Racism and Extremism Monitor Eight Report edited by Jaap van Donselaar and Peter R. Rodrigues Anne Frank Stichting / Research and Documentation Leiden University / Department of Public Administration Translated by Nancy Forest-Flier © Anne Frank Stichting / Leiden University, 2008 Contents 1 Introduction 2 Racial violence and violence incited by the extreme right in 2007 Willem Wagenaar and Jaap van Donselaar 2.1 Definitions and scope 2.2 Brief historical sketch 2.3 Data collection 2.4 Nature and scope of incidents in 2007 2.5 Trends in 2007 2.6 Conclusion 3 Extreme right-wing formations Willem Wagenaar and Jaap van Donselaar 3.1 Overview of 2007-2008 3.2 Emergence of right-wing extremist street activism 3.3 The "Lonsdale problem" 3.4 Decline of right-wing extremist parties 3.5 Conclusion 4 Grey Wolves in the Netherlands Jaap Tanja 4.1 Introduction 4.2 History and ideology in a nutshell 4.3 Organisational formation in the Netherlands 4.4 Public perception 4.5 Grey Wolves in the news media, 2003-2008 4.6 A few observations 4.7 Conclusion 5 Demonstrations by right-wing extremist groups in the Netherlands and Germany Jan-Peter Loof 5.1 Introduction 5.2 Freedom to demonstrate: the legal framework in the Netherlands 5.3 A few practical questions and case law from recent years 5.4 Demonstrations by right-wing extremist groups in Germany 5.5 Conclusion 6 How broad? A close look at counterterrorism and radicalisation policy Bob de Graaff 6.1 A question of ethics 6.2 How far do we want to go? 6.3 Lacking distinguishing capacity 6.4 Effects 6.5 Conclusion 7 Response to extremism in the Rotterdam region Sara Grunenberg and Rita Schriemer 7.1 National government on radicalisation 7.2 Spotting radicalisation: a job for the city and the police 7.3 Combating radicalisation 7.4 A glance at radicalisation in Rotterdam 7.5 Striking a balance 7.6 Conclusion 8 The extreme right and discriminatory identity of the PVV Marija Davidović, Jaap van Donselaar, Peter R. Rodrigues and Willem Wagenaar 8.1 A close look at the PVV 8.2 The PVV as a right-wing extremist group 8.3 The PVV and discrimination prohibitions 8.4 Conclusion 9 Investigation and prosecution in 2007 Marija Davidović and Peter R. Rodrigues 9.1 Freedom of expression 9.2 Legislation 9.3 Official instructions 9.4 National Expertise Centre for Diversity 9.5 Police statistics 9.6 National Expertise Centre for Discrimination 9.7 Conclusion 10 Case law on racism and extremism in 2007 Peter R. Rodrigues 10.1 Obstacles to lodging complaints 10.2 Hate speech 10.3 Crimes of exclusion 10.4 Criminal offences aggravated by discriminatory behaviour 10.5 Conclusion 11 Deradicalisation of right-wing radicals and Islamic radicals Froukje Demant, Marieke Slootman, Frank Buijs and Jean Tillie 11.1 Describing deradicalisation 11.2 Deradicalisation programmes for right-wing radicals 11.3 Deradicalisation programmes for Islamic radicals 11.4 Conclusion 12 Concluding remarks | Jaap van Donselaar and Peter R. Rodrigues Appendix 1 About the authors About the Racism & Extremism Monitor project 1 Introduction Jaap van Donselaar and Peter R. Rodrigues Pim Fortuyn’s famous slogan "I say what I think" has gained wide currency in recent years, but it has also led to fierce discussions about the limits of freedom of speech. In early 2006, during the worldwide uproar over the Danish "Mohammed cartoons," MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali of the VVD (People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy) came out in favour of "the right to offend."1 One of the Danish cartoons showed the prophet Mohammed wearing a turban in the shape of a bomb with a lit fuse. This cartoon was prominently featured in Geert Wilders’s 2008 film Fitna, which also led to heated discussions about where to draw the line when it comes to freedom of speech. It is obvious that those boundaries have shifted and that there is much more room to speak one’s mind than there used to be. A striking case in point is the commotion caused by the May 2008 police raid on the Dutch cartoonist "Gregorius Nekschot," who has been taking aim at Islam for several years. The arrest of the cartoonist, who was suspected of violating the discrimination prohibitions, aroused great public and political indignation. Political cartoons should be permitted, it was widely argued, regardless of their content. The question of where the borders of free speech ought to be drawn was relegated to the background. However, the argument that freedom of speech ends where inciting violence begins has been put forward more frequently in debates these past years. But others argue that a great deal of harm can be done even without inciting to violence, since a more liberal freedom of speech and expression influences the prevalence of intolerance and discrimination. Those who hold this view cite a relatively high level of anti-Islamic sentiment in the Netherlands. Polls also show that more than