It sprinkles steps in the debate on violence in Amsterdam: how feasible are they?

During Debate in the House of Representatives about the events in Amsterdam it rained today, tips to prevent it from happening again. For example, PVV leader Geert Wilders and BBB leader Caroline van der Plas want to make it possible to revoke the passports of people with dual nationality. Several MPs want to ban the right to demonstrate. Are these steps possible?

Jan Brouwer is professor emeritus of general legal science. In News hour it takes a number of measures against a legal criterion.

It is already possible to revoke the passports of people with dual nationality, but only for very serious crimes, such as terrorism. The government wants to investigate whether this is also possible with anti-Semitism. Prime Minister Schoof said: “Terrorism aims to incite fear. It is unbelievable that the word terrorism fits last Thursday.”

Professor Brouwer says it is “relatively unique” that the passports of the Dutch with dual nationality are being revoked. “For example, it was done to IS fighters. The Dutch nationality was taken away from twelve people.”

Brouwer says it is “very surprising” that the events in Amsterdam are linked to terrorism. “If you look at what happened in Amsterdam, which is open violence, this measure seems completely out of proportion. I do not for a second want to link the events to raising fear in a group of people, destroying institutions or forcing a government to make different choices. “

The director of the NSC Nicolien van Vroonhoven and the director of the CU Mirjam Bikker argue for heavier penalties for crimes related to discrimination. Brouwer questions this. “Judges feel independent in deciding what sentence is wise to impose, and it must remain so. The legislature can decide the maximum sentence increase, but it is very doubtful how far the judge will go along with this.”

PVV leader Wilders met Volt MP Koekkoek at the start of the debate:

The debate also focused on limiting the right to demonstration. For example, several MPs are calling for a ban on face coverings at demonstrations. Wilders believes that “riotous demonstrations” at places such as stations, universities and motorways should be limited as much as possible.

Brouwer says: “The right to show is largely regulated by the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. Some of my colleagues say: this is not entirely possible. I think there is some room. For example, the law on public demonstrations is very low, there is probably room for dispersal.”

BBB recommends banning the CestMocro Instagram account, which is popular among young people, because it would fuel anti-Semitism. Justice Minister David van Weel says it is possible to remove the Instagram page if criminal phrases are posted.

Brouwer calls this an “extremely comprehensive device”. “Then you could just ban newspapers. We are a constitutional democratic state and it is very important to give space to freedom of expression.”

As an alternative, Brouwer mentions the call-and-pull method option. An officer may instruct a provider to remove certain statements. “That is possible with the intervention of the investigating judge. “

Brouwer says that in the case of CestMocro, it’s usually not about expressions themselves, “but about followers who cross all kinds of boundaries in their ideas. “

In conclusion, Brouwer says that he does not want to come up with “all kinds of suggestions” that may or may not be possible after events like this. “Then you have to settle things first.”

The professor also says that Prime Minister Schoof is “beginning to show his true colors”. “I know him from NCTV. There he led practices that we said: that is at, or even beyond the limits of the rule of law. He will make his true face show.”