Wetsvoorstel strafbaarstelling verheerlijken van terrorisme en openbare steunbetuiging aan terroristische organisaties

Reactie

Vraag1

I wish to raise a formal objection to the proposed bill criminalizing the “glorification of terrorism.” While the state has a duty to ensure public safety, the current proposal poses serious risks to fundamental rights guaranteed by the Dutch Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

1. Freedom of Expression (Art. 7 Dutch Constitution; Art. 10 ECHR)
The bill extends criminal liability beyond incitement to violence, already punishable under existing law, to undefined acts of “glorification.” Such vague terminology fails the requirement of foreseeability under Art. 10(2) ECHR, which only permits restrictions that are precise, lawful, and necessary. It risks criminalizing political speech, artistic work, or symbolic acts of solidarity. The European Court of Human Rights has affirmed that freedom of expression protects not only popular speech but also that which “offends, shocks or disturbs” (Handyside v. UK, 1976).

2. Proportionality and Democratic Freedoms
Penalties of up to life imprisonment for speech or symbolic expression are disproportionate. By creating a chilling effect on public debate, the bill undermines democracy rather than securing it.

3. Freedom of Assembly and Association (Art. 8 Dutch Constitution; Art. 11 ECHR)
Criminalizing public displays of support for organizations risks infringing on the right to peaceful assembly and association. The ECtHR has ruled that such restrictions must be strictly necessary and proportionate; this proposal does not meet that test.

4. Equality and Non-Discrimination (Art. 1 Dutch Constitution; Art. 14 ECHR)
The vague definitions invite selective enforcement against certain communities and political movements. Such application would contravene the constitutional and international prohibition of discrimination.

5. Unnecessary Expansion of Existing Law
Incitement to violence and participation in terrorist organizations are already prohibited under the Dutch Criminal Code (e.g. Arts. 131 and 140a). The new bill duplicates these safeguards while dangerously widening their scope.

Conclusion
For these reasons, the bill is unnecessary, disproportionate, and incompatible with the Netherlands’ constitutional and international obligations. I urge the municipality to oppose its passage and to advocate for the protection of free expression, assembly, and equal treatment as the true foundations of democratic security.