D66 Political debate seminar I: “Combatting Terrorism and Radicalisation: Is Safety makeable, and Security feasible?”
March 27, 2015, 20:00 Delft, the Netherlands
This evening is organised as by the Dutch political party Democrats ’66 (D66; similar to UK’s LibDems) in the university city of Delft in the Netherlands, together with D66’s theme working groups on Social Liberalism, Democracy and Rule of Law, and Security and Justice.
I have been invited by Bas Wallage, chair of D66’s theme working group Democracy and Rule of Law (www.baswallage.nl).
Location: kept confidential in advance due to security considerations; it has been held at a restaurant in Delft’s old city centre.
More information is available at https://democratie.d66.nl/2015/02/26/politiek-cafe-veiligheid-maakbaar/.
Topic of my Introductory speech (15-20 min.): Terrorism definitions and anti-terror policies in the Netherlands, Europe and elsewhere: dilemmas, criticisms and recommendations (text or powerpoint of the presentation will be available at a later date)
It concerns an interactive evening with the audience, about the tensions between counter-terrorism and rule of law, with the following statements for debate:
Even the glorification of terrorism falls under freedom of expression.
Yes, if limited by other basic rights * (my argument)
Education has a role in countering radicalisation.
Yes, provided that it is clearly defined (radicalism, terrorism) * (ibid)
Society has a duty to re-integrate Dutch citizens who have fought in the Syrian Civil War.
Yes, provided pluralistic integration within a rule of law * (ibid)
*: Instead of taking away passports – but: human rights are only truly universal if they also apply to stateless persons (“bed, bath & bread” – and jobs & a social safety net)
Summary description of the debate’s theme (by the organiser, translated by me)
Combating terrorism in the light of various developments is a topical theme (IS / Foreign rebel fighters in the Syrian Civil War, attack on Charlie Hebdo, etc.). Thus municipalities struggle (on how) to deal with young people who may become radicalized. In the framework of counter-terrorism, there are various instruments available. In the past years, criminal law in this area has greatly expanded, as a result of which preparations toward terrorism or participation in foreign wars as such can be punished (more heavily). Also beyond making such preparatory acts punishable offenses, Various measures are being used or contemplated, such as the option to taking away the passports of the suspects. Many such measures affect in a sense the basics of the rule of law, i.e. the basics rights as enshrined in law. For example, a Dutch mayor may on the indication (urgent recommendation) of the AIVD (General Intelligence and Security Agency) revoke a passport. The mayor is here (politically, legally) responsible, but does not and cannot (is not allowed to) know on what the AIVD bases its indication on. Adequate legal protection for the suspect(s) is also clearly lacking here.
Combatting terrorism is accompanied by constitutional-judicial tensions and challenges, as the short description above shows. What “price” (in this area) do we want for safety and security to pay in this regard?
D66 Political debate seminar II: ‘D-Café’ on “The Jihadist and his/her Environment”
April 29, 2015, 20:00 Utrecht, the Netherlands
This evening is organised as by the Dutch political party Democrats ’66 (D66; similar to UK’s LibDems) in the university city of Utrecht in the Netherlands, together with (amongst others) D66’s local theme working group on Security and Justice.
Location: Louis Hartlooper Complex (Tolsteegbrug 1).
Panel members:
Caspar ten Dam – Conflict analyst, Leiden University
Yucel Aydemir – Chairman Ulu Mosque (in the end, he had to cancel)
Anne-Marijke Podt – Elected municipal-council member (local parliamentarian) for D66 Utrecht
Moderator: Dirk-Jan van Vliet – member Van Mierlo Association (D66’s think tank) & board member D66 Utrecht
Organiser: Jeroen van Houwelingen, board member D66 Utrecht on debates & activities (he has invited me, on Bas Wallage’s suggestion – see the D66 political debate seminar in Delft on 27 March 2015)
More information can be found at https://utrecht.d66.nl/agenda/d-cafe-april-2015/.
Topic of my Introductory speech (10-15min.): Jihadism and Terrorism: definitions and anti- radicalisation and anti-terror policies in the Netherlands and the West (text or powerpoint of the presentation will be available at a later date). The following paragraphs concern some parts of my presentation.
Jihadism does not necessarily equal terrorism, although a jihadi typically is an extremist is often in terms of his or her objectives, and often a terrorist in terms of his or her violent means (i.e. lethal violence against civilians and other unarmed or practically defenseless people – see my definition of terrorism). Nevertheless, a jihadist is not always an extremist and terrorist. For example, my own definition of Jihadism as follows:
Jihadism: the ǰihād (“strive”, “effort”) to be a good Muslim and / or protect or spread the Islamic faith and umma (“people”, “community” of Islam) through non-violent or violent means; as an Islamic “holy war”, it may range from a (self) defense of one’s Muslim community to a propagation of Islam and a Caliphate or other kind of Islamic rule Involving terrorism.
But usually people regard and define jihadism as kind of Islamic war, struggle or other violence, such as terrorism. So in the explanatory memorandum of the Dutch government on the Temporary Administrative Law on counter-terrorism measures (version March 10, 2015) jihadism is defined as “the movement within political Islam that seeks through an armed struggle a worldwide rule of Islam and the re-establishment of an Islamic State” (p.5, footnote 1; translated from Dutch). This definition makes jihadism also equal to ‘caliphatism’. But from my perspective the establishment of an Islamic state is just one of the possible purposes of a jihadist.
The debate concerns an interactive evening with the audience, about the jihadist and his or her environment (family, friends, community etc.) and the roles each environment plays or may play in so-called radicalisation towards violent Islamism or Jihadism – or in efforts to counter such trends. This debate revolves around the following statements:
Modern democratic society has no good answer to extremism
My response: In principle, yes, provided we come up with clear definitions of terrorism, Jihadism and Extremism – and maintain abiding respect for democracy and rule of law even with strict anti-radicalisation and anti-terrorism measures.
Better education is not enough to prevent radicalisation.* The municipal council must do more.
My response: Yes, provided additional education stays focused on respect and pluralism. Law enforcement and other anti-radicalisation measures must stay focused on each individual case and not get lost in stigmatising generalisations regarding supposed extremism-and-terrorism tendencies and actions among and by Muslims.
Too easily and simplistically, the immediate vicinity of jihadists (friends, family, etc.) is held responsible for radicalisation in order to counter and prevent radicalisation.
My response: Yes, but local communities still have a responsibility to promote tolerance and pluralism and condemn and discourage extremism.*
*: Society and politics have no good answers to radicalism or rather extremism of any kind, not just Islamic varieties – think of Neonazi and other extreme rightwing violence -as long as there are no good, workable, logical and consensual definitions of extremism, radicalism, jihadism and terrorism. What are we actually talking about when we use these terms?