Outrage over cops' "moral objections" to guarding Jewish sites

Reports that some police officers don’t want to be deployed to protect Jewish institutions over moral objections to the violence in Gaza and Lebanon have caused outrage in the Netherlands. The police said it makes space for officers’ moral objections and switches shifts to accommodate for that where possible, but if there is an emergency or urgent situation, police officers respond regardless of their personal feelings. Justice Minister David van Weel and several parliamentarians are very critical.

“During the preparations that were made for the security of the Holocaust Museum, there were colleagues who did not want to be deployed there,” Michiel Theeboom, part of the Jewish Police Network within the national police, told the Telegraaf. “They talk about ‘moral dilemmas,’ and I see a tendency to give in to that.” He called that very concerning and “the beginning of the end.”

Mireille Beentjes, a spokesperson for the police force management, confirmed that there are police officers who object to certain assignments. “There is no strict policy for this. The line is that police officers are allowed to have moral objections,” she told the Telegraaf. “We take moral objections into account when drawing up schedules. But if there is an urgent response, you are simply deployed. Whether you object or not. You have to behave professionally. Others should not notice anything.”

Beentjes said that objections aren’t isolated to Jewish institutions. Officers also have moral objections to being deployed to farmers' protests, climate protests, and the Koran burning by Pegida. “It hurts them when the Koran is burned, but at the same time, they have to protect the people who do it,” she said.

The starting point remains that a police officer carries out their duties, Beentjes said. “Neutrality is everything. It is leading, always. But so is talking with each other.”

Police chief Janny Knol told ANP that the police are discussing how to deal with such dilemmas within the organization. She stressed that police officers, “of course,” have their own opinions and emotions. “But when it comes to people’s safety, that is our top priority. We are there for everyone. That is the basis of police work.” She criticized “the tone of the reporting” on this topic. “It seems to cast doubt on the professionalism of our people.”

Minister David van Weel of Justice and Security thinks that police officers should have no choice when it comes to securing Jewish objects. “That is their job,” he told the Telegraaf through his spokesperson. “I was shocked by this. Police officers should simply do their job neutrally. These kinds of preferences do not belong here.”

Van Weel called it “simply unacceptable” that officers’ moral objections play a role in shift assignments. “I cannot stop what people think, feel, or find. You just leave that at home. Because as a police officer, as soon as you put on your uniform, you simply have to do your job. And that job is completely neutral. Then you simply carry out your assignment, whether it is guarding Jewish institutions, guarding a mosque, or otherwise.”

Several parliamentarians were also critical. ChristenUnie leader Mirjam Bikker called it a “capitulation to anti-Semitism” and said she wants to debate the topic with Van Weel.

PVV leader Geert Wilders called it unacceptable. “If a police officer does not want to guard Jewish objects, that is grounds for dismissal.”

“Especially in these times of unprecedented global hatred of Jews, the Jewish community must be able to count on the police,” said VVD parliamentarian Ulysse Ellian.