Nothing less than colonialism. Lawyer Gerard Spong blames the court in The Hague for this. The judges recently ruled that the military police may consider ethnic characteristics, such as dark skin, when selecting travelers for an extra check. “Why is it that judges occasionally let people of color screw up? Then I think that comes down to an old colonial idea that colored people are less good than white people,” Spong said in conversation with the Surinamese migrant station Stanvaste Radio.
There are more similar reactions to this. “With this ruling, the court has cemented the idea that being Dutch also means being white,” Sinan Çankaya wrote. Driver Amma Asante spoke of a “racist government” in response to the verdict on the Nieuwwij website. An petition against ethnic profiling at the border has now been signed almost 16,000 times.
Ethnicity can be part of the risk profiles that the Marechaussee draws up to select people for the so-called ‘Mobile Surveillance Security checks’. These are aimed at travelers from countries that, like the Netherlands, are part of the European Schengen zone for free travel. Permanent border controls are prohibited within Schengen. That is why targeted checks are carried out, based on the risk profiles. This approach serves to combat illegal immigration, people smuggling and fraud with travel and identity documents. This authority is not intended to prevent criminal activities, such as drug smuggling.
Law enforcement
In recent years there has been a lot of fuss about ethnic profiling by the police. In preventive frisking, to detect weapons and drugs, people with dark skin are often chosen. The police have recognized that this leads to stigmatization and are taking action against it. In Amsterdam, civilian observers monitor police officers to make sure they are not guilty of ethnic profiling during searches.
The Marechaussee takes the position that ethnicity may be taken into account in the selection process when checking illegal immigration. A spokesperson previously gave the example of a man with a passport from an African country who travels to the Netherlands from another Schengen country. In addition to skin color, a risk profile may include wearing a suit that is two sizes too large and ‘walking fast’. “If we know that things are unsettled in a certain part of Africa, it can lead to someone posing as a businessman to enter the Netherlands with a false passport. If he also behaves nervously, then such a person can be taken out of line for a check,” said a spokesman for the Marechaussee at the time.
Read an earlier one here interview with Mpanzu Bamenga
One of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit was Mpanzu Bamenga from Eindhoven. This former councilor for D66 filed a complaint with the Marechaussee after he was removed from the queue at Eindhoven airport for a check. According to the summons of the plaintiffs, including Amnesty International and the Netherlands Jurists Committee for Human Rights (NJCM), the use of ethnicity as a selection criterion is contrary to the prohibition of discrimination. Their lawyers argued that in practice, despite the different selection criteria, ethnicity would always be the deciding factor in choosing someone for an audit. The court calls this indeed ‘conceivable’ in the judgment, but does not consider it a problem. “The fact that a certain selection indicator (…) is decisive at any time in deciding whether or not to make a selection for control does not make that indicator the only relevant or the most weighty one for that reason,” according to the court.
The plaintiffs argued that the Marechaussee could also carry out random checks. The court disagreed. It is not a reasonable alternative, according to the judges, because the Marechaussee would then be able to work ‘insufficiently information-driven’ and the effectiveness of supervision would ‘greatly reduce’.
Lawyer Spong pointed out at Stanvaste Radio that the judges in The Hague are based on the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This stipulates that ethnic profiling is allowed if there is an ‘objective justification’ for it. Spong said he does not agree with this part of the ECHR. As far as he is concerned, ethnic profiling is always out of the question.
Also read this opinion article: Many officers find ethnic profiling completely normal
According to professor of sociology of law Ashley Terlouw of Radboud University in Nijmegen, Spong’s position largely follows from international jurisprudence. She points out that European judges are not quick to consider that there is an objective justification for racial discrimination. She therefore believes that the Court of The Hague has come to the wrong conclusion.
“In the case of an attack in Germany, in which perpetrators with an Arab appearance are on the run, I can imagine something – for example, that the military police may then take ethnicity into account during the selection of travelers for a limited period. But structurally considering ethnicity seems to me to be contrary to the UN Convention against Racial Discrimination and all the ensuing legislation and jurisprudence,” she says.
