Are you always allowed to demonstrate if you disgree with something?

Berend Roorda, associate professor specializing in demonstration law:

‘Under article 9 of our Constitution, everyone has the right to demonstrate. This right means that you may express an opinion together with one or more persons in public. The content of that expression, in the question of whether it is allowed yes or no, does not matter.

Ban on demonstration by mayor

However, the right to demonstrate is not an absolute fundamental right. Article 9 paragraph 2 of the Constitution and the Dutch demonstration law - the Public Demonstrations Act - provide the mayor with the authority to restrict a demonstration and, in an extreme case, even prohibit it. He may only do this when it is necessary in the context of three purpose criteria:
1. to protect health;
2. in the interest of traffic;
3. to combat or prevent disorder.

The mayor may not interfere with the content. Moreover, if the (controversial) content of a demonstration gives rise to hostile reactions and counter-demonstrations, the mayor is obliged to make an effort to allow the demonstration to go ahead anyway. This obligation of effort goes so far that, if necessary, he will have to deploy more police for a demonstration than for a high-risk professional soccer match. If even such police deployment cannot prevent disorderliness, only then can the mayor proceed to prohibit a demonstration.

Punishment by the public prosecutor

So does this mean you can just shout anything at a demonstration? No, it does not, but it is not up to the mayor to do anything about this. It is up to the public prosecutor to act against individual demonstrators who are guilty of criminal statements such as hate speech and insulting a group of people. However, this can only be done repressively. No action may be taken against the demonstration as such.

'The right to demonstrate' thesis

Should Dutch demonstration law be adjusted so that preventive action can be taken against demonstrations in which demonstrators make punishable statements? This is one of the questions I address in my dissertation 'The right to demonstrate'.

The right to demonstrate is an achievement in a democratic constitutional state that can hardly be overstated. Not infrequently, however, the exercise of this right creates tensions with other rights, freedoms and interests. Especially now that demonstrations have greatly increased in number and appearance in recent years. In this area of tension, I have identified ten bottlenecks. Then, in my doctoral research, I set out to find solutions to these bottlenecks.

In my search, I sought a balance between the fundamental right to demonstrate on the one hand and the rights and freedoms of others on the other. To increase my insight, I consulted neighboring countries Germany and England and how they have regulated the exercise of the freedom to demonstrate. How do they deal with the bottlenecks identified in demonstration law and can their approach provide inspiration for optimizing Dutch demonstration law. All this within the frameworks set out in, for example, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

My dissertation builds on an evaluation of the Public Events Act that I had the opportunity to conduct with my supervisors Brouwer (RUG) and Schilder (VU) in 2015, commissioned by the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations. Our evaluation report and my dissertation are currently being studied by the ministry. Possibly this will lead to an amendment of the Dutch demonstration law in the near future.

In the coming years I will continue to occupy myself within the Center for Public Order and Safety of the University of Groningen (see www.openbareorde.nl) with finding solutions in the field of tension between collective freedom rights on the one hand - think of the freedom to strike and the freedom of associations in addition to the freedom to demonstrate - and the maintenance of public order on the other.'