Dutch Bill Against ‘Glorification of Terrorism’: Necessary or Repressive?

Last June the Dutch demissionary cabinet, then still composed of the BoerBurgerBeweging (BBB), Volkspartij voor Vrijheid en Democratie (VVD) and the Nieuw Sociaal Contract (NSC), presented a bill that would criminalise the ‘glorification of terrorism’ as well as any public support shown towards terrorist organisations. Whilst the bill is still in its draft stage and therefore could be amended, dozens of human rights organisations including Amnesty International and PAX have already expressed their concerns, fearing the bill will infringe on multiple freedoms essential for a healthy democracy such as the freedom of speech and the right to protest. Many seemed to share these concerns as in the consultation period, a period of four weeks after the announcement of this bill wherein people could respond to it, more than 11.500 reactions were published.

The Bill

The bill in question aims to criminalise three things:

1. The glorification of terrorism. If someone would openly speak, write or show an image that glorifies a terrorist crime which has a life sentence, this person could face up to three years in prison or a fine.

2. Spreading of glorifying texts or images. If these images or texts glorify a terrorist crime you could face up to two years in prison or a fine.

3. Openly supporting a terrorist organisation. This could get you a prison sentence for up to three years or a fine.

The Problem

The Breed Mensenrechten Overleg (BMO), consisting of 20 human rights organisations, has made a joint statement pertaining to the bill. In the statement these organisations address how the bill shaves away at fundamental freedoms instead of protecting them, “opening a door for random application, political prosecution and repression of critical voices.” Those subject to indiscriminate targeting vary from the voices of journalists, academics, activists and marginalised groups who are openly critical of the authorities advocating for the bill; ultimately creating a ‘chilling effect’ concerning their right to freedom of speech amongst other rights. The BMO emphasises the necessity of critical voices for a democratic society. Any restrictions on the rights to express critical views would need to have convincing argumentation and evidence if it is to impede on them. According to the BMO, this is exactly what the bill lacks. 

Rather, the bill is riddled with vagueness, lacking a clear formulation and therefore leaving room for interpretation. Such legal uncertainty could result in either random or selective application which could do more harm than good. As many reactions on the consultation site echo, it is not entirely clear what is meant by the terms “terrorism” or “glorification.” Because the bill has a broad application,  glorification may not only mean ‘inciting or threatening hate or violence,’ it could also include openly showing a flag or symbol from a terrorist organisation, sharing a chant online or in public, or even using texts for academic purposes. In practice this would also require preventative monitoring of such ‘glorifications’, for example online or at protests. Freedom of speech, the right to privacy, association and assembly are all at stake; the bill’s broad application could ultimately result in the misuse of anti-terrorist legislation to silence societal critique. 

The Timing 

The BMO says marginalised groups or people that share information labeled as critical of the government would be most affected by the bill. In particular, human rights organisations are worried these counter-terrorism laws are used to crush pro-Palestinian activism. A clear example would be the UK government’s decision to label the non-violent protest group ‘Palestine Action’ as a terrorist organisation, a decision the United Nations has since condemned. The ban on Palestine Action came into effect after two military aircrafts were sprayed with red paint. According to the UK government, such property damage with a political motive was enough to put Palestine Action on the terrorist list, therefore expanding the definition of terrorism beyond acts ‘intended to cause death or serious injury or the taking of hostages, for purpose of intimidating a population or to compel a government to take a certain action or not’, said UN Human Rights Chief Volker Türk. As of July 5, any individual that is either a member, supporter, or wearer of an item or clothing that could be affiliated with Palestine Action would be subject to legal action under the new UK Terrorism Act 2000, potentially facing up to 14 years in prison.

Türk has warned not to misuse “the gravity and impact of terrorism,” something that BMO and the 11.500+ Dutch citizens are afraid will happen with this new bill by expanding the definition of terrorism. The timing of the bill is intriguing because criticism of the Dutch government regarding their stance on Israel has kept accumulating this past year, with 6 out of 10 Dutch people wanting a more critical stance from the government towards Israel. For many, a more critical stance would include sanctions towards Israel and admitting that they are committing a genocide on the Palestinian people, the latter now confirmed by the United Nations; Israel is committing genocide. The increasing criticism is also evident since the first two Red Line protests to call out the government’s indifferent stance on Israel saw more than 100.000 protestors each, with the recent one on October 5 totaling roughly 250.000 protestors. 

This criticism will likely increase due to a research report done by the Stichting Onderzoek Multinationale Ondernemingen (SOMO) on July 15 showing that in 2023 the EU was Israel’s largest trading partner (Figure 1). Looking at individual state’s contributions, the Netherlands is the largest investor by far. Their research showed that in 2023 companies based in the Netherlands invested more than 50 billion euros in Israel (Figure 2), even beating the United States by 10 billion as the biggest investor. 

The vital question then is: would the Dutch government constitute being pro-Palestinian to being pro-terrorism? Since the public backlash on this bill, former Minister of Justice and Security David van Weel (VVD) has stated that advocating for Palestine will not be criminalised. However, the leader of his party, Dilan Yeşilgöz (amongst other right-wing politicians) have on multiple occasions equated being pro-Palestinian with being pro-Hamas and anti-semitic. In September 2024, Yeşilgöz accused Esther Ouwehand (Partij voor de Dieren) of supporting Hamas and being anti-semitic after Ouwehand had tweeted a picture of watermelons that were going to be eaten by her political party. 

The publication date of the new law has not been announced yet. Right now it is uncertain if the current demissionary Dutch government is influenced by the public backlash and will amend the bill, or keep it as it is. It remains to be seen if, for instance, reposting a pro-Palestinian message or going to a support demonstration will be equated to supporting terrorism. Yet, whilst this government chooses to spend their time on vague legislation, actual measures against Israel have not been taken. 

If you want actual change, make sure your voice is heard during the elections on October 29th.