake delivered to your home. There is indeed now a neat report with the logo of Pels Rijcken, of twenty sheets, with footnotes and precedents of lawsuits about a safe working climate.
If it had not been for this report, fewer windows would have been broken in this matter. More generally, it contributes to the desire to mold feelings and injuries into the mold of the law. That’s not a happy sight either. In the public domain, the media and the colleges, a kind of lust has crept in to command and forbid. The boundary between public and private is becoming increasingly disorganized. After all, the government must ensure that my feelings of safety are in order. That desire produces the opposite of a safe environment, namely a relationship of peering, indicating and clicking. The Commission of Inquiry into the Data Subject with a capital B should also look into this in due course.