Mpanzu Bamenga was eight years old when in 1994, he fled from the Congo to the Netherlands with his mother and older brother. Today, he is a municipal councilor in the Dutch city of Eindhoven and a passionate advocate for human rights. In 2016, he was elected the “Political Talent of the Year” as a councilor in the city of Eindhoven. In 2018, Bamenga arrived at the airport of his Dutch hometown after having lectured on human rights in Italy. He was selected by the border police for a passport check as according to the officials his appearance matched the risk profile of a “Nigerian money smuggler.” Latife Özdemir of Politics Today interviewed Bamenga – you can read the full interview here.

Q. What is racial profiling, and should people worry about it?

Racial profiling is a forbidden form of discrimination by the government. Yes, it is something people should worry about because racial profiling comes from the idea that someone can be judged based on their skin color, ethnicity, or nationality instead of this person’s character. It is also against the fundamental right of being treated equally. It is against human rights. It threatens what we stand for and who we are as human beings.

Q. Not long ago, we were discussing racial profiling in the Unites States, but nowadays it seems that the issue also started to appear in the Netherlands as for example in the cases of Mitch Henriquez and the 17-year-old Rishi Chandrikasing, who was fatally shot by the police in 2012. Is racial profiling of Black people and citizens with an immigrant background becoming widespread in the Netherlands?

I think that racial profiling has always been there. To fight against something, you should first make it visible. It has always been hidden. It’s been brought to light – this is a step to fight against racial profiling. The first anti-discrimination bureaus in the Netherlands were opened 30 years ago. They basically started after situations of racism. It is widespread, not only in practice but also in policy. It is institutionalized in our society and to fight against it, we should address it. It is also part of implicit biases, and we act upon it, which is wrong because it can be contrary to one’s beliefs and values. But it is even worse if you act upon it and you are an official of the government.

Q. Do you think that the situation regarding racial profiling increased after events such as 9/11 for example?

I think that these kinds of events are used as a justification. For instance, now we have people coming from several countries, Syria, Afghanistan, etc. And now we are using it as a justification to say “We have to stop illegal migration, so how can we stop it if we are not able to control passports?” Well, ethnic profiling doesn’t mean that the border police can’t control passports – they can. But the question is “How do they do this?” Do they look at someone’s skin color and assume that this person must be from Syria, Afghanistan, or Africa? Or thinking that someone must be a money smuggler, a criminal, or a terrorist based on someone’s color? This is forbidden and against human rights.

Q. You experienced a racial profiling situation three years ago, how did you feel at the time?

It is very humiliating, and it also stigmatizes because it fits within the idea that the person who is stopped is a non-white person, so there must be, or there could be, something wrong. – It fits into stigmatization, which has consequences in society. For instance, when a young person wants to apply for an internship and the employee just looks at the name (Mohammed) and that person doesn’t even get the opportunity to present themselves or to get an internship at an organization.

This is a very big issue in the Netherlands. We have a lot of labor market and housing discrimination.

This is a very big issue in the Netherlands. We have a lot of labor market and housing discrimination. There are a lot of things going on here when it comes to the idea that when someone comes from a different country, this must be “wrong.” People are not judged by their character but by certain characteristics which you can’t change. It also shouldn’t matter what your religion or your skin color is. What they do is dehumanizing and humiliating if you are the victim.

Q. What are the legal mechanisms to face racial profiling?

When certain individuals have racially profiled a person, this person can file a complaint. This is a simple thing to do, one can go to court. After the complaint, one can go to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman must look into the situation. One can go to the police or the anti-discrimination bureau as well.

Q. What are your thoughts regarding the decision of the court in your case?

The decision was not what we expected. Even though we know racial profiling is instituted, it is still a shock to hear the judge basically mentioning that it is all fine for the border police to stop someone also based on his or her skin color. It is pretty shocking that the law justifies this.  Still, our legal system gives us the possibility to go to a higher court. Especially in this case, when we talk about a fundamental issue, it is crucial and necessary to go to a higher court.

