PAX works worldwide to promote peace and security, often in countries where democratic rights are under pressure. We see what happens there when the space for protest is restricted. It almost always starts the same way: by identifying critical voices. Those who demonstrate are registered, and those who are registered can be prosecuted, not for violence, but for their presence at a protest.
This development is not limited to authoritarian states far away from here. In Europe, too, we are seeing the right to demonstrate being eroded step by step. Together with some thirty organisations, we have already written that the Netherlands should not go down that path.
Anonymity may be necessary to demonstrate safely
For many people, covering their faces is not an attempt to conceal criminal acts, but a way to protect themselves. There can be many reasons for this. Someone may want to keep their work separate from their activism. Someone may be protesting against a foreign government and does not know how far its reach extends. Someone may not want to end up in the police system simply because they took to the streets for something they felt was important.
At a time when everyone has a camera in their pocket and images of demonstrations are easily posted online and used to identify people, anonymity is not a preference for some demonstrators, but a prerequisite for being able to participate at all. And this must always be possible. Demonstrating is a fundamental right in the Netherlands.
A general ban on face coverings therefore makes demonstrating less accessible and less safe for many people. The proposal affects precisely those people who want to exercise their democratic rights peacefully.
Existing legislation already offers sufficient possibilities
The Public Manifestations Act already gives mayors the power to impose a ban on face-covering clothing for each demonstration if this is necessary to prevent disorder. This proposal reverses that: from now on, the ban will apply as standard to all demonstrations, unless an exception is granted.
The burden of proof thus shifts entirely to the demonstrator. This is not a minor technical change; it is a fundamental reversal of the logic of the right to demonstrate, which by definition is not a favour granted by the government but a fundamental right that the government must protect.
It is not without reason that the Dutch Association of Mayors, the Association of Dutch Municipalities and the regional mayors have already announced their opposition to this bill. Organisations such as Amnesty International, the Scientific Research and Data Centre of the Dutch Government and the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights have also expressed extensive legal and human rights objections to this proposal. Anyone who sees how demonstration rights are being restricted worldwide knows that it rarely stops at just one measure.
A strong democratic constitutional state is a prerequisite for peace and security
Peace does not come about by itself, and certainly does not remain by itself. Peace and security are inextricably linked to a strong democratic constitutional state. Societies in which citizens can freely express their opinions are better able to resolve conflicts peacefully and maintain social cohesion. Undermining democratic rights leads to instability and polarisation. Protecting the right to demonstrate is therefore not an obstacle to security, but a prerequisite for it.
This proposal is part of a broader trend in which the right to demonstrate is coming under increasing pressure. The previous government already took steps to restrict the scope for protest. The incoming government must not continue along this path. At a time of international tensions and increasing polarisation, it is important that the Netherlands remains steadfast in its commitment to the principles of the democratic constitutional state.
We call on the Dutch government not to proceed with this proposal and to commit itself to protecting the right to demonstrate, the democratic rule of law and a safe Netherlands.