Less effective
The professor acknowledges that a ban on ethnicity can make the work of the military police less effective. For example, if it is known that economic migrants from Nigeria regularly fly from Rome to Amsterdam, selecting for a dark appearance could lead to more arrests of unwanted foreigners. A non-discriminatory alternative, such as checking every fifth traveller, is then probably less effective. Terlouw: “That may be so. But I still don’t think that’s a justification for structurally removing dark people from the queue.” There are also many dark-skinned EU citizens. This has a very stigmatizing effect on them,” says Terlouw. She also points out that this greater effectiveness does not always apply. “White people from Russia, for example, can also have incorrect papers. They may slip through it more easily now,” she says.
The claimants have announced an appeal.
A version of this article also appeared in NRC Handelsblad on 5 October 2021
A version of this article also appeared in NRC in the morning of October 5, 2021
Nothing less than colonialism. Lawyer Gerard Spong blames the court in The Hague for this. The judges recently ruled that the military police may consider ethnic characteristics, such as dark skin, when selecting travelers for an extra check. “Why is it that judges occasionally let people of color screw up? Then I think that comes down to an old colonial idea that colored people are less good than white people,” Spong said in conversation with the Surinamese migrant station Stanvaste Radio.
There are more similar reactions to this. “With this ruling, the court has cemented the idea that being Dutch also means being white,” Sinan Çankaya wrote. Driver Amma Asante spoke of a “racist government” in response to the verdict on the Nieuwwij website. An petition against ethnic profiling at the border has now been signed almost 16,000 times.
Ethnicity can be part of the risk profiles that the Marechaussee draws up to select people for the so-called ‘Mobile Surveillance Security checks’. These are aimed at travelers from countries that, like the Netherlands, are part of the European Schengen zone for free travel. Permanent border controls are prohibited within Schengen. That is why targeted checks are carried out, based on the risk profiles. This approach serves to combat illegal immigration, people smuggling and fraud with travel and identity documents. This authority is not intended to prevent criminal activities, such as drug smuggling.
Law enforcement
In recent years there has been a lot of fuss about ethnic profiling by the police. In preventive frisking, to detect weapons and drugs, people with dark skin are often chosen. The police have recognized that this leads to stigmatization and are taking action against it. In Amsterdam, civilian observers monitor police officers to make sure they are not guilty of ethnic profiling during searches.
The Marechaussee takes the position that ethnicity may be taken into account in the selection process when checking illegal immigration. A spokesperson previously gave the example of a man with a passport from an African country who travels to the Netherlands from another Schengen country. In addition to skin color, a risk profile may include wearing a suit that is two sizes too large and ‘walking fast’. “If we know that things are unsettled in a certain part of Africa, it can lead to someone posing as a businessman to enter the Netherlands with a false passport. If he also behaves nervously, then such a person can be taken out of line for a check,” said a spokesman for the Marechaussee at the time.
Read an earlier one here interview with Mpanzu Bamenga
One of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit was Mpanzu Bamenga from Eindhoven. This former councilor for D66 filed a complaint with the Marechaussee after he was removed from the queue at Eindhoven airport for a check. According to the summons of the plaintiffs, including Amnesty International and the Netherlands Jurists Committee for Human Rights (NJCM), the use of ethnicity as a selection criterion is contrary to the prohibition of discrimination. Their lawyers argued that in practice, despite the different selection criteria, ethnicity would always be the deciding factor in choosing someone for an audit. The court calls this indeed ‘conceivable’ in the judgment, but does not consider it a problem. “The fact that a certain selection indicator (…) is decisive at any time in deciding whether or not to make a selection for control does not make that indicator the only relevant or the most weighty one for that reason,” according to the court.