We started a petition which says “My color doesn’t say anything about my Dutch citizenship.”

Q. The decision at the higher court will be in nine months. What are you going to do until then? Are you planning to raise more awareness or to carry out any other activities?

Yes, we started a petition which says “My color doesn’t say anything about my Dutch citizenship.” We hope that we will get support and as many people as possible will sign it. I am sure that we already achieved more awareness, and that more and more people will understand what it is about and why racial profiling should be forbidden in the Netherlands. I hope the court will decide that ethnicity can never be a part of profiling,when there is no concrete suspect.

Q. As the municipal councilor in Eindhoven, what do you think about the house of representatives’ stance when it comes to racial profiling? Some argue that it’s passive. Do you agree?

At this moment, the judgement is still in the courts’ hands so the parliament must be careful about how to intervene. Therefore, I understand that some members of the parliament are hesitant to act at this point. But at the same time, a legal procedure can take up to six years, while the government is the executive body and parliament the legislative body, they can change this discriminatory situation tomorrow if they want. They don’t need a court decision for that.

Q. Do you think that the profiling and surveillance of people will become a bigger issue in Western democracies?

As long as we don’t fight racial profiling, it could be. It is simply a stupid idea to stop someone according to their looks or ethnicity. I believe that more awareness seems to be important, and especially having a mixed environment in education. We should do more in the field of education.

Q. You said during a speech three years ago that you still believe in a world which is just, inclusive, and where everyone is treated equally. Is the gap between the current situation and the ideal widening? If yes, is there still hope to achieve the world you talk about?

Of course, I believe in it with all my heart. I’m very positive and I believe that we are making important steps, and that we are in a final moment to change the world for the better. I think it is important to mention the words of Martin Luther King, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” This means that even though you are in a good situation you should think and care about other events happening in the world.

According to a decision by the District Court of The Hague, the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee, which is the Dutch border police, can use ethnicity as a criterion for selecting citizens for checks at the border. As stated by the court, this does not constitute discrimination.

The case was brought against the government by several human rights organizations, NGOs such as Amnesty International, Controle Alt Delete, RADAR, and PILP-NJCM, and two citizens. These organizations were convinced that two citizens were singled out for checks by the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee officers because of the color of their skin. One of the persons, Mpanzu Bamenga was taken aside by the Marechaussee at the airport of Eindhoven in April 2018.

Mpanzu Bamenga, who is a municipal councilor of the social liberal political party D66, had just returned from Lampedusa, Italy, where he gave a lecture about institutional racism, human rights, and how to create a world in which all human rights are secured for all humans. After the councilor’s efforts to understand why he was taken aside and filing a complaint followed by a hearing, it seemed Bamenga had been arrested for being “well dressed,” “walking fast,” and having a “non-Dutch appearance.” According to the coalition that filed the lawsuit, this is a form of discrimination that violates human rights and Dutch law.

Dagmar Oudshoorn, director of Amnesty International Netherlands, stated the following about the court’s decision: “According to this ruling of the court, the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee can continue with ethnic profiling. This is not only in violation of international human rights, but also of Article 1 of the Dutch Constitution.”

During border checks, the Marechaussee selects people based on their appearance, skin color, or ethnicity. These parameters determine whether someone, against whom there is no individual suspicion, is pulled aside. The Marechaussee also uses risk profiles that include ethnicity, such as in Bamenga’s case “men who walk fast, are well-dressed and who look ‘non-Dutch.’”

All in all, the ruling of the court means that ethnicity can remain part of the risk and selection profiles of the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee – a decision that undoubtedly encourages discrimination.

Following the court’s decision, the anti-racism foundation Controle Alt Delete started a petition to denounce the assumption that Dutch nationality is linked to white skin color.

“In the super-diverse Netherlands in 2021, skin color is not an indication of someone’s nationality,” says Controle Alt Delete on its website. In addition to people with a refugee background and people from the former colonies, the Netherlands also has several communities that settled in the country from various parts of the Mediterranean four generations ago.

