On Friday, the six parties – VVD, together with CDA, Partij Veilig Maastricht, 50-plus, Sociaal Actieve Burgerpartij, and Seniorenpartij – submitted written questions on the issue. They say they are worried about the freedom of expression in the city. According to them, last year, pro-Palestinian protesters disrupted the Maastricht Debate, a large European election debate. Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, was accused of being a war criminal at the Vrijthof.
Reconcile
“We wish to emphasise that freedom of expression is a democratic fundamental right that cannot be limited through intimidation,” the six parties wrote. They wanted to know how Maastricht aims to reconcile a speaker’s freedom of expression with the right to protest for people who disagree with them. According to the six parties, that right could absolutely be “limited” if a demonstration “endangers the normal operation of an event”. Their question was whether the municipal executive agreed.
Last Wednesday, Osman’s lecture came to an end early because of excessive noise by protesters. Was that really necessary, the six parties questioned; couldn’t the police have been deployed to keep the protesters at bay? They were present both inside and outside the lecture hall, but did not intervene. When asked by Observant, a spokesperson for the police refused to explain why.
“Deliberate negligence”
Stand With Us, the pro-Israeli group who invited Osman to the Netherlands for three lectures, accused Maastricht University of “deliberate negligence”, NRC Handelsblad reported on Saturday. They said UM failed to provide sufficient security, leaving “Jewish and pro-Israeli students and staff” without protection and feeling like “fair game”.