half the Dutch, non-Islamic, school-going population between the ages of fourteen and sixteen have a negative attitude towards Muslims.2 One of the causes, according to this research, is the fostering of negative images: "negative stereotypes of Muslims and negative platitudes about Islam, negative comments about Muslims and Islam from parents or best friends, and the conviction that Muslims pose a threat to security all have a significant effect on this attitude." To what extent does a negative perception actually lead to discrimination? Although there are many scientific pitfalls involved in answering this question, we find it revealing that the complaints of discrimination lodged by Moroccans in particular are remarkably numerous, and that many researchers also explain this by pointing to negative perceptions.3 In addition, our own research conducted in conjunction with the 1 During a speech in Berlin on 9 February 2006, Hirsi Ali said, "I am here to defend the right to offend. It is my conviction that the vulnerable enterprise called democracy cannot exist without free expression, particularly in the media. Journalists must not forgo the obligation of free speech, which people in other hemispheres are denied. I am of the opinion that it was correct to publish the cartoons of Muhammad in Jyllands Posten and it was right to re-publish them in other papers across Europe." 2 H. Dekker, J. van der Noll & T. Capelos, Islamofobie onder jongeren en de achtergronden daarvan (Islamophobia among young people and the underlying background). Leiden: Leiden University 2007. 3 I. Boog, M. Coenders & W. Dinsbach, Kerncijfers 2007. Jaaroverzicht discriminatieklachten bij anti- discriminatie bureaus en meldpunten in Nederland (Key figures for 2007: Annual review of complaints of discrimination reported to anti-discrimination agencies and hotlines in the Netherlands). Rotterdam: Art.1, de landelijke vereniging ter voorkoming en bestrijding van discriminatie 2007 (National Association against Discrimination), p. 40. 1 Monitor project shows that the frequency with which Muslims are found to be the victims of racial violence is relatively high. The debates and issues briefly outlined above set the stage for this eighth report of the Racism & Extremism Monitor. As in earlier editions, our aim here is to investigate various forms of racism and extremism, and responses to these phenomena, and to report on them periodically, as well as on the aformentioned trends. First we will look at the phenomena themselves: How do racism and extremism manifest themselves in Dutch society? Here we can review different manifestations, such as politically organised racism, and forms of exclusion, such as discrimination in nightclubs. Some phenomena by their very nature are not limited to the territory of the Netherlands, such as hate speech on the internet. In these cases the extraterritorial context is also taken into account. One consistent aspect of Monitor research is the attempt to identify the various types of victims and perpetrators. They may be native Dutch as well as immigrants, with the latter being subdivided into the several ethnic minority groups. The responses to racism and extremism cover a wide spectrum, from educational to legal. Usually the nature of the response depends on the type of discrimination, the category of the victims and the background of the perpetrators. In addition, different responses can function in tandem or can even reinforce each other. The recurrent investigation of the phenomena, the victims, the perpetrators and the response serves several objectives. First, it is an attempt to contribute to a deeper understanding in the fight against racism, extremism and anti-Semitism. In addition, the fixed methodology and the periodicity of the research results in an accumulation of knowledge. Finally, it provides us with a picture of trends over the long term, and solutions for the future can be suggested based on experiences from the past. Twelve years ago, the Racism & Extremism Monitor research project was launched at Leiden University. The first report was published in 1997, and since then − as of December 2008 − eight general, comprehensive reports have been published. In addition, six "cahiers" have also been issued: smaller research reports on specific topics. All reports can be found on our website: www.monitorracisme.nl. As of the fourth report (2001), the Monitor project has been carried out jointly by Leiden University and the Anne Frank House.4 In the current − eighth − Monitor, special attention is paid to: • Racial and right-wing extremist violence in 2007. • Right-wing extremist groups. • Grey Wolves in the Netherlands. • Demonstrations by right-wing extremist groups in the Netherlands and Germany. • Counterterrorism and radicalisation policy. • Response to extremism in the Rotterdam region. • The extreme right and the discriminatory identity of the PVV.