Amsterdam Mayor Femke Halsema faced criticism and public outcry after allowing a pro-Palestinian demonstration in the city center where participants chanted slogans including "Long live the 7th of October." The event took place exactly three years after the Hamas terror attack of October 7, 2023, which resulted in 1,200 Israeli deaths and 251 kidnappings. While the event featured banners supporting Hamas, the Amsterdam police and the Public Prosecution Service (OM) stated the actions did not meet the legal threshold for criminal prosecution, leading to the demonstration’s continuation until it was dissolved later that evening due to public order concerns.
Legal Constraints on Protest Intervention
Mayor Halsema and the Amsterdam police characterized the expressions at the demonstration as "shocking and distasteful," but concluded they were not punishable under current Dutch law. According to NOS, a spokesperson for the Amsterdam Public Prosecution Service explained that the slogans did not constitute incitement, as they did not directly encourage the commission of criminal acts. Mayor Halsema stated she watched the event "with great horror," expressing her aversion to how the protesters utilized the freedom of demonstration. She and the police chief noted it caused them "sadness" that the Dam square was used for such purposes on that anniversary.
Professor of Constitutional and Administrative Law Jon Schilder told NOS that a mayor’s authority is limited to managing public order rather than policing the content of a demonstration. Schilder noted that Halsema acted correctly by not banning the protest in advance, as preventive intervention is not supported by current legislation. Police intercepted approximately 75 protesters at Waterlooplein, where some attempted to break through the police cordon, forcing the mayor to formally dissolve the gathering. During the march, an Israeli flag was also burned.
Proposed Bill Targets Glorification of Terrorist Acts
The Dutch government is currently working on a bill that would criminalize the glorification of terrorist acts and public support for designated terrorist organizations. According to NRC, Hamas is currently listed on the European Union’s terrorist list. Protesters carried signs with English slogans labeling October 7 a "resistance act" and claiming people were "standing up against their occupier," alongside imagery of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu depicted with a Hitler mustache. One organizer stated the slogans were "provocative" and expressed anger toward the pending legislation.
However, legal experts suggest that even if this law were in effect, enforcement would remain complex. Professor Schilder noted that the criminal judge would not quickly reach a conviction.
Public Reaction and Subsequent Vandalism
The protest, which drew approximately 150 participants according to NRC, drew sharp condemnation from various observers. Demonstrations against the war in Gaza, where over 74,000 people have been killed, also occurred elsewhere in the Netherlands. Following the demonstration, the Amsterdam city hall was defaced with red paint, with the letters "BDS Now" spray-painted on the windows. The municipality has filed a formal report regarding the vandalism.
Dutch Law Limits Protest Bans and Terrorism Penalties
Why was the demonstration not banned immediately?
Under Dutch law, a mayor does not have the authority to ban a protest based solely on the content of the slogans used. According to NOS, intervention is only permitted when there is a concrete threat of public disorder, which prompted the eventual dissolution of the march.
What are the potential penalties under the new terrorism legislation? If the pending bill is passed, the public glorification of terrorist offenses could result in a maximum prison sentence of two years and a fine.
Is there a consensus on whether the slogans are illegal?
No. While the Amsterdam Public Prosecution Service determined the slogans did not reach the level of criminal incitement, the government is actively seeking to change the law to make such support for terrorist organizations explicitly punishable. It remains unclear whether individual protesters will face future consequences for the specific slogans used, or if the current legal definitions will be successfully updated to capture such expressions.
Related reading