Dutch Anti-Terrorism Speech Laws against citizens of Bonaire, St Eustatius and Saba

Does Bonaire, Sint Eustatius, and Saba face terrorism to justify new criminal laws restricting public expression? That is the question residents are asking following the Dutch government's proposal to criminalize certain public expressions related to terrorism on these three tiny Caribbean islands. No public evidence has been presented demonstrating the existence of terrorist organizations, terrorist networks, or significant terrorist activity on Sint Eustatius with ca 3000 inhabitants, Saba with ca 2000 and Bonaire in 2004 ca 10thd and now 25thd inhabitants. Yet legislation carrying criminal penalties is now being proposed, prompting questions about its necessity, proportionality, and potential impact on freedom of expression, democratic debate, and political participation.

Those concerns are at the heart of an open letter issued by James Finies, founder of the Bonaire Human Rights Organization (BHRO), addressed to the Prime Minister of the Netherlands, the Minister of Justice and Security, Members of the Dutch Parliament, and relevant international human rights bodies. The letter makes clear that terrorism should always be condemned and that governments have a legitimate responsibility to protect public safety. Its central question, however, is whether new criminal restrictions on freedom of expression are justified on islands where no demonstrated terrorist threat has been identified.

The law reaches far beyond counter-terrorism. It touches one of the cornerstones of every democratic society: freedom of expression. The ability of citizens to criticize government policy, engage in political debate, conduct academic research, practice journalism, and advocate for human rights without fear of criminal prosecution is essential to democracy. Laws that rely on broad or subjective concepts such as "glorification" or "public support" risk creating uncertainty and self-censorship, even among people engaged in entirely lawful and peaceful activities.

International human rights law provides an important framework for assessing such legislation. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights protects freedom of opinion and expression, allowing restrictions only when they are lawful, necessary, proportionate, and clearly defined. Article 25 of the ICCPR further guarantees the right to participate in public affairs. The United Nations has consistently maintained that counter-terrorism measures must comply fully with human rights obligations and has repeatedly warned that overly broad terrorism laws can suppress dissent, discourage civic participation, and criminalize legitimate political expression.

For Bonaire, Sint Eustatius, and Saba, the law also raises broader constitutional questions. Since the constitutional changes of 2010, many important decisions affecting the islands have been made in The Hague, thousands of kilometres away. Whether one supports or opposes that constitutional arrangement, laws affecting fundamental freedoms deserve careful public scrutiny and meaningful consultation with the communities they directly affect.

The BHRO letter therefore urges the Dutch Parliament to conduct a comprehensive human rights assessment before adopting the legislation. It calls for strict compliance with international human rights standards, precise legal definitions to prevent arbitrary application, explicit protection for journalism, academic inquiry, political speech, historical analysis, peaceful public debate, and human rights advocacy, and consideration of whether less restrictive measures could achieve the government's objectives without limiting civil liberties.

How can prison sentences for public expressions be justified on three peaceful small Caribbean islands where no public evidence has been presented demonstrating the existence of terrorist organizations, terrorist networks, or significant terrorist activity? Before such extraordinary powers become law, the Dutch government owes the people of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius, and Saba a clear explanation of why they are necessary, why existing laws are insufficient, and how freedom of expression will be protected against arbitrary or disproportionate application. Democracies are strengthened not by expanding criminal law where no demonstrable threat exists, but by ensuring that security measures remain firmly anchored in evidence, necessity, proportionality, and respect for fundamental human rights.

‍