The Public Prosecution Service has dismissed a report of discrimination against columnist Ronald Plasterk. The report was made following a column that appeared in the newspaper on November 14, 2024. The Public Prosecution Service has assessed the report and the column and concludes that Plasterks statements are not criminal.
Discriminatory Statements
The impetus for his column was the events surrounding the Kristallnacht commemoration of 2024, which coincided with violent incidents during the football match between Ajax and the Israeli club Maccabi Tel Aviv. In his column, Plasterk writes that “The antisemitism that always lurks has flared up around this Kristallnacht.” He also states that “Dutch Muslims should take an example from Jews” and “It would be wise for Muslims to be inspired by the successes of their Jewish brothers and sisters and to draw from that.”
According to the person who filed the discrimination report, Plasterk is thereby promoting the view that Dutch Muslims are less successful than their Jewish fellow citizens and has made offensive statements.
Was there a case of group insult?
The Public Prosecution Service judges that the statement “it would be wise for Muslims to be inspired by the successes of their Jewish brothers and sisters and to draw from that” is not insulting enough on its own to qualify as a criminal group insult. Also, the implication that Muslims are less successful than Jewish fellow citizens is deemed by the Public Prosecution Service to be insufficiently offensive to conclude that the image of that group is being harmed.
Columnists Have Particularly Broad Freedom of Expression
The statement “The antisemitism that always lurks has flared up around this Kristallnacht. The presence of nearly a million Dutch people from Muslim countries will certainly be partly to blame for this” is considered by the Public Prosecution Service to be offensive. Subsequently, the Public Prosecution Service must assess whether the statement, in the context of the societal debate, is unnecessarily offensive. The Public Prosecution Service is of the opinion that this is not the case. Columnists enjoy a greater freedom of expression. This freedom of expression generally also applies to statements that may offend, shock, or disturb. Plasterk takes the accusation against Muslims as the impetus for his column but clarifies later in the column that he is referring to a minority of Muslims and that only a part of Islam is dangerous. He then reaches the point that Jews and Muslims “are from the same tribe.” This makes it so that, although the column begins with a statement that is offensive to Muslims, it later becomes clear that it is about a small part of the group. Therefore, the statement does not fall under criminal group insult.