Racism and Extremism Monitor Ninth Report Edited by Peter R. Rodrigues and Jaap van Donselaar Anne Frank Stichting / Research and Documentation Leiden University / Department of Public Administration Translated by Nancy Forest-Flier © Anne Frank Stichting / Leiden University, 2010 Contents 1 Introduction Peter R. Rodrigues and Jaap van Donselaar 2 Racial and right-wing extremist violence in 2009 Willem Wagenaar and Jaap van Donselaar 2.1 Definition and scope 2.2 Data collection 2.3 Nature and scale of incidents in 2009 2.3.1 Targeted graffiti 2.3.2 Threats 2.3.3 Confrontations 2.3.4 Vandalism 2.3.5 Arson 2.3.6 Assault 2.4 Trends 2.4.1 Sharp decline in incidence of violence 2.4.2 Perpetrators 2.4.3 Victims and targets 2.4.4 Possession of weapons 2.5 Conclusion 3 Right-wing extremist groups Willem Wagenaar 3.1 Overview, 2009-2010 3.1.1 Elections 3.1.2 Developments on the internet 3.1.3 The Lonsdale problem 3.2 Street activism 3.2.1 Netherlands People’s Union 3.2.2 National Socialist Action 3.2.3 Blood & Honour 3.2.4 National Youth Netherlands 3.2.5 Voorpost 3.2.6 Right-wing extremist street activism: a review 3.3 Border traffic 3.4 Conclusion 4 The right-wing extremist and discriminatory quality of the PVV Peter R. Rodrigues and Willem Wagenaar 4.1 The new extreme right 4.2 The international magnet effect 4.2.1 Connecting themes 4.2.2 Attracting and repelling 4.3 The case against Wilders 4.3.1 The complaint made to the court 4.3.2 The summons 4.3.3 International law 4.4 Conclusion 5 Islamic extremism in the Netherlands Ineke van der Valk 5.1 A political ideology 5.2 Networks 5.3 Muslim youth and their motives 5.4 Scale and scope 5.4.1 Municipalities 5.5 Ideology 5.6 Texts from the Hofstad group and the Piranha group 5.7 Conclusion 6 Islamic extremism in police practice Mark Dechesne and Jaap van Donselaar 6.1 Islamic extremism in a nutshell 6.2 Monitor study of Islamic extremism 6.3 Islamic extremism in 2009 6.3.1 Threats 6.3.2 Bomb scares 6.3.3 White powder letters 6.3.4 Assault 6.3.5 Possible indication of extremist violence 6.3.6 Missing identity documents 6.4 Trends: incidents over time 6.5 Conclusion 7 On gas chambers, Jewish Nazis and noses Evelien Gans 7.1 Introduction 7.2 The globalisation of the Israel-Palestine conflict 7.3 Anti-Semitism in the Netherlands after liberation 7.4 Secondary anti-Semitism 7.5 Philo-Semitism and red Jewish noses 7.6 Football hooliganism 7.7 The Jew as Nazi 7.8 The new Dutch and the Shoah 7.9 Conclusion 8 Antiziganism Marija Davidović and Peter R. Rodrigues 8.1 Current status, 2010 8.1.1 Registration 8.1.2 Education 8.1.3 Housing 8.2 Incidents and stumbling blocks 8.2.1 Heavy legal artillery 8.2.2 Statelessness 8.3 Relations with national and local governments 8.3.1 Frame Convention for the Protection of National Minorities 8.3.2 The Wisselgeld Project 8.4 Conclusion 9 The consequences of stigma Colette van Laar, Belle Derks and Naomi Ellemers 9.1 The consequences of stigma 9.2 Theoretical framework: social identity and stigma 9.3 The research results 9.3.1 The effects of integration on motivation and performance 9.3.2 The effects of protecting social identity on motivation 9.3.3 Social identity protection and the group 9.4 Conclusion 10 Anti-discrimination restrictions and criminal prosecution in 2009 Marija Davidović 10.1 Discrimination and the government 10.2 Laws and regulations 10.2.1 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination 10.2.2 Criminal law: anti-discrimination restrictions 10.2.3 Criminal law: Discrimination Instruction 10.3 Registration 10.3.1 Anti-discrimination services 10.3.2 Police: National Expertise Centre for Diversity 10.3.3 The Public Prosecution Service: National Expertise Centre for Discrimination 10.4 Statistics: National Police Services Agency 10.5 Statistics: Public Prosecution Service 10.5.1 Inflow 10.5.2 Settlement 10.5.3 Factors behind discriminatory offences 10.5.4 Grounds for discrimination 10.5.5 Suspects 10.6 Conclusion 11 Concluding remarks Peter R. Rodrigues and Jaap van Donselaar Appendix I Overview of anti-discrimination restrictions Appendix II List of abbreviations About the authors About the Racism & Extremism Monitor project 1 Introduction Peter R. Rodrigues and Jaap van Donselaar Should politicians who make statements about ethnic or religious minority groups be answerable before a judge? Or is such accountability exclusively a matter for public debate? The relevance of this question also applies to political cartoonists, columnists and cabaret artists, and it has to do with an important social principle: where does freedom of expression end and the prohibition on discrimination begin? This border is not static; it changes depending on the time, place and circumstances. In the Netherlands this collision of basic rights