A repressive bill regarding the ban of antidemocratic organization was silently passed this week by the Lower House. Earlier this year the legislative initiative request, the regulatory/administrative ban on undermining organizations was passed. In summary, both bills enforce each other as it will make it easier to ban groups as well as legal persons easier.
In December 2019, the Media Office of Hizb ut Tahrir in The Netherlands published a press release exposing the discriminatory character of the bill. We stated that said bills, although they seem to be about extreme left and rightwing groups, are essentially a means to lay the judicial foundation to ban Muslim groups and individuals. It is not a coincidence that the bill came simultaneously with the release of the Ministry of Justice; National Coordinator for Security and Counterterrorism’s “Threat Assessment Terrorism in The Netherlands” which focusses on threats emanating from Muslim groups.
Addressing violence, threat of an attack or propagating of such actions by groups or individuals is legally already possible with the current laws. The well-known motorcycle gang Hells Angels as well as their activities were banned by the court in Utrecht through this manner. Pedophile association MARTIJN which strove to the legal and societal acceptance of sexual relations between adults and children was also banned.
However, with the new bill they want to go one step further by banning groups and individuals that do not commit acts of violence nor call towards it, because of their thoughts. According to the bill, these groups and individuals can be considered a threat to national security if they reject democratic principles or position themselves in an anti-democratic fashion.
The practical manifestation of the bill is that whenever an individual is not convinced of the idea that there should be separation of church and state (life) or the idea that man is the ultimate law-giver who determines what is good and what is wrong, he’s a threat to society. Even if that individual conforms to the rulings that apply within the public domain.
So, when a Muslim believes that the Law of Allah is the highest – higher and better than the law issued by humankind – he or she becomes a threat to society. What this actually means is that every Muslim will be considered a threat as this thought is an essential part of the Islamic creed. Without this conviction there is no belief in Islam. The problem is not the so-called “radical Islamic groups” but Islam itself.
The French President Macron, spoke on behalf of many western nations when he said that “Islam” is in “crisis” and “Islamic separatism” should be dealt with fiercely to protect the secular principle, resulting into police breaching charity organizations and arresting prominent Muslims.
The Netherlands are heading towards the French example of forcing the secular thought as a condition to coexist. However, did they not say: live together despite the differences? Then what should we do with the French philosopher Voltaire’s quote: “I despise what you say, but I will protect your right to say it with my life”, who is regarded as the cornerstone of the so-called democratic societies. Should we throw it in the bin once and for all?
The bill, on top of that, also makes a shift from criminalizing a criminal offence to criminalizing an intended goal. Even groups which are active within the confines of law and do not commit forbidden acts can be convicted based on suspicion and disbanded because the judge deems it is in violation with public order. In other words: organizations can be banned without a criminal offence at all.
On top of that, what allegedly is in violation against “public order” remains vague. It is a relative term and susceptible to misuse depending on the prevailing conjecture. It is therefore unsuitable to ban organizations based on public order. Irrefutable evidence will be replaced by vague and subjective criteria. This does not bode well for Muslims considering the hardened anti-Islam climate.
All of this shows that the secular paradigm has declared itself bankrupt and is incapable of bringing together and including humanity in all its diversity. Knowing this, the political participation in this bankrupt system to achieve some kind of benefit for the Muslim community is more shameful. As it turned out, the political party DENK, which is in the Lower House thanks to Muslim votes, voted in favor for the bill. With Muslim votes, they cheated the Muslims community and by doing so they applied a headlock on it.
Media Representative of Hizb ut Tahrir in The Netherlands
Sunday, 01st Rabii’ I 1442 AH
No.: 1442 / 03