The Dutch Farmers' Protests and Incitement to Violence – Gideon van Meijeren

Dutch politician Gideon van Meijeren recently encouraged Dutch farmers who were protesting their government's agricultural policies, which threaten to destroy their professions. The Public Prosecution Service has now announced that it will prosecute  van Meijeren for sedition. There are quite a few people who won't lose sleep over this. To them, van Meijeren is an extreme right-wing anti-vaxxer and conspiracy theorist with a history of making racist statements. Since I myself am regularly tarred and feathered, I’m inclined to take a closer look at such matters. And I would ask everyone to do the same, even if you feel you have nothing in common with van Meijeren. After all, it could be your turn sooner than you think.

According to the Public Prosecution Service, the charges against Van Meijeren have arisen from two statements. The first came as van Meijeren was addressing the protesting farmers. He spoke of Article 41 of the penal code, which states that the use of violence is not punishable by law if it is necessary to protect your own or someone else's body, honor, or property from an unlawful assault. He made the second statement during an interview, in which he stated that tyrannical regimes can be overthrown in a revolutionary uprising if the population addresses Parliament to demand the resignation of the government. Not insignificantly: Van Meijeren proceeded both times to explain that he was not calling for violence, but for peaceful, non-violent protest.

According to the prosecution, van Meijeren's words could "give people ideas.” Well. There are hardly any words that cannot “give people ideas.” If you start banning words on that basis, soon no one will be allowed to speak at all. So before we go down such a path, let’s ask a few questions and raise a few concerns.

First of all, I wonder: Is van Meijeren correct when he states that people are allowed to (violently) resist the government under certain circumstances? I suppose everyone agrees that the answer to that question is yes? Or not? A government that demands strict nonviolence from its citizens should at least be strictly nonviolent itself. I myself have always emphasized that any resistance to the government must be non-violent, but I do so primarily for pragmatic reasons. I know that any form of violence will inevitably turn against the person who uses it. From a purely ethical standpoint, however, I believe it is a citizen's right to use violence against a government that is itself using unlawful force against its people. This is also correct from a legal perspective.

Second, do those in favor of van Meijeren's prosecution believe that there is a right to civil disobedience? Since Henry Thoreau introduced this concept in 1849, it has been almost universally agreed upon that democracy must allow for it. Has this changed?

Third, for those who think that Gideon is wrong, and therefore that farmers have no right to resist, what about social phenomena such as Extinction Rebellion? These climate activists deface monuments and paintings in museums, block highways, storm airports, and so on. If you think that these “climate warriors” and other “social justice warriors” should not be criminally prosecuted and yet that Gideon van Meijeren should, is that not the same as saying that those who adhere to a politically correct ideology are allowed to do just about anything whereas those who adhere to an incorrect ideology may not?

Fourth, and related: what do the people who support the prosecution of van Meijeren think of, for example, French President Emmanuel Macron's statements that “We are going to make life hell for the unvaccinated”? We could list any number of statements by politicians that have been undoubtly more seditious than van Meijeren's and yet for which no public prosecutor ever saw fit to prosecute.

​So let's be honest: the prosecution's charge makes no sense. If Gideon van Meijeren is prosecuted for sedition, then anyone can be prosecuted for sedition. I hereby appeal to everyone who disagrees with Gideon van Meijeren and possibly sees him as a political opponent: don’t let this happen. Speak out. Say that you do not want people to be treated this way, including those with whom you disagree.

That is the best thing that can come out of these chaotic times: a group of people united, not by having the same opinion, but by honoring each person's right to his own voice. The mother lode of the Enlightenment tradition was not so much idealizing rationality but valuing openness of mind and this fundamental right to one's own opinion. I propose that we remain faithful to the Enlightenment in this respect, also with regard to people whose opinions we experience as contrary to ours, including those we even consider completely irrational.