Netherlands / Court of Appeal The Hague (Gerechtshof Den Haag) (2020), Case no. 22-000007-17, 4 September 2020, ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2020:1606, available at: https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2020:1606

Country

Netherlands

Title

Netherlands / Court of Appeal The Hague (Gerechtshof Den Haag) (2020), Case no. 22-000007-17, 4 September 2020, ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2020:1606, available at:
https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2020:1606

View full Case

Year

2020

Decision/ruling/judgment date

Friday, September 04, 2020

Incident(s) concerned/related

Other forms of hate speech

Related Bias motivation

Race/Ethnicity

Groups affected

Migrants

Court/Body type

National Court

Court/Body

Court of Appeal The Hague (Gerechtshof Den Haag)

Key facts of the case

On 19 March 2014 elections for the municipal councils were held. The political party PVV of Geert Wilders participated in those election in two municipalities: Almere and the Hague. On the election night Wilders asked his audience during a meeting of party followers in the Hague: “do you want more or less Moroccans in this city and in the Netherlands?”. In response, the audience - which was instructed beforehand - repeatedly chanted “less”. Subsequently more than 6,000 people pressed charges against Wilders. The Public Prosecution Service decided to prosecute Wilders because of incitement to hatred and discrimination and on the charge of insulting a group of people because of their race. On
On 9 December 2016 the District The Hague convicted Wilders under Article 137c of the Dutch criminal code (group insult) and under Article 137d of the Dutch Criminal Code (incitement to discrimination and hatred). The Court of Appeal in this verdict maintains the conviction of Wilders for group insult but exonerates Wilders for incitement to discrimination and hatred.

Main reasoning/argumentation

The Court of Appeal ruled that Wilders’ statement, even if it was made in the context of the political debate, was unnecessarily offensive. By dosing so the Court of Appeal confirmed the verdict by the District Court. The Court of Appeal emphasized the importance of the right to freedom of expression, particularly that of a politician, but also stated that this does not preclude conviction in this case. Wilders was also prosecuted and convicted by the District Court for “incitement to hatred or discrimination” but the Court of Appeal acquitted Wilders on this charge because Wilders’ intent was not aimed at encouraging his public to do so.

Is the case related to the application of the Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia, the Racial Equality Directive?

Key issues (concepts, interpretations) clarified by the case

The verdict clarifies two key issues. First of all the concept of ‘race’ in the sense of the Dutch Criminal Code includes the term ‘Moroccans’. The legal definition of race is much broader than its common definition in everyday language and scientific research. The defense argued that Moroccans are solely a nationality and are not protected against incitement to discrimination because of that.
Secondly the freedom of expression may be restricted in cases foreseen by the law. Dutch criminal law allows for the restriction of freedom of speech when a person insult a group because of their race. Politicians are not exempted from prosecution for making statements. Making statements which affects a minority like the Moroccans in the Netherlands in its self-esteem and undermine the respect for the equality of others as the foundation of a democratic and pluralistic society is criminal under Dutch law.

Results (sanctions, outcome) and key consequences or implications of the case

Political actors are not allowed under Dutch criminal law to make insulting statements about racial or ethnic groups. Statements insulting racial groups are criminal under Article 137c of the Dutch criminal code. Moroccans are a racial group under Dutch criminal law and therefore protected by Article 137c.

Key quotation in original language and its unofficial translation into English with reference details

"Toch heeft hij [Wilders] er bij zijn uitlating op 19 maart 2014 van afgezien om in de generaliserende aanduiding ‘Marokkanen’ enige nuance of enig gedragskenmerkend onderscheid aan te brengen. Aldus werd de Marokkaanse gemeenschap in Nederland in haar geheel in diskrediet gebracht en in haar eigenwaarde aangetast80. Weliswaar deed de verdachte zijn uitlating op een (partij)bijeenkomst naar aanleiding van de binnenkomende uitslagen van de gemeenteraadsverkiezingen en was in zoverre sprake van een politieke context, maar dat ontslaat de verdachte niet van zijn bijzondere verantwoordelijkheid als politicus om uitlatingen te vermijden die voeding kunnen geven aan intolerantie en die het respect voor de gelijkwaardigheid van anderen als het fundament van een democratische en pluralistische samenleving ondergraven81. Dat geldt naar het oordeel van het hof temeer als de uitlating, zoals hier, voeding geeft aan de negatieve beeldvorming ten aanzien van een bevolkingsgroep die binnen de Nederlandse samenleving een minderheid vormt."

"Nevertheless, in his statement on March 19, 2014, he [Wilders] refrained from introducing any nuance or any behavioural distinction to the generalizing designation "Moroccans". Thus, the Moroccan community in the Netherlands as a whole was discredited and its self-esteem affected. It is true that the suspect made his statement at a (party) meeting in response to the incoming results of the municipal elections and there was a political context to that extent, but that does not relieve the defendant of his special responsibility as a politician to avoid statements that could generate intolerance and undermine the respect for the equality of others as the foundation of a democratic and pluralistic society. In the opinion of the Court of Appeal, this applies all the more if the statement, as here, generates a negative image of a population group that is a minority in Dutch society."

The Netherlands, Court of Appeal The Hague (Gerechtshof Den Haag) (2020), Case no. 22-000007-17, 4 September 2020, ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2020:1606, available at:
https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2020:…

DISCLAIMERThe information presented here is collected under contract by the FRA's research network FRANET. The information and views contained do not necessarily reflect the views or the official position of the FRA.