“Pull your car over” is a common phrase frequently used towards colored, Muslim, or people with a non-Western migration background.

Pull your car over

“Pull your car over” is a common phrase frequently used towards colored, Muslim, or people with a non-Western migration background. In fact, however, the Netherlands is known for its multicultural society formed as a result of colonialism and colonialism-related migration. There are people here from all over the world that makes it hard, if not nearly impossible, to define “Dutchness” and associate it simply with skin color.

The postcolonial migration flows to the Netherlands from the Dutch East Indies, the Dutch Antilles, and Suriname, the labor migration from Turkey and North African countries, the arrival of refugees from Bosnia and the MENA region make it impossible to define Dutch identity with racial features.

Immigrants nowadays growingly fall victim to acts of over-scrutiny, discrimination, or hate crimes. According to a report published in 2020 by Bureau Beke, an independent agency that specializes in research and advice in the field of security issues and crime, only in Amsterdam, more than half of the residents have experienced ethnic profiling during contact with the police.

According to the report, significant differences occur between two subgroups. On the one hand, there are the citizens with a Dutch or Western migration background, and on the other, the citizens with a non-Western migration background. The second group gives a lower rating for the general way of being addressed by the police and their trust in police officers. According to the report, citizens with a non-Western background are significantly more likely to indicate they have had contact with the Amsterdam police up to 10 times within a period of six months.

When focusing on this “police contact” it appears that mostly citizens with a Dutch background are offered an explanation as to why the police stopped or checked them while such an explanation is less likely to be offered to citizens with a non-Western migration background.

The situation in Germany is no different. According to an answer from the Ministry of Interior in response to a parliamentary question by a German representative, the German police conducted ID checks 2,953,844 times without valid reason in 2015. Critics argue that most of these controls are arbitrary and skin color and ethnic background are the two main criteria behind them.

In addition, a survey was conducted by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) on the number of people who have been stopped by the police in the last 12 months. According to responses, 25% of Turkish-origin Europeans had been stopped by the police, while only 11% of so-called native Germans responded positively.

Third-generation Turkish immigrants, born and raised in the Netherlands, also face racial profiling as it frequently occurs within their minority communities as well. It seems that Western European countries, where once multicultural society was a debated issue, are now struggling with “us” vs. “them” ideology.

By constantly keeping the criminality of “foreigners” or young citizens with an immigration background on the political agenda and in the media, and therefore in the public eye, the Other, the “non-Dutch looking” Other, is created and perceived as a threat. Institutions and authorities, with the police at the forefront of this discrimination, are motivated to believe that it is legitimate to monitor, scrutinize, and control people based on their religious difference, appearance, or skin color in order to protect “national security.” However, ironically and conversely, they are actually fabricating this imagined threat themselves.

On February 15, an internal draft report prepared by the National Coordinator for Security and Counterterrorism (NCTV) working under the Ministry of Justice and Security in the Netherlands was leaked to the HP/De Tijd, a Dutch-language monthly opinion magazine.

The draft report is entitled “The Development of Salafism among Turks in the Netherlands.” According to the report, the NCTV is concerned by the rise of Salafism among Dutch Turks living in the Netherlands. The report has not yet been signed by the country’s security services and related ministries. However, it created a reaction in the Netherlands due to biasness, factual mistakes, and the overall ignorance of the analysts employed by the NCTV.

The NCTV claims that there is a possible connection between Erdoğan’s “anti-Western rhetoric” and a tram terror attack in Utrecht in 2019, in which four people were killed by Gökmen Tanış. The draft report claims that Turks may be “vulnerable” and open to influence from Turkey and its president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. It also claims that the Turkish President is following a Salafi Islamization strategy, which may further influence Dutch Turks.

Salafism 

The NCTV draft report argues that the Islamic movement of Salafism originated in Saudi Arabia and has now a huge base of supporters in Turkey. It is claimed that Turkish organizations such as Milli Görüş and the “Turkish Muslim Brotherhood” – if the latter has ever existed – have ideologically merged.