The plaintiffs argued that the Marechaussee could also carry out random checks. The court disagreed. It is not a reasonable alternative, according to the judges, because the Marechaussee would then be able to work ‘insufficiently information-driven’ and the effectiveness of supervision would ‘greatly reduce’.
Lawyer Spong pointed out at Stanvaste Radio that the judges in The Hague are based on the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This stipulates that ethnic profiling is allowed if there is an ‘objective justification’ for it. Spong said he does not agree with this part of the ECHR. As far as he is concerned, ethnic profiling is always out of the question.
Also read this opinion article: Many officers find ethnic profiling completely normal
According to professor of sociology of law Ashley Terlouw of Radboud University in Nijmegen, Spong’s position largely follows from international jurisprudence. She points out that European judges are not quick to consider that there is an objective justification for racial discrimination. She therefore believes that the Court of The Hague has come to the wrong conclusion.
“In the case of an attack in Germany, in which perpetrators with an Arab appearance are on the run, I can imagine something – for example, that the military police may then take ethnicity into account during the selection of travelers for a limited period. But structurally considering ethnicity seems to me to be contrary to the UN Convention against Racial Discrimination and all the ensuing legislation and jurisprudence,” she says.
Less effective
The professor acknowledges that a ban on ethnicity can make the work of the military police less effective. For example, if it is known that economic migrants from Nigeria regularly fly from Rome to Amsterdam, selecting for a dark appearance could lead to more arrests of unwanted foreigners. A non-discriminatory alternative, such as checking every fifth traveller, is then probably less effective. Terlouw: “That may be so. But I still don’t think that’s a justification for structurally removing dark people from the queue.” There are also many dark-skinned EU citizens. This has a very stigmatizing effect on them,” says Terlouw. She also points out that this greater effectiveness does not always apply. “White people from Russia, for example, can also have incorrect papers. They may slip through it more easily now,” she says.
The claimants have announced an appeal.
A version of this article also appeared in NRC Handelsblad on 5 October 2021
A version of this article also appeared in NRC in the morning of October 5, 2021
Nothing less than colonialism. Lawyer Gerard Spong blames the court in The Hague for this. The judges recently ruled that the military police may consider ethnic characteristics, such as dark skin, when selecting travelers for an extra check. “Why is it that judges occasionally let people of color screw up? Then I think that comes down to an old colonial idea that colored people are less good than white people,” Spong said in conversation with the Surinamese migrant station Stanvaste Radio.
There are more similar reactions to this. “With this ruling, the court has cemented the idea that being Dutch also means being white,” Sinan Çankaya wrote. Driver Amma Asante spoke of a “racist government” in response to the verdict on the Nieuwwij website. An petition against ethnic profiling at the border has now been signed almost 16,000 times.
Ethnicity can be part of the risk profiles that the Marechaussee draws up to select people for the so-called ‘Mobile Surveillance Security checks’. These are aimed at travelers from countries that, like the Netherlands, are part of the European Schengen zone for free travel. Permanent border controls are prohibited within Schengen. That is why targeted checks are carried out, based on the risk profiles. This approach serves to combat illegal immigration, people smuggling and fraud with travel and identity documents. This authority is not intended to prevent criminal activities, such as drug smuggling.
Law enforcement
In recent years there has been a lot of fuss about ethnic profiling by the police. In preventive frisking, to detect weapons and drugs, people with dark skin are often chosen. The police have recognized that this leads to stigmatization and are taking action against it. In Amsterdam, civilian observers monitor police officers to make sure they are not guilty of ethnic profiling during searches.
The Marechaussee takes the position that ethnicity may be taken into account in the selection process when checking illegal immigration. A spokesperson previously gave the example of a man with a passport from an African country who travels to the Netherlands from another Schengen country. In addition to skin color, a risk profile may include wearing a suit that is two sizes too large and ‘walking fast’. “If we know that things are unsettled in a certain part of Africa, it can lead to someone posing as a businessman to enter the Netherlands with a false passport. If he also behaves nervously, then such a person can be taken out of line for a check,” said a spokesman for the Marechaussee at the time.
