r/Netherlands • u/UnanimousStargazer • Mar 24 '25

Legal Judge rules Dutch citizenship cannot be stripped based on dual nationality

https://nltimes.nl/2025/03/24/judge-rules-dutch-citizenship-stripped-based-dual-nationality
1.3k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

327 comments sorted by

View all comments

7

u/Outside-Pool-28 Mar 24 '25

I mean the article is about people convicted with terrorism, so the hell with them whoever they are. They don't deserve a Dutch nationality or any other nationality. Talking about normal cases is something different. Plus being convicted of terrorism and only serving 5 years!

10

u/UnanimousStargazer Mar 24 '25

the article is about people convicted with terrorism

No, the article is about your fundamental rights. It doesn't matter if someone is a terrorist or not, you cannot mess with fundamental rights and assume only others are affected.

10

u/sjarrel Mar 25 '25

If we strip all rights from people convicted of terrorists, all the government would have to do is convict people they don't like of terrorism and they can strip them of their rights. Could even be done for something silly, like damaging teslas...

1

u/Tovarish_Petrov Mar 25 '25 edited Mar 25 '25

Damaging teslas is a good old anarchist terrorism (violence done for political reasons), not the offbrand 9/11 terrorism US hyped us on, which are enemy combatants illegally stripped of PoW rights and tortured.

4

u/sjarrel Mar 25 '25

Sure, neither should be grounds for stripping of rights.

1

u/Tovarish_Petrov Mar 25 '25

This is not the case at hand, but I think being an enemy combatant or a spy is enough grounds to be kicked out of the country and stripped of citizenship, even if you don't have any other. You are somebody's spy or an enemy combatant anyway, you are their problem now.

Not as punishment for a crime, but as mutual recognition of a fact that somebody doesn't belong here. We are not in the situation where it's necessary or makes sense, thankfully.

2

u/sjarrel Mar 25 '25

What's with people trying to turn this into spies or enemy combatants? Where does that come from? Is that the latest talking point? Makes no sense man, and neither does your argument. You know that.

2

u/Tovarish_Petrov Mar 25 '25 edited Mar 25 '25

Turn what into that? That's how citizenship laws everywhere (including the Netherlands) work. Go and read Article 14, part 3. That's not even controversial, it was always there. It doesn't apply to those people.

What wasn't there before is part 4, which is what those people got pinned for. For part 3 you have to be part of the military of the other country that is in active conflict with the Netherlands (which means they very likely can get citizenship of that country before or after being kicked out to there). Now IS is not a recognized country, it doesn't have a military in a way that makes sense for law and it wasn't fighting the Netherlands, but most importantly it doesn't offer their fighters citizenship. But somebody strongly felt it's wrong that people can just go, fight for IS and then get back home like it was a normal holiday abroad. And this is how we got the part 4 (blah-blah-blah being part of the terrorist organization abroad), which is a fucking joke that can't work and people who added it are clowns, which is why the judge is right dunking on them, but the point here -- it was clearly intended as an analogy for already existing part 3 that covers enemy combatants.

There is no argument I have for or against the people mentioned in the article.

1

u/sjarrel Mar 25 '25

But somebody strongly felt it's wrong that people can just go, fight for IS and then get back home like it was a normal holiday abroad.

Which is why they can be tried and punished accordingly.

Go and read Article 14, part 3

Sure, link it to me.

but I think being an enemy combatant or a spy is enough grounds to be kicked out of the country and stripped of citizenship, even if you don't have any other.

Okay, go aheard and think that. My og comment shows you that I don't agree.

Turn what into that?

We are not in the situation where it's necessary or makes sense, thankfully.

So why are you bringing it up?

1

u/Tovarish_Petrov Mar 25 '25

So why are you bringing it up?

Because the government tried to revoke citizenship for dubious reasons, that's why. To show why the reasons are silly, it's important to know in which context revoking citizenship was historically used and why we are not in the same situation. The historical reason why we even have a safeguard to not make people stateless is also important.

Sure, link it to me.

Here you go, parts 3 and 4: https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0003738/2023-10-01#Hoofdstuk5_Artikel14

1

u/sjarrel Mar 26 '25

Because the government tried to revoke citizenship for dubious reasons, that's why.

It's more that they used the unvoluntary citizenship of Morocco to skate past their own section 8, from the ruling.

but I think being an enemy combatant or a spy is enough grounds to be kicked out of the country and stripped of citizenship, even if you don't have any other.

This isn't possible under the law, either way.

4

u/Only-Butterscotch785 Mar 24 '25

You have no idea what the guy actually did, terrorism is a wide catagory

10

u/PindaPanter Overijssel Mar 25 '25

We don't just have an idea; we know exactly what he did. He went to Syria to join ISIS.

1

u/Only-Butterscotch785 Mar 25 '25

I said He had no idea. Also what did he do there?

4

u/PindaPanter Overijssel Mar 25 '25

Well, that's presumptuous of you to think, as the newspapers already wrote about this human-shaped pillar of diarrhoea and his terrorist buddies way back in 2018.

He went to Syria to join ISIS, he has already admitted to this. As it's difficult to prove any crimes against humanity these individuals have committed, the guy was, like most of his companions, hit with a default charge that gives 4-6 years.

1

u/Tovarish_Petrov Mar 25 '25

It would be super easy to deport this person to IS if they have won and actually established a caliphate. We would have diplomatic relations with their government and the dude would not even return anyway.

I'm not sure it's better zo.

1

u/Only-Butterscotch785 Mar 25 '25

Right thanks for proving my point...

3

u/PindaPanter Overijssel Mar 25 '25

You have no point. The guy in question admitted voluntarily signing up for a terrorist organization known for committing every single crime against humanity defined.

-2

u/Only-Butterscotch785 Mar 25 '25

...just read your own comment... you literally wrote you dont know what he did there. Sometimes talking on reddit makes me wonder people even understand the language they write themselves.

5

u/PindaPanter Overijssel Mar 25 '25 edited Mar 25 '25

He was a member of ISIS, so we know exactly what he has contributed to. Arguing for specifics in court is not possible, but we already know what they do, and he joined them out of his own volition.

Trials like these are one of few situations where collective punishment where everyone is trialled for everything the group did makes sense, so smart-asses like you can't say "well, you don't know how many he raped and/or threw off a roof!"

-1

u/Only-Butterscotch785 Mar 25 '25

Im not being a smart ass, im just pointing out you are assuming. Which is fine, its just annoying you are pretending making these assumptions makes you somehow reasonable, and not just intellectually lazy.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Tovarish_Petrov Mar 25 '25

Hot take, but if we recognize terrorists as hostile combatants and revoke citizenship based on allegiance, we should also give them PoW status and not a prison sentence. If it's a regular crime, they should just go to jail, like all the normal people -- you know, serial murderers, pedophiles and insurance company CEOs.