In the Netherlands, Quinsy Gario and his ilk seem to be following the path of the UK. The other extreme an innovation-driven development engine is to avoid discussions about racism and social exclusion and to dismiss all expressions that seem racist as incidents. This seems to be the standard reaction in the Netherlands.
Photo: Onno Hansen
Photo: Onno Hansen
What does the law say?
When we look at the legal framework of racism, we first come to Article 1 of the Constitution :
All persons in the Netherlands shall be treat equally in equal circumstances. Discrimination on the grounds of religion, belief, political opinion, race, gender or on any other grounds whatsoever shall not be permitt.
Elaborations of this article follow in the and in paragraphs of Article 137 of the Western Criminal Code . In short: people may not be insult on the basis of their ethnic background, no incitement to hatr or violence may be made against them, no insulting texts or objects may be distribut china numbers and these activities may not be support either. In the event that someone invokes freom of expression, it must be consider what weighs more heavily: this fundamental right or the paragraphs of Article 137? In practice, the paragraphs of
Article 137 usually take precence
The Black Pete discussion show how little support the law offers when we want to clarify what racist being reachable via whatsapp is easy for daily contact expressions are and what are not. For example, in the first instance the Amsterdam District Court determin that Black Pete is ‘a negative stereotyping of black people’. And: ‘Because there is a certain degree of seriousness, this also leads to an infringement of privacy.’ De Snijtafel analyses this ruling.
