The Senate debated on Tuesday, March 11, a legislative proposal from the House of Representatives to impose harsher penalties for so-called hate crimes, crimes stemming from discrimination. The bill was defended by the two proposers, Members of Parliament Timmermans (GroenLinks-PvdA) and Bikker (ChristenUnie). Minister Van Weel of Justice and Security acted as an advisor on behalf of the government. The Senate adopted the bill without a vote at the end of the debate.
On behalf of the members of the permanent Parliamentary Committee for Justice and Security, Senator Dittrich (D66), chairman of that committee, spoke. Only the PVV and the FVD factions had not joined his questions. According to Dittrich, hate and discrimination are major issues in all areas. Research shows that only one in five victims is willing to report discrimination. Therefore, crimes motivated by hate must be addressed more effectively. With this bill, it is established that the legislature finds these crimes so serious that penalties should be increased. Thus, hate crimes and their victims become visible in the criminal process. There is broad support for this in the House of Representatives and also here in the Senate, said Dittrich.
Senator Dittrich had several additional questions for the initiators and the minister. For example, about the difference between current practice and this bill. Currently, the Public Prosecutor must make the discrimination plausible; soon, the Public Prosecution Service will have to prove it legally and convincingly. What does this mean in practice? MP Timmermans answered that criminal law is not a solution to this social problem but an important statement from the legislature that explicitly sympathizes with the victims and explicitly distances itself from the perpetrators. According to Timmermans, the current practice - making it plausible - is already at the level of proof in many cases. The Public Prosecution Service does not expect cases to fail because of this. Furthermore, Dittrich wanted to know why age discrimination is not explicitly included. MP Bikker said that the initiators have aligned this bill with the way current practice works. Minister Van Weel endorsed the choice because the delimitation aligns with the groups that are now also included in the Constitution.
Dittrich further had questions about the implementation of the law, such as the necessary adjustments in ICT and registration systems. Bikker replied that the registration of these crimes is currently not always as good. The Public Prosecution Service and the police appear to register differently, with different definitions of hate crime. The initiators expect that the introduction of the aggravating factor with a uniform definition will improve this practice. The entire criminal justice chain will soon use the same definition. Minister Van Weel endorsed this. Only a one-time adjustment of the ICT systems is needed. After that, the same definition for these crimes will apply throughout the chain.