Read an earlier one here interview with Mpanzu Bamenga
One of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit was Mpanzu Bamenga from Eindhoven. This former councilor for D66 filed a complaint with the Marechaussee after he was removed from the queue at Eindhoven airport for a check. According to the summons of the plaintiffs, including Amnesty International and the Netherlands Jurists Committee for Human Rights (NJCM), the use of ethnicity as a selection criterion is contrary to the prohibition of discrimination. Their lawyers argued that in practice, despite the different selection criteria, ethnicity would always be the deciding factor in choosing someone for an audit. The court calls this indeed ‘conceivable’ in the judgment, but does not consider it a problem. “The fact that a certain selection indicator (…) is decisive at any time in deciding whether or not to make a selection for control does not make that indicator the only relevant or the most weighty one for that reason,” according to the court.
The plaintiffs argued that the Marechaussee could also carry out random checks. The court disagreed. It is not a reasonable alternative, according to the judges, because the Marechaussee would then be able to work ‘insufficiently information-driven’ and the effectiveness of supervision would ‘greatly reduce’.
Lawyer Spong pointed out at Stanvaste Radio that the judges in The Hague are based on the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This stipulates that ethnic profiling is allowed if there is an ‘objective justification’ for it. Spong said he does not agree with this part of the ECHR. As far as he is concerned, ethnic profiling is always out of the question.
Also read this opinion article: Many officers find ethnic profiling completely normal
According to professor of sociology of law Ashley Terlouw of Radboud University in Nijmegen, Spong’s position largely follows from international jurisprudence. She points out that European judges are not quick to consider that there is an objective justification for racial discrimination. She therefore believes that the Court of The Hague has come to the wrong conclusion.
“In the case of an attack in Germany, in which perpetrators with an Arab appearance are on the run, I can imagine something – for example, that the military police may then take ethnicity into account during the selection of travelers for a limited period. But structurally considering ethnicity seems to me to be contrary to the UN Convention against Racial Discrimination and all the ensuing legislation and jurisprudence,” she says.
Less effective
The professor acknowledges that a ban on ethnicity can make the work of the military police less effective. For example, if it is known that economic migrants from Nigeria regularly fly from Rome to Amsterdam, selecting for a dark appearance could lead to more arrests of unwanted foreigners. A non-discriminatory alternative, such as checking every fifth traveller, is then probably less effective. Terlouw: “That may be so. But I still don’t think that’s a justification for structurally removing dark people from the queue.” There are also many dark-skinned EU citizens. This has a very stigmatizing effect on them,” says Terlouw. She also points out that this greater effectiveness does not always apply. “White people from Russia, for example, can also have incorrect papers. They may slip through it more easily now,” she says.
The claimants have announced an appeal.
A version of this article also appeared in NRC Handelsblad on 5 October 2021
A version of this article also appeared in NRC in the morning of October 5, 2021
Nothing less than colonialism. Lawyer Gerard Spong blames the court in The Hague for this. The judges recently ruled that the military police may consider ethnic characteristics, such as dark skin, when selecting travelers for an extra check. “Why is it that judges occasionally let people of color screw up? Then I think that comes down to an old colonial idea that colored people are less good than white people,” Spong said in conversation with the Surinamese migrant station Stanvaste Radio.
There are more similar reactions to this. “With this ruling, the court has cemented the idea that being Dutch also means being white,” Sinan Çankaya wrote. Driver Amma Asante spoke of a “racist government” in response to the verdict on the Nieuwwij website. An petition against ethnic profiling at the border has now been signed almost 16,000 times.
Ethnicity can be part of the risk profiles that the Marechaussee draws up to select people for the so-called ‘Mobile Surveillance Security checks’. These are aimed at travelers from countries that, like the Netherlands, are part of the European Schengen zone for free travel. Permanent border controls are prohibited within Schengen. That is why targeted checks are carried out, based on the risk profiles. This approach serves to combat illegal immigration, people smuggling and fraud with travel and identity documents. This authority is not intended to prevent criminal activities, such as drug smuggling.
