Freedom of association and freedom of assembly

For a country with a strong tradition of respecting freedom of association and assembly, according to one participant, the Netherlands’ Public Assemblies Act contained provisions that did not meet international standards. According to the participant, the act allowed for restrictions on assemblies based on traffic considerations, and it also made it possible to prosecute and punish peaceful protesters for merely failing to submit the required notification (in time) or for violating a prior restriction. It was believed that such provisions had a chilling effect, opening the door to unlawful threats of enforcement. The Dutch authorities clarified that, in practice, peaceful protesters were never punished without sufficient reasons, and never in itself for a late notification, for the failure to comply with prior restrictions, or for traffic considerations (provided they did not prevent circulation of emergency services). Besides these legal considerations, the participant believed that the authorities – notably the local authorities in charge of authorising assemblies and maintaining security at them – and also the general public, did not have an adequate understanding of freedom of assembly. Based on insufficient regard for the presumption of peaceful intent, the authorities and the police would consider protests through the prism of risk rather than through one of rights, and would apply too low a threshold for restricting or banning protests. Other aspects of policing that were also criticised by several participants included the use of excessively violent methods such as water cannons and the rough manhandling of seated protestors, ID checks on protestors, and at least one proven case of human rights violation resulting from the use of biometric surveillance (face recognition). Several participants underlined the more general inconsistency of approach to assemblies, notably in the face of new forms of action such as peaceful blockades. They gave the examples of the harsher treatment meted out to climate and housing protestors compared to that reserved for farmers, and the lack of protection provided to anti-racism protestors facing a hostile counter-demonstration. This, to their mind, illustrated a general trend towards negative rhetoric in the media and amongst politicians towards protesters defending such causes – for example, labelling climate protestors as terrorists. While participants believed that this ambient had a chilling effect on the freedom of assembly, they felt that, on the other hand, “uncivil” society was becoming better organised, as illustrated by the spread of antimigrant narratives in society and protests against the opening of centres for asylum seekers.

According to participants, the growing distrust of civil society had also affected freedom of association in general. Increased questioning of the legitimacy of civil society organisations’ (CSOs) actions had notably taken the form of repeated pressure for transparency. There was also a fear that a legislative proposal on the foreign funding of CSOs could be revived in Parliament following the European Commission’s proposal on the Defence of Democracy package. In addition, a participant explained that some banks had implemented anti-terrorism legislation in an overzealous way, refusing to allow some Muslim CSOs to open bank accounts. The Dutch authorities explained that they were aiming for more transparency to address the phenomenon of non-illegal, but nevertheless problematic, foreign influence through funding. It was also feared that the result of the 2023 general election and the overall drift towards the more conservative end of the political spectrum would affect the traditionally good access that CSOs had had to consultations with the government and with Parliament. One participant considered that a draft law aimed at restricting CSOs’ abilities to conduct legal class actions had been an attempt to limit their action against the State in the area of climate responsibility. Access to funding was also considered at risk, with the prospect of a radical change to the traditional Dutch approach to development cooperation, which had until now provided staunch support for international solidarity and human rights defenders worldwide.