:quality(80)/cdn-kiosk-api.telegraaf.nl/e872b248-f685-11ea-a56f-02c309bc01c1.jpg "Fines and Community Service Demanded Against Threaters Clarice Gargard | Inland")
The Facebook video showed demonstrators from the Kick Out Zwarte Piet action group during the Sinterklaas tour in Amstelveen in 2018. Many negative reactions were placed under the images about the demonstrators and Gargard, including a columnist at NRC. She reported this.
Monday is the first hearing of the lawsuit, the rest will follow on September 15, 17, 21 and 22.
Fines and community service orders
Melissa G. (29) from Arnhem wrote “Bomb on it.” Melissa herself thought there were people who wrote much worse things than her. Douwe de J. (23) from Liessel wrote: “Cutting off all tongue is not about anything.” On the one hand he says he understands that this is seen as sedition, but on the other hand not. “It was not aimed at anyone specifically.” Both are talking about crying children who made them angry. But the police have determined that there were no crying children on the live stream.
Eddy K., 57, wrote that it was “a pity that they have abolished slavery. I’d get the whip over it. Bunch of NSB members. Can’t a truck drive over it. ” K. says that when the police knocked on his door, he didn’t even remember what he had written. Willem A. (29) from Druten could not remember his words either. He wrote: “What time are we going? Let’s roll over it. ” Now he can imagine that this shocked people. A. also talks about his irritation that there was a demonstration “during a children’s party. I must have thought, what are we doing anyway? ”
Douwe de J., Eddy K. and Willem A. in the court of Amsterdam, where they are on trial for incitement to violence.
Ⓒ Aloys Oosterwijk
—
The suspects knowingly accepted the risk that people would use violence, says Paul Velleman, public prosecutor (prosecutor). According to him, intent has been proven. He demands a fine of 350 euros against Melissa G. and Douwe de J. A community order of 30 hours is demanded against Eddy K. and Willem A.
Ask for acquittal
Melissa G.’s lawyer asks for acquittal. According to her lawyer, G.’s confession should be excluded from evidence because she was not made aware of her right that she was entitled to assistance from a lawyer. The lawyer also questions that the Facebook account that wrote “bomb on it” belongs to Melissa G. “It is known that anyone can create a Facebook account and put a picture of someone else on it.”
Willem A.’s lawyer wonders who A. meant by ‘we’ in his statements. In other words, who would have created Willem A., the lawyer asks. “And to what criminal offense?” His client’s words are too vague and the context is unclear, according to counsel. There would be no question of racism. He has a Turkish girlfriend and has nothing against people of a different origin. The lawyer is also asking for acquittal here.
Specifically in texts
Smeets, Gargard’s lawyer, says he finds it strange that the suspects no longer remember what they wrote, but that they were very specific in their texts. And he doesn’t care about their apologies. “They didn’t make them. A letter never came. ” He also calls the regret expressed by the suspects at the hearing “gratuitous.” Smeets finds it striking that the suspects seem to be so concerned about children. He points out that there are also many children who are hurt by the figure of Black Pete. But the suspects are less concerned about that.
The court says that the images show “a friendly demonstration”. Smeets agrees. For Gargard, she felt threatened and felt she had lost control of what was going to happen to her. The public prosecutor believes that it is insufficiently substantiated to what extent Garard has suffered direct damage as a result of the inflammatory reactions.
Target hatred and threats
The damages requested are low. “To keep it simple and small and to make it clear that it is mainly about the symbolic effect.” Black people and people of color who are confronted with racism every day should be able to continue to feel free to go to the police and request a judgment from the court, says Smeets.
The public prosecutor emphasizes that journalists must also receive extra protection. Female journalists in particular are often the target of hatred and threats. In addition, there must be room for debate. “Anyone may express a public debate. There must be plenty of room for that. Precisely for the views of dissenters, there must be room. ”
Certain responsibility
According to the Public Prosecution Service, “purely racist, threatening and inflammatory statements” are not protected by the right to freedom of expression. Freedom of expression also entails a certain responsibility. “Or just decency,” said the prosecutor. The comments of the suspects did not take their responsibility, Velleman thinks. The suspects must also be aware that their messages are read by many others.
Fighting criminal offenses on social media is “high on the agenda” of the Public Prosecution Service, because of “the intensity and volume with which the offenses are committed.”
Jacobien Vreekamp
The Public Prosecution Service announced on Sunday that the public prosecutor has removed Jacobien Vreekamp from the case. Vreekamp was partly responsible for the decision to dismiss the prosecution of rapper Akwasi. Until July of this year, she was on the board of the Meldpunt Discriminatie Regio Amsterdam with a foreman of Kick Out Zwarte Piet (KOZP). There was criticism on social media and from, among others, PVV leader Geert Wilders, who questioned the independence of Vreekamp in the Akwasi case.
–
