Debate on Amsterdam Violence: Wilders Proposes Passport Revocation and Demonstration Restrictions

Welcome to the Bizarre World of Political Proposals!

So, the House of Representatives in The Netherlands has had a lovely little debate about the violent incidents that turned Amsterdam into the set of a particularly chaotic action movie. Apparently, in the aftermath, our good pal Geert Wilders, together with Caroline van der Plas from BBB, sprang into action with proposals that are as wild as a Friday night in the Red Light District!

Revoke Passports? Genius or Just Plain Bonkers?

One of the bright ideas tossed around was to revoke the passports of people with dual nationality. Wilders thinks that if you don’t like the climate in Amsterdam, you should just be sent packing. After all, who needs the freedom to travel when you can borrow a bus ticket back to wherever you came from? The current law allows for such measures but only in serious cases—like terrorism. You know, minor inconveniences like *setting off fireworks or throwing bricks* don’t seem to make the cut!

“If you look at what happened in Amsterdam, this measure seems completely out of proportion.” — Jan Brouwer

And Brouwer, bless his academic heart, points out that linking the Amsterdam events to terrorism is a bit like comparing a firecracker to a nuclear bomb. Perhaps they need a refresher course in logic, or maybe a nice dose of reality television to get that adrenaline racing!

Penalty Enhancement: Because Who Doesn’t Love a Good Punishment?

Next on this merry-go-round of insanity comes the suggestion to increase penalties for public violence. That’s right, dear readers, because if at first you don’t succeed in scaring the living daylights out of your populace with anti-violence laws, just keep cranking up the penalties! But Brouwer is here to say, “Whoa, hold your horses!” Judges need autonomy, not a script written by the highest bidder.

Demonstrations: A Right for Some, But Not for Us?

Then, we have the right to demonstrate taking a beatdown! The proposal to ban face-covering clothing at protests came up quicker than you can say “freedom of speech.” Wilders again managed to wring his hands over ‘disruptive demonstrations’ (cue the dramatic music!). The notion that our precious right to protest could be curtailed gives one reason to raise an eyebrow or perhaps even two!

“The right to demonstrate is largely governed by the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.” — Jan Brouwer

Apparently, even European case law has its limits, but don’t tell that to the MPs! They’re keen on rewriting the rules to suit their agenda—basically, they’re deciding who gets to shout and who doesn’t!

Banning CestMocro: The Instagram Account That’s Got Everyone Talking!

If you thought we were finished, think again! Now we have the tireless BBB suggesting that we ban the Instagram account CestMocro for allegedly fueling anti-Semitism. God forbid young people have a space to express themselves! It appears our leaders have taken a page out of the censorship playbook. Brouwer cheekily suggests that we might as well ban newspapers next! Welcome to the new age of democracy: where the pen is mightier… unless it’s used to write opinions!

A Final Thought: Time to Calm Down?

In closing, Jan Brouwer suggests maybe—just maybe—we should take a breath and not rush into a plethora of half-baked proposals right after an event like the Amsterdam debacle. “Let’s calm things down first,” he chides, which sounds rather wise amidst all this chaos!

And let’s not forget Prime Minister Schoof, whose true colors are starting to show, possibly like a poorly made tie at a job interview. Brouwer’s thoughts echo: advocating for heavy-handed measures might just expose the inconsistent decision-making process that keeps us on the edge of our seats—or perhaps keeps us rolling our eyes.

In summary, if the current chaotic debate leaves us anything, it’s that politics is a circus. With Wilders, Brouwer, and a few circus clowns in tow, one thing’s for sure: grab your popcorn because this show is bound to get messy! 🍿

During the House of Representatives debate on the events in Amsterdam today, proposals emerged aimed at preventing similar incidents in the future. For instance, PVV leader Geert Wilders and BBB leader Caroline van der Plas are advocating for measures that would allow the government to revoke the passports of individuals holding dual nationality. Concurrently, a number of MPs are lobbying for restrictions on the right to demonstrate. The pressing question remains: Are these proposed measures actually feasible?

Jan Brouwer, an emeritus professor of general legal science, appeared on News hour to evaluate several of these proposals against legal standards, providing insight into their viability.

Revoke passports

Currently, the law allows for the revocation of passports from individuals with dual nationality, but this action is limited to very serious offenses like terrorism. The government is considering whether this revocation could also apply to cases of anti-Semitic acts, as indicated by Prime Minister Schoof, who remarked, “Terrorism aims to instill fear. It is conceivable that the term terrorism fits last Thursday’s events.”

Brouwer expresses skepticism by stating, “If you look at what happened in Amsterdam, this measure seems completely out of proportion.”

Professor Brouwer elaborates that revoking the nationality of Dutch citizens with dual nationality is “relatively unique,” typically reserved for cases involving Islamic State fighters. “The Dutch nationality has been taken away from a dozen individuals,” he notes.

Brouwer specifically mentions his surprise at the connection drawn between the Amsterdam events and terrorism. “I have not for a second associated the incidents with instilling fear in a population group, overthrowing institutions, or coercing the government into different decisions.”

Increase the penalty for public violence

In the ongoing debate, Nicolien van Vroonhoven, leader of the NSC, alongside CU leader Mirjam Bikker, is advocating for harsher penalties for crimes associated with discrimination. Brouwer raises questions regarding this approach: “Judges feel autonomous in determining which sentence is wise to impose, and that autonomy must be preserved. While the legislator can increase the maximum sentence, it remains questionable how far judges will adhere to such adjustments.”

The debate’s opening saw a confrontation between PVV leader Wilders and Volt MP Koekkoek:

Heated start of parliamentary debate on violence in Amsterdam: ‘This is not my Netherlands’

Restricting the right to demonstrate

Additionally, the conference brought the issue of limiting the right to demonstrate into focus. A number of MPs are proposing a ban on face-covering clothing during demonstrations. Wilders asserts that “disruptive demonstrations” occurring at critical locations such as train stations, universities, and highways should be curtailed as much as possible.

Brouwer shares his perspective: “The right to demonstrate is significantly influenced by the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. Some colleagues assert that this is absolutely not feasible. While I believe there may be some flexibility—like the existing laws on public manifestations being quite lenient—there are clear guidelines laid out by the European Court regarding the contours of the right to demonstrate.”

Ban Instagram account CestMocro

The BBB further proposed the prohibition of the Instagram account CestMocro, which has gained popularity among younger audiences, citing that it contributes to the spread of anti-Semitism. In response, Minister of Justice David van Weel acknowledged that it is feasible to compel the removal of content deemed criminal from such platforms.

However, Brouwer critiques this as an “enormously far-reaching instrument.” He argues, “Then you could also simply ban newspapers. As a democratic constitutional state, it is paramount to uphold freedom of expression.”

As an alternative approach, Brouwer proposes a notice-and-takedown procedure, where a magistrate can instruct a service provider to eliminate specific statements, asserting, “That is feasible with the involvement of the examining magistrate.”

Regarding CestMocro, he points out that the critical issues often arise not from the account itself but rather from followers who engage in extreme commentary.

‘Add fuel to the fire’

In conclusion, Brouwer suggests that proposing a whirlwind of measures in response to events like those in Amsterdam may not be the most effective approach. “First, you have to calm things down,” he stresses.

Professor Brouwer further asserts that Prime Minister Schoof is beginning to reveal his true intentions, remarking, “I know him from the NCTV, where he led practices that tested the limits of rule of law thinking. His recent firm measures indicate that today marks a turning point in revealing his true character.”