is playing a central role in the legal suit being brought against PVV leader Geert Wilders. The suit was ordered by the Amsterdam Court of Appeals in early 2010. This case is of great importance in determining where to draw the line between basic rights in the Netherlands, but it is not all-decisive. Another factor to be considered is that the Netherlands has committed itself to certain international human rights treaties, and that it must comply with the European Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights. Related to this discussion is the matter of searching for and then defining the border between victim and perpetrator in incidents involving racism and discrimination. In real-life situations the roles are easily reversed. Muslims can be victims of Islamophobic violence, but radical Muslims can also be the perpetrators of terrorist crimes. Sometimes right-wing extremist youths commit acts of violence because they themselves were once victims of violence at the hands of ethnic minorities. This double role is an especially salient feature in the aforementioned example of Geert Wilders. He is being accused of hate-mongering against Muslims, but he is also the victim of threats against his person that have required 24-hour security protection for years. It is partly because of the developments sketched above that this ninth Racism & Extremism Monitor focuses extra attention on victimhood and the possible role reversal that can occur in the case of perpetration. Another thread running through this Monitor is the collision between freedom of expression and the prohibition on discrimination. True to tradition, the aim of this Monitor is to follow and issue periodic reports on different forms of racism and the associated extremism and reactions to these phenomena. First we will look at the phenomena by themselves: how are racism and extremism manifested in Dutch society? This may involve looking at forms of expression, such as demonstrations, and at methods of exclusion, such as the use of violence. A fixed pattern in our Monitor research is the attempt to identify various kinds of victims and perpetrators as closely as possible. Perpetrators and victims can be found among the native Dutch as well as among ethnic minorities, and the latter can be divided into various minority groups. There is a range of responses to racism and extremism, including educational and juridical. Usually the nature of the response depends on the form of discrimination, the category of the victims and the background of the perpetrators. Some forms of response can function side by side, moreover, or can even reinforce each other. Conducting Monitor research and issuing periodic reports serves several purposes. First, it contributes to the insight being gained in the fight against racism, extremism and anti- Semitism. In addition, the fixed structure and the periodicity of the reports results in an accumulation of knowledge. Finally, an idea emerges of how things will develop over the long term, and suggestions are made for future solutions based on experiences from the past. 5 The Racism & Extremism Monitor research project was started at Leiden University.1 In 1997 the first report appeared, and so far − as of December 2010 − nine general, comprehensive reports have been published. Eight so-called ‘cahiers’ have also been issued: smaller research reports on specific topics. All the reports and cahiers can be found on our Racism & Extremism Monitor website.2 Since the fourth report (2001), the Monitor project has been conducted jointly by Leiden University and the Anne Frank House. In the current − ninth − Monitor, special attention is paid to: – racial violence and the extreme right; – right-wing extremist groups; – the extreme right and the discriminatory identity of the PVV; – Islamic radicalism in the Netherlands; – Islamic radicalism in police practice; – anti-Semitism; – antiziganism; – the consequences of stigma; – anti-discrimination restrictions. The Monitor project employs a broad working definition of racism, comprising anti- Semitism, extremism, xenophobia and Islamophobia. Discrimination on the grounds of nationality is also included, as is discrimination on the grounds of religion insofar as there is evidence of an ethnic component. This occurs, for example, in the case of personal spot checks carried out on the basis of a person’s ‘Islamic appearance’. Extremism is included in our research domain only if there is a connection with racism or interethnic relations. The Racism & Extremism Monitor is partly based on our own research. To a certain extent we are also dependent on data collected and analysed by others. Unfortunately, statistical data are not available across the entire expanse of the research field.