Law enforcement
In recent years there has been a lot of fuss about ethnic profiling by the police. In preventive frisking, to detect weapons and drugs, people with dark skin are often chosen. The police have recognized that this leads to stigmatization and are taking action against it. In Amsterdam, civilian observers monitor police officers to make sure they are not guilty of ethnic profiling during searches.
The Marechaussee takes the position that ethnicity may be taken into account in the selection process when checking illegal immigration. A spokesperson previously gave the example of a man with a passport from an African country who travels to the Netherlands from another Schengen country. In addition to skin color, a risk profile may include wearing a suit that is two sizes too large and ‘walking fast’. “If we know that things are unsettled in a certain part of Africa, it can lead to someone posing as a businessman to enter the Netherlands with a false passport. If he also behaves nervously, then such a person can be taken out of line for a check,” said a spokesman for the Marechaussee at the time.
Read an earlier one here interview with Mpanzu Bamenga
One of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit was Mpanzu Bamenga from Eindhoven. This former councilor for D66 filed a complaint with the Marechaussee after he was removed from the queue at Eindhoven airport for a check. According to the summons of the plaintiffs, including Amnesty International and the Netherlands Jurists Committee for Human Rights (NJCM), the use of ethnicity as a selection criterion is contrary to the prohibition of discrimination. Their lawyers argued that in practice, despite the different selection criteria, ethnicity would always be the deciding factor in choosing someone for an audit. The court calls this indeed ‘conceivable’ in the judgment, but does not consider it a problem. “The fact that a certain selection indicator (…) is decisive at any time in deciding whether or not to make a selection for control does not make that indicator the only relevant or the most weighty one for that reason,” according to the court.
The plaintiffs argued that the Marechaussee could also carry out random checks. The court disagreed. It is not a reasonable alternative, according to the judges, because the Marechaussee would then be able to work ‘insufficiently information-driven’ and the effectiveness of supervision would ‘greatly reduce’.
Lawyer Spong pointed out at Stanvaste Radio that the judges in The Hague are based on the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This stipulates that ethnic profiling is allowed if there is an ‘objective justification’ for it. Spong said he does not agree with this part of the ECHR. As far as he is concerned, ethnic profiling is always out of the question.
Also read this opinion article: Many officers find ethnic profiling completely normal
According to professor of sociology of law Ashley Terlouw of Radboud University in Nijmegen, Spong’s position largely follows from international jurisprudence. She points out that European judges are not quick to consider that there is an objective justification for racial discrimination. She therefore believes that the Court of The Hague has come to the wrong conclusion.
“In the case of an attack in Germany, in which perpetrators with an Arab appearance are on the run, I can imagine something – for example, that the military police may then take ethnicity into account during the selection of travelers for a limited period. But structurally considering ethnicity seems to me to be contrary to the UN Convention against Racial Discrimination and all the ensuing legislation and jurisprudence,” she says.
Less effective
The professor acknowledges that a ban on ethnicity can make the work of the military police less effective. For example, if it is known that economic migrants from Nigeria regularly fly from Rome to Amsterdam, selecting for a dark appearance could lead to more arrests of unwanted foreigners. A non-discriminatory alternative, such as checking every fifth traveller, is then probably less effective. Terlouw: “That may be so. But I still don’t think that’s a justification for structurally removing dark people from the queue.” There are also many dark-skinned EU citizens. This has a very stigmatizing effect on them,” says Terlouw. She also points out that this greater effectiveness does not always apply. “White people from Russia, for example, can also have incorrect papers. They may slip through it more easily now,” she says.
The claimants have announced an appeal.
A version of this article also appeared in NRC Handelsblad on 5 October 2021
A version of this article also appeared in NRC in the morning of October 5, 2021