Plan to conduct online surveillance will disproportionately affect Dutch Muslims
The Dutch police and security services seem to have a tradition of discriminating against Dutch Muslims, we wrote in an op-ed for Het Parool on February 8. We fear that Dutch Muslims will once again bear the brunt if the police are granted more powers to conduct online surveillance.
Illegal investigation into mosques
In 2021, NRC revealed that the National Coordinator for Counterterrorism and Security (NCTV), under the leadership of now-prime minister Dick Schoof, had provided municipalities with funds to conduct illegal investigations into mosques. With this money, municipalities hired a private organization whose ‘researchers’ went undercover, participating in prayer and collecting personal information about visitors and board members. This information was compiled into secret reports.
Since then, several municipalities have issued an apology, and efforts are being made to restore trust. The Ombudsman for the Amsterdam Metropolitan Area, Munish Ramlal, concluded this week in a report that the municipality of Almere had been ‘seriously negligent’ in protecting the rights of the Muslim community.
It is no coincidence – and unfortunately not an isolated incident – that the NCTV targeted mosques. Islamophobia has become increasingly normalized in the Netherlands, and this is reflected in the security field, where powers seem to be disproportionately exercised against Dutch Muslims. This is also referred to as the politicization of security work: it is not the law and the judiciary that determine the use of powers, but rather the political climate.
“Not the law and the judiciary determine the use of powers, but rather the political climate.”
Take, for example, the most recent proposal from the Ministry of Justice and Security. To counter ‘disturbances’ of public order, Minister Van Weel (VVD) wants to give the police more powers to conduct online surveillance in private chat groups. In November 2024, he made the rounds in the media to explain his plans, and a legislative proposal is expected to be presented before the summer. “We had been working on this for some time, but the violent incidents surrounding the Ajax-Maccabi Tel Aviv football match in Amsterdam clearly show why it is necessary,” Van Weel told BNR. But what exactly did the events in Amsterdam, according to the cabinet, clearly show?
Even before the facts were on the table, State Secretary for Participation and Integration Jurgen Nobel (VVD) spoke of a problem with “Islamic youth.” Prime Minister Schoof – yes, the one involved in the illegal surveillance of mosques – attributed the events to an integration problem. The PVV has, of course, made Muslim hatred its raison d’être, and Wilders’ response to the events neatly aligned with the party line: according to him, Jews were being hunted down by Muslims. By now, the discussion in parliament was no longer focused on what had happened in Amsterdam, but on Muslim youth.
The unequal burden of ‘neutral’ policy
Don’t get me wrong: the police should not be given the authority to surveil innocent citizens based on the risk of disturbances to public order, period. However, we must be cautious not to treat a potential legislative proposal as a neutral policy tool.
Does that sound overly distrustful? If the proposed new power is granted, it is likely to be assigned to the Public Order Intelligence Team (Tooi) of the police. What do we know about the Tooi? Not long ago, in 2023, RTL Nieuws revealed that the team had illegally spied on innocent Dutch citizens, with particular ‘attention’ afforded to Dutch Muslims. The innocent Said Ahamri was repeatedly stopped, and his friends were questioned about him. Professor of Criminal Law Sven Brinkhoff described it as ‘practices of a police state.’ The National Police and the Ministry of Justice and Security deemed the invasion of privacy to be ‘minimal.’
The National Coordinator for Discrimination and Racism also sees that Dutch Muslims are disproportionately affected by ‘neutral’ policy. Just last year he warned that Muslims are being discriminated against by banks and financial institutions as a result of laws aimed at preventing money laundering and financing terrorism. Entrepreneurs are denied loans, consumers are questioned about their online purchases, and foundations are preemptively rejected by notaries.
Research into the childcare benefits scandal revealed that donating to a mosque was one of the data points that led people to end up on the tax office’s fraud list.
Vague concepts invite abuse of power
Back to Minister Van Weel’s plan. Both ‘disturbance’ and ‘public order’ are vague concepts. Whereas one person might find a rowdy group of men disruptive, another may see it as nothing more than a pleasant afternoon. One person might think of a protest as a threat to public order, while another might view it as a normal part of community life. Do we need to point out that legal ambiguity regarding these boundaries fosters arbitrariness and unequal treatment?
Additionally, disturbances to public order can emerge from all types of places and situations. Accidents, protests, misunderstood individuals, groups of friends, football supporters, drunken individuals, angry citizens: if we grant the police the authority to conduct preventive online surveillance in areas where disturbances might occur, we are essentially giving the police limitless powers.
A limitless power and an unclear legal framework: anyone who thinks this will not be disproportionately applied against Dutch Muslims is burying their head in the sand. Perhaps it is time to depart from the worst-case scenario rather than waiting to see proof that things have not turned out well for our Muslim neighbors, friends, colleagues, and loved ones.