It doesn’t make a country any more pleasant if demonstrators against government policies are arrested and held in pre-trial detention for weeks. Freedom of expression should be interpreted as broadly as possible, the bar is set high for the judiciary. The communication from the Public Prosecution Service about the need to detain corona action leader Willem Engel for weeks could have been a bit more generous. In a case with this social impact, it should not be unclear for too long what the suspect is charged with. Shame feeds the already wild speculation.
It is now beyond dispute that there is every reason for extensive research into English behaviour. Because no matter how broad the freedom of expression is, the limit has always been in inciting violence. Besides, it matters who you are. As an action leader with thousands of followers, you have more responsibility than as a lone fighter against the state.
Did Engel call for violence? Maybe not explicitly. But he did encourage demonstrations at the official residence of Mayor Bruls, he shared Minister Kaag’s home address on Twitter, called for a conscious corona infection, led the way in aggression against agents and repeatedly called for tribunals for policymakers. About Minister De Jonge: ‘The crimes are too serious and too numerous to grant amnesty.’ This is how people get ideas.
Prosecution for statements is always inconvenient, but in this case it would have been even more inconvenient if the OM had left Engel alone. After all, the social climate also counts. This is becoming increasingly unpleasant for anyone who dares to engage in public debate. MPs are intimidated on the street. Members of the Outbreak Management Team received long strings of threats. Ministers must be heavily secured. Waiting for real accidents. The National Coordinator for Terrorism and Security (NCTV) has been warning for some time that all incidents can no longer be considered in isolation: there is a growing ‘radical undercurrent’ in which individuals find the fuel for ‘extremist behaviour’.
Engel contributes to that climate. A lawsuit against him will not solve this immediately, but it does not hurt that a court is forced to consider the question of where the boundaries lie. Even if only in the hope that it inspires others to a little more self-control.
The position of the newspaper is expressed in the Volkskrant Commentaar. It is created after a discussion between the commentators and the editor-in-chief.