In this short text Ezzev's stance on discrimination within the framework of the Dutch legislation and the responsibilities of civil society is described. Please feel free to react. The text has been drafted within the framework of the European project Talking about taboos.The project has been funded with support from the European Commission. The document reflects the view only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.

1. LEGAL SITUATION IN THE NETHERLANDS concerning discrimination –
and Ezzev’s stance on the subject
Project: Talking About Taboos (2013-1-FR1-GRU06-49587)
The fundamental legal basis for all Dutch legislation on discrimination is article 1 of the Dutch
Constitution: “All persons in the Netherlands shall be treated equally in equal circumstances.
Discrimination on the grounds of religion, belief, political opinion, race or sex or on any other
grounds whatsoever shall not be permitted.”
Two laws further elaborate the topic of discrimination: The Law on Equal Treatment and the
Dutch Penal Law. Dutch Penal Law (art. 90) defines discrimination: "every kind of
differentiation, every exclusion, limitation or preference, that aims at or may have as a
consequence that the recognition, the enjoyment or the implementation on equal footing of
the human rights and the fundamental freedoms on political, economic, social or cultural
areas or other areas of civil life are being negated or impaired.”
The Law on Equal Treatment distinguishes two types of discrimination: direct and indirect. An
example of direct discrimination is: “I do not want Turks in my shop.” An example of indirect
discrimination is “I do not want anyone who speaks lousy Dutch in my shop.” Indirect
discrimination may be justified if the criteria fit a situation. If the language criterion is
applied to a job vacancy for a Dutch newspaper it is justified. If the language criterion is
applied to a job vacancy for a dishwasher it is not. In article 2 of theLaw on Equal
Treatment situations are defined when discrimination is legal – for instance when it
concerns the depicting of a specific character in a movie or an ethnically defined beauty
pageant.
Article 137 (c-f) of the Penal Law describes which forms of discrimination fall under the
penal law: Insulting, inciting hatred or violent behaviour, the dissemination of insulting or
inciting texts or objects or supporting one of these activities.
The Dutch example of (perceived) social exclusion – the discussion on the cultural
phenomenon of Zwarte Piet – made clear that the interpretation of Dutch law of what is
discrimination is not that simple. When a group of citizens filed a law suit against the
major of Amsterdam for not having considered (enough) the rights of coloured people in
the Netherlands when he issued a permit for the yearly event in which the Dutch
Santaclaus arrives in the city, accompanied by black faced helpers (Zwarte Pieten) a local
court judged that the major was in the wrong. He had issued a permit for the yearly event
even though the yearly event was ubiquitous and therefore had to have such a grave
negative impact on coloured people that they suffered a breach of privacy. A higher court
destroyed that interpretation and judged that the Amsterdam major had done nothing
wrong.
Thus, the critique on the Dutch legal dealing with discrimination is that it is:
 Too vague
 Not upheld

2. Ezzev’s stance on the issue is that a legal framework should be as clear and transparent as
possible. It should defend the weak (and the strong for that matter) – so that they are not
excluded nor are their rights negated or impaired - but one should not defend the over-
sensitive. It is the logic of a democracy that opinions and events may hurt and insult. If
one would give in to the request to defend every citizen against potential insults a
totalitarian state would evolve as a result.
For Ezzev it is essential that citizens are trained in resilience against critique as well as in
ethics. For it is within the domain of ethics of every citizen that it is decided how far one
wants to take potential insulting opinions and events. And it is within the domain of
resilience of every citizen that it is defined what is insulting.
According to Ezzev the state should provide a framework for civil society to implement its
resilience and its ethics. If a state would provide an a priori assumption about
discrimination – for instance that all citizens unconsciously discriminate – and would
provide an active regulatory policy like in the UK, the outcome might be the opposite of
the effect desired: a morally superior white elite, a morally inferior white underclass and
non-white groups who are stimulated to instrumentalize their ethnicity.
Ezzev’s stance presupposes that within civil society there are no taboos (like slavery),
that many citizens are actively engaged in a dialogue about (perceived) social exclusion
and rights negation or impairment and that no citizen is excluded from this dialogue.