The Gaza protests at the universities in Amsterdam and Utrecht are causing a stir this week. Protesters use violence and the police must intervene. The demonstrations raise many questions among readers. Human rights lawyer Jelle Klaas answers the best and most frequently asked questions.
Volg de ontwikkelingen rond de protesten in ons liveblog.
Mag je ergens demonstreren zonder daar toestemming voor te hebben?
“Ja. Je hebt nooit toestemming nodig om te demonstreren. Als dat wel zo zou zijn, dan zou de overheid kunnen kiezen om sommige protesten wel en andere niet toe te staan vanwege de inhoud. Dat zou neerkomen op censuur. Je hebt dus ook beslist geen vergunning nodig om te demonstreren. Je demonstratierecht is een recht, geen gunst.”
“Wel moet je volgens de wet de overheid eerst laten weten dat je gaat demonstreren, zodat zij dat protest vervolgens zo goed mogelijk kunnen faciliteren. Als jij op een plein voor Palestina gaat demonstreren en op datzelfde plein is al een demonstratie voor Israël aangemeld, dan is het handig voor de overheid om dat vooraf te weten. Dan kunnen ze proberen ervoor te zorgen dat beide protesten veilig kunnen plaatsvinden.”
“Maar: als je een protest niet aanmeldt, dan is dat volgens de rechtspraak en de Nationale ombudsman niet genoeg reden voor de overheid om een protest te mogen beëindigen.”
Who is liable for the damage or costs of a demonstration?
“The organization of a protest cannot be held liable for the damage or costs of a protest. They are only the ones who organize the protest and inform the municipality. If, for example, some miscreants come along and break windows, you as an organization can not to be held accountable.”
“This is also not the case for the clean-up costs. Otherwise, the pressure of the risk of compensation could prevent people from exercising their fundamental right. If someone causes damage, for example by breaking a window, that person could be liable for it themselves. be asked.”
Why is a declaration necessary to stop a demonstration?
“A demonstration can only be stopped by the authorities if it is necessary for one of the goal criteria mentioned in the law. One of those goal criteria is the prevention of disorder. Students protesting and camping on their own university grounds does not necessarily result in disorder. .”
“Criminal behavior of the demonstrators can be an indicator of disorder, for example if there is a breach of the peace or trespassing on the premises. The university must first indicate that they want an end to the protest on their own grounds.”
“Criminal conduct does not automatically justify limiting or banning a demonstration. Limiting or ending a demonstration must still be necessary and proportionate to prevent or combat disorder. If a less drastic measure is possible to achieve the same goal, it must always be chosen.”
“In short: a declaration is not necessary to stop a demonstration, but in some situations it can be an indicator of disorder. If this is the case – in the sense of criminal behavior – then it must still be assessed whether ending the demonstration is necessary and proportionate, or whether another less drastic measure is possible.”
Does erecting barricades and occupying buildings fall under the right to demonstrate?
“Yes. According to the European Court of Human Rights, all kinds of peaceful protests, including blockades and occupations, still fall under the right to demonstrate. However, you can violate the laws as soon as you engage in civil disobedience, while at the same time you still have the protection of the right to demonstrate.”
Which of the two carries more weight: the right to demonstrate or breaking the law?
“During a peaceful everyday demonstration, a number of rules are usually broken. Consider walking through the red light with everyone, making the road impassable for a while during the protest. Because the aim is to exercise your fundamental right, you will not receive a fine. In that case, the right to demonstrate indeed takes precedence over the commission of certain, smaller criminal offenses.”
“It is up to demonstrators to choose how they want to demonstrate. But if the chosen means of demonstrating is breaking the law – think of the occupation of a highway – then we call that ‘civil disobedience’.”
“It then becomes a bit more complicated (legally speaking), because you are both breaking the law and exercising the right to demonstrate. The two are then side by side. Then the rights are weighed against each other. You are breaking the law, so you can be prosecuted. and be punished. But the government must act with restraint because you are doing this in the exercise of a fundamental right.”
“After all, intervention is only allowed if it is necessary and proportionate. Simply using force or clearing a blockade just because the law is being broken is not possible. Even afterwards, when imposing a sentence, the reason why you violated the law must be taken into account. and that this was for a higher social purpose and in the context of the implementation of a fundamental right.”
“If you commit criminal offenses that do not fall within the framework of the right to demonstrate – such as assaulting someone or stealing something – then you can of course also be prosecuted for this as an individual. Then it does not matter whether you do it at a demonstration or in a shopping street during a shopping evening. Then you are not protected by the right to demonstrate.”
Wie is Jelle Klaas?
Jelle Klaas is uitvoerend directeur en mensenrechtenadvocaat bij stichting en advocatenkantoor PILP. Hij is één van de oprichters van PILP en heeft jarenlange ervaring in procederen voor mensenrechten in Nederland.
Om een vraag te kunnen stellen dien je in te loggen. Log in of maak binnen 1 minuut jouw gratis account aan.
Direct inloggen
Gratis account aanmaken
Tags: demonstrate pays damage
-
