“We are being faced with an attack on our right to protest,” said Ingrid Robeyns on Thursday, speaking on behalf of WO in Actie in the Thorbeckezaal of the House of Representatives, where she had been invited to speak by various political parties, along with other speakers who should have been demonstrating in Utrecht. “Based on information that none of us has been able to verify, the powers that be in Utrecht decided to issue a de facto ban of the demonstration.”
She refers to the “urgent recommendation” to cancel the demonstration which was sent to the organising unions AOb and FNV by the so-called ‘safety triangle’ of the mayor of Utrecht, the head of the police, and the public prosecutor. A “pro-Palestinian organisation” was said to want to “hijack” the demonstration and would “not eschew violence”, said Mayor Sharon Dijksma in a letter to the city council.
Anti-democratic
The lack of details – what exactly the threats were, how realistic they were – bothers most people. Some even doubt the motives of the authorities in banning the demonstration. “Anti-democratic tactics”, say activists in Utrecht, where some three thousand students and higher education staff members gathered on Thursday anyway for a ‘student protest’ which had been approved. They feel that the unions who organised the demonstration should not have cooperated with the authorities and that it should have come down to an official ban.
Mykhaylo, a philosophy student from Maastricht who wishes to remain otherwise anonymous, is not reassured. He was present at an alternative, local protest in Maastricht on Thursday – initially at various locations around the university, later at the Vrijthof. “If the Mayor of Utrecht says, ‘You can come, but we can’t guarantee your safety’, that sounds like a threat.” His homeland Ukraine has a long history of large-scale protest, he says. “But before Ukraine chose a democratic and more liberal government in 2014, demonstrations were regularly cancelled for vague reasons. It’s also not clear exactly what happened here, we’ve had no details.”
Benefit
What is clear, however, is who benefits from cancelling the demonstration, says Kai Heidemann, assistant professor in Sociology. “The current politicians who want to undermine our community with extreme cuts and a hyper-nationalistic position. Ambiguous threats of potential violence and chaos are a classic tactic to rein in social dissent.” He calls the idea that a pro-Palestinian group would hijack a demonstration about higher education unlikely. “This is one of the few sectors in the Netherlands where pro-Palestinian voices are given a degree of space. I suspect that the government chose to use what happened in Amsterdam (where riots erupted around a football match between an Israeli football club and Ajax, ed.) and suppress an inconvenient protest.”
Not lightly
Christoph Rausch, associate professor at University College Maastricht and deputy member on behalf of AOb in the Local Meeting (between the unions and the Executive Board), understands that a lack of information is a cause of unease. “Openness and transparency are always a good thing, and in this case I would certainly appreciate it. But I understand that the information may be too sensitive to share for security reasons. I don’t think the ‘safety triangle’ would take a decision on this lightly. Of course, I wasn’t there, but I don’t think for one minute that they would exaggerate the potential danger.” He supports the decision made by the unions. “What else could they have done? You don’t take risks with the safety of your member or their fellow protesters. What if they had held the demonstration and something had happened, who is responsible then? Advice like that is essentially a ban, you can’t argue against it.”
All three hope that the movement will be able to maintain its momentum. “This will not be a short battle,” says Mykhaylo. Heidemann thinks that UM should start a media campaign and ask the municipal council and the province for explicit support. “BBB campaigned on regional autonomy and policy that matched regional circumstances. Now is the time for that party to put their money where their mouth is. UM is an essential part of our region.”
Cleo Freriks/HOP