The right to non-discrimination

Participants described a highly-developed system for reporting discrimination at national and local levels, building on a network of ombuds-institutions in most municipalities, independent public institutions, and a rich environment of CSOs active in all areas of discrimination. One participant explained that regular meetings took place in every region to bring together the public prosecutor dealing with discrimination, the police officer dealing with discrimination, and anti-discrimination support bodies. This helped with the prioritisation of – and follow-up to – discrimination cases. Despite these solid foundations, this participant explained that while around a fifth of the population had experienced discrimination, only a tiny percentage had lodged complaints. One participant advocated the introduction of specialised anti-discrimination inspectors in the police force, referring to examples in other EU Member States. Some participants explained that there was proof of ethnic profiling by the police, including border police. The childcare benefits scandal was also referred to: tens of thousands of families (often with low incomes or from ethnic minorities) had been subjected to false allegations of fraud based on an algorithm among other factors, employed by the tax administration. Data also showed that people of various ethnic and religious origins faced discrimination in employment, including in internships. One participant, however, referred to one good practice in that domain: a programme set up by the Ministry of Education to prevent discrimination in internships. Another participant pointed out that members of ethnic and religious minorities felt that, despite a solid legal framework for reporting discrimination, they were still marginalised in society because of the persistence of discriminatory attitudes in politics and society, exacerbated by the rise of a nativist discourse. Several participants described an increase in hate speech, including anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim rhetoric, and a polarisation of society on questions relating to ethnic and religious minorities, which had appeared even before the current conflict in the Middle East began. Members of both Jewish and Muslim communities feared for their safety, with – for example – members of the Jewish community being afraid to wear religious symbols in public. In a country with a strong tradition of freedom of speech, it was regrettable that the Netherlands did not yet have a law to combat hate speech and hate crime. On the other hand, participants underlined good practice in education, referring to work of the Slavery History Dialogue Group and school programmes on the history of the Jewish community, including the Holocaust. Despite the overall positive situation for women in Dutch society, one participant underlined the multiple forms of discrimination that could affect them, in particular women of different ethnic or religious backgrounds, and especially Muslim women. The participant regretted that the regulation on domestic work in the Netherlands did not provide labour rights to workers working less than four days in a private household. It was also underlined that despite adequate laws, the fight against domestic violence suffered from a lack of expertise and trained personal in the police and justice. However, one good practice mentioned was the existence of a prosecutor specialising in gender violence in one of the largest cities in the Netherlands; it was hoped that this practice would be expanded. The participants did regret the absence of mandatory gender mainstreaming in Dutch law-making. The Dutch authorities acknowledged the challenge of addressing the economic marginalisation of women, pointing to new legislation facilitating payroll transparency in companies and laying down quotas for women on company boards.

Although it had been the first country in the world to allow marriage for same sex couples, the Netherlands no longer appeared to be much of a frontrunner in protecting the rights of LGBTIQ+ people, according to one participant. They explained that, for the first time in two decades, acceptance of LGBTIQ+ people in Dutch society was no longer progressing, and had even regressed slightly. The participant considered it a warning sign that most political parties in the negotiations on a possible government coalition did not adhere to the Rainbow Ballot Box Agreement on LGBTIQ+ rights, illustrating a more general loss of support for the cause in the political parties represented in Parliament. More widely, LGBTIQ+ people, and in particular trans people, were being increasingly targeted by hate speech online and in the press. Seven out of ten LGBTIQ+ people had experienced verbal or physical threats – but reporting was low and only a few perpetrators were sentenced every year. Another participant expressed regret at the fact that Dutch criminal law on group insults contained no grounds referring to gender – thus limiting the protection offered to trans and intersex people in particular. Underlining the importance of awareness-raising, participants referred to the good example of “Purple Fridays” devoted to the acceptance of LGBTIQ+ students. One participant explained that people with disabilities were the second-largest group reporting discrimination to the relevant national and local bodies. Commenting on the fact that responsibility for providing care for people with disabilities had been assigned to local government, the participant observed that this was leading to discrepancies between regions in the Netherlands. They expressed regret at the absence of a solid programme for inclusive education in the country, which to their view could leave thousands of children with disabilities out of the education system. The point was made that people with disabilities were amongst the millions of people marginalised by overreliance on digital channels for communication in the area of banking and administration. One positive trend was welcomed, namely improvements made in the area of accessible voting for people with disabilities, contributing to better political representation. The creation of accessible ways for people with disabilities to use emergency numbers was also underlined.