Opinion

Upon the revelation of the actions taken by the Dutch tax authority, the Dutch government hastily labeled it a scandal. However, according to the United Nations, the government’s actions amount to a crime against humanity, involving persecution against identifiable groups based on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, or gender grounds. The crimes include enforced disappearance of persons, apartheid, and other inhumane acts intentionally causing great suffering or serious injury to the body or mental health.

The Dutch Supreme Court’s apology for this crime is perceived as an insult to the victims and the Dutch population at large. The Public Prosecution Service’s refusal to investigate the use of a discriminatory algorithm by tax authorities, leading to the destruction of tens of thousands of families’ lives based on false accusations, sends a clear message of the persistence of corruption, racism, and racial injustice.

However, this refusal was expected, reflecting the decision-makers’ desire to maintain control and power over the people. Consequently, they resist stripping government employees of their immunity and prosecuting them for this crime. The claim of the Netherlands being a democracy is challenged, as the essential elements of democracy, such as equality, accountability, control of abuse of power, transparency, human rights, and the rule of law, are excluded.

The Dutch Media Authority’s unwritten rule further restricts the dissemination of sensitive information about the misconduct of Dutch officials without prior consent. Questions about the creation of the discriminatory algorithm, the Prime Minister’s awareness, the extent of government employee involvement, the program’s development and costs, its usage across ministries, and the existence of similar programs are unanswered.

The victims of this crime, suffering from broken families, psychological trauma, and even deaths, face a lack of legal safeguards and accountability measures for future violations. The authorities in the Netherlands remain unresponsive to inquiries and reluctant to provide necessary evidence.

In a distinct Dutch approach, human rights organizations are allowed to operate in the country but are restricted from conducting field investigations. Financial support is granted annually, contingent on avoiding such investigations. Victims are required to report violations to the parties responsible, creating a flawed system where perpetrators act as judges, juries, and executioners. This has led to prolonged suffering for victims until the situation escalated beyond the control of Dutch tax authorities.

In this authoritarian democracy, where even Dutch lawyers fear the Dutch Police State, accountability and transparency seem elusive, painting a concerning picture of the state of affairs within the Netherlands.