The Foundation wants the police to stop unannounced home visits to peaceful XR demonstrators. According to XR, the police should also not process any data from these visits in their systems. This would constitute too great an infringement on the personal privacy of peaceful demonstrators. The police are trying to discourage participation in demonstrations with these intimidating visits in the eyes of XR and would be making an unlawful infringement on the right to demonstrate, said the Foundations lawyer.

Important Method

A general ban on home visits leads to an excessively far-reaching restriction on the polices exercise of authority and creates confusion and arbitrariness in daily practice, said the state attorney on behalf of the police during the oral hearing of the preliminary injunction.

A visit to someones home is an important method to obtain more specific information about a demonstration in a conversation with someone from the organization. This concerns questions such as how many people will participate in a demonstration, how long the demonstration will last, and how it will be demonstrated.

In this way, the police try to manage the demonstration and prevent possible disturbances of public order and criminal offenses. Such a conversation is certainly not aimed at deterring people from participating in a demonstration. The fact that someone participates in a demonstration is never the reason for a visit to the door, said the state attorney during the session.

Practically Unfeasible

The requested bans are also unclear and arbitrary according to the state attorney and therefore practically unfeasible. The ban would only apply to peaceful XR demonstrators while it is not always clear who they are and who organizes them. This was contested by the lawyer of XR. The spokespersons of XR have regular and good contact with both municipalities and police in the lead-up to XR demonstrations. Therefore, it is really not necessary for a neighborhood officer to visit an XR demonstrator unannounced at home.

The police receive signals and reports throughout the day. We respond to them because we have the expensive duty to keep society safe. We do not just go to peoples homes, Yvonne responded. The question of why someone is demonstrating is never the reason for a home visit. We are concerned with ensuring the safety of demonstrations, and that is really different from just visiting people. We are also aware that a visit can be experienced as intrusive. Every contact must be well prepared and it must also be clearly indicated why we are ringing the doorbell.

It also concerned the term peaceful demonstrator used by XR. In the eyes of the state attorney, this is a somewhat unclear characterization. In any case, the plaintiff seems to have a different interpretation of the concept of peaceful than the police. A demonstration can be peaceful in itself, while the individual demonstrator commits criminal offenses or disturbs public order.

Adjusted Action Framework

The recent attention to so-called home visits has prompted the force to think about the way we engage with people. Yvonne: When do you visit someone, when do you not? Do you go in uniform or in civilian clothes? What questions do you ask? And which do you not? When we visit people at home, we must do so in a good and professional manner.

For this reason, the (internal) Action Framework for Demonstrations will be expanded to include the subject Contact with citizens in preparation for a demonstration. In the expansion, police officers will find information about the task and role of the police before and during demonstrations. The addition will primarily focus on the method of information gathering.

The lawyer for XR reacted with surprise at the expansion of these guidelines. The judge saw this as an opportunity for a nice solution without having to issue a ruling. Police chief Yvonne Hondema is happy to share the addition to the action framework with XR. Based on this handout, the judge proposed a plan of action. Sit down together to see if the adjusted action framework provides enough openings to withdraw the case. Both parties will soon enter into discussions.

The judge has postponed the case until May 31.