It was a delicate balancing act for politicians debating the right to protest on Wednesday. No one was against it, yet no one wanted to defend its excesses either. The debate also touched on protests in higher education.
Christine Teunissen (Partij voor de Dieren) argued that peaceful protesters should not be lumped together with rioters. “Take, for example, the protests at the UvA. I completely agree that we must take firm action against the acts of violence committed there, but there were also many peaceful demonstrators.”
Joost Eerdmans (JA21) pointed to the significant damage caused by the UvA riots. He noted that thousands of demonstrations take place each year, almost all of them without incident, but some do not. “For JA21, the line is clear: if, under the guise of ‘protesting’, damage is inflicted, people glue themselves to objects, roads are blocked, paintings are defaced, or police officers are attacked, then we must be willing to draw the line.”
Symbolic politics
There is much support in the House of Representatives to do something about such violence, but what? Esmah Lahlah (GroenLinks-PvdA) asked Ingrid Michon-Derkzen of the coalition partner VVD. Taking action against criminal behaviour has long been possible, argued Lahlah. She pointed out that two UvA protesters had received prison sentences and community service. “So we don’t need any new law for this. Can the VVD stop with this symbolic politics?”
But, of course, the VVD had a different opinion. Member of Parliament Ingrid Michon-Derkzen stated that she does not want to limit the right to protest, but to ‘restrict’ it. The government must tackle the excesses, according to her view.
‘Disruptive’
The government is already working on it. The coalition agreement has announced a distinction between ‘disruptive actions’ and ‘peaceful demonstrations’. In a recent letter, it states: “Demonstrations may cause friction, but where boundaries are crossed, the concept stops.”
The government does not want to ban all face-covering clothing, as a majority of the House of Representatives requests: for example, someone protesting against a dictatorial regime may have good reasons to do so anonymously.
However, if the face covering is meant to evade prosecution in the Netherlands, that’s a different matter. VVD Minister David van Weel said yesterday: “Look at the protests around the UvA: it became impossible to identify who the troublemakers were who, at some point, caused the situation to escalate and led to the buildings being smashed to pieces.”
Does it help?
But he doesn’t know if it would help to amend the right to protest in such a case. The research institute WODC, part of his own ministry, is looking into it, and the minister wants to wait for the results.
The minister acknowledged that violent demonstrators can already be prosecuted under current legislation. “Think, for example, of the UvA protests, where you can target those who are causing riots, committing vandalism, and inciting violence without targeting all the protesters or the entire demonstration.”
Still, Jesse Six Dijkstra (NSC) submitted a motion to investigate how to make it easier to claim damages from the perpetrators if protests get out of hand. He also wouldn’t mind holding the organisers of such demonstrations liable.
Hypothetical
Marieke Koekkoek (Volt) countered: “A hypothetical example: someone has organised a demonstration around the UvA, and then the UvA is destroyed. Which organisation would we hold responsible if we follow this motion?”
Six Dijkstra said he was referring to organisations that repeatedly organise protests and tolerate or even encourage the misbehaviour of demonstrators. In such a case, he believes it’s ‘only reasonable’ to hold such an organisation accountable.
Thus, the debate swung back and forth between condemning excesses and praising the right to protest. Is it just more police that’s needed, or should the rules be changed? That question is far from answered.
