Too many differences in how Dutch regions approach radicalization: Inspectorate

The Justice and Security Inspectorate has warned that the definition of who has radicalized and who has not is being determined differently in different regions. "There is a risk that people that radicalize are escaping attention or that people are wrongly seen as radicalized."

The inspection report revolves around the 'weighing teams' in which municipalities, police, and the Public Prosecution Service jointly determine who will be confronted with a targeted approach to radicalization. In some cases, all signals of radicalization end up in that consultation; in other cases, a selection is made in advance. In short, "unilateral and objective criteria" are lacking.

According to the inspection, an incorrect judgment "poses risks to national security" because it results in a radicalized person not being noticed. Conversely, it is also possible that someone not radicalized is seen as radicalized. Such a label "impinges on personal privacy and can have far-reaching consequences for a person's privacy and freedom of movement."

Furthermore, the radicalization approach often depends on one or two employees or municipal officials who also have other tasks. The inspection, therefore, doubts whether it is feasible to regulate the detection of radicalization everywhere correctly.

Minister David van Weel (Justice and Security) will respond to the report after the summer recess, he writes in a letter to the Tweede Kamer, the lower house of the Dutch parliament. A spokesperson would not answer any substantive questions until then.

The Association of Dutch Municipalities has said that, despite the criticism, they are "pleased with the observation that things are already going well in many municipalities". It is good that the reporting of radicalized people lies with municipalities, the umbrella organization believes. "Municipalities are closest to the residents."