The report further alleges that Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has a secret agenda and ambition to represent himself as the “leader of the Sunni Muslims” by 2023, the centennial anniversary of the establishment of the Republic of Turkey. This in all in line with his plot to turn Turkey into an Islamic state.

The draft report raises other issues as well in regards to the Salafist organizations in Turkey that are claimed to have “strong ties” with Turkish-Dutch (youth) organizations in the Netherlands. The draft report allegedly claims that these organizations, having close relationships with Turkish preachers, have become more involved in Salafism in recent years, which the NCTV associates with jihadism.

The report warns about domestic radicalization through social media and the rise of Salafism in the country. It further alleges that the Turkish government provides leeway to Salafist-jihadist organizations, such as the IBDA-C (The Great Eastern Islamic Raiders’ Front) and the Kaplan movement led by Metin Kaplan, and indirectly supports specific groups in Syria, such as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham.

The draft report, in fact, mysteriously omits the fact that both the IBDA-C and the Kaplan movement have been on Turkey’s terror watch list for almost a decade. On the contrary, according to research by the Dutch Nieuwsuur and Trouw (Dutch: Nieuwsuur en Trouw) news agencies that conducted the investigation, the Dutch government itself supported Jabhat al-Shamiya, an armed group in Syria, which the public prosecutor in the Netherlands labeled as terrorist.

The Utrecht terrorist attack of 2019

The NCTV argues that President Erdoğan’s condemnation of the far-right terrorist attacks on Muslims in Christchurch in 2019 might have played a role in Gökmen Tanış’s radicalization and plans to organize an attack in the Netherlands. The terrorist attack in Utrecht killed four civilians. The attack took place a day after “Erdoğan’s anti-Western media appearance,” the analysis claims. After the shooting on March 18, 2019, the Public Prosecution Service (OM) revealed the text which was written on the weapon. According to the sources of Radio Television Luxembourg (RTL), the firearm and silencer had the following statement written on them, “Those who follow Sharia go to paradise. Whoever follows democracy goes to hell. You kill people who are Muslims. And Allah lets me kill you…” (translated from Dutch).

However, the 37-year-old Turkish-born Gökmen Tanış, who had been intermittently addicted to hard drugs and alcohol, was a supporter of Metin Kaplan and expressed his hate towards the Turkish president several times. The claim that Tanış might have been inspired by Erdoğan to organize an attack is, therefore, baseless and exposes the authors’ biases.

Although the draft report immediately received heavy criticism for factual mistakes and inaccuracies, anti-Turkey politicians in the Netherlands, led by the far-right leader of the Dutch Party for Freedom (PVV) Geert Wilders, suggested that the draft report proved his argument and justified his anti-Turkey and anti-Erdoğan sentiments. On the same evening, Wilders published a cartoon on Twitter illustrating half of President Erdoğan’s face on a Turkish flag and the other half on the banner of DAESH (ISIS) with the word “terrorist” written on it.

Harming bilateral relations?

Following the Dutch-Turkish diplomatic crisis of 2017, the two countries have set the aim of improving their bilateral relations. On January 26, 2021, the eighth meeting of the Turkish-Dutch Bilateral Wittenburg Conference was held. The conference bode well. The ministers of the two nations exchanged views on various issues including trade and innovation as well as their common concerns regarding their fight against terrorism.

Under the influence of right-wing extremism in Western Europe, it’s no longer surprising for political parties to look for fabricated reasons to ignite enmity and polarization, and in this manner gather support. However, there are confusing questions in regard to the draft report. For example, how was the draft report leaked to the press? Why was the draft report by the NCTV leaked to the media a month before the Dutch general elections?

The NCTV’s draft report has a potential to impact the Dutch-Turkish community negatively. Recently, political parties demanded a clarification from Ferdinand Grapperhaus, the Minister of Justice and Security, on how this “unfinished” report could have been leaked. Grapperhaus said the final report will be published in a few months and at that time, the ministries and the security services can express their views and opinions on the report.