Dutch asylum policy has gained a new term: ‘too Westernised’. If someone has spent years trying to gain asylum in the Netherlands and in the process has become ‘too Westernised’, should they be allowed to stay even if their original request has been turned down? And just how do you define ‘too Westernised’?

The case of 14-year-old Afghan girl Sahar has led to the new asylum policy term. She came to the Netherlands from Afghanistan with her family when she was three. Their requests for asylum have taken over a decade to process. In the meantime, Sahar attends grammar school, speaks perfect Dutch and wears orange when the Dutch national team plays.

Can a girl like Sahar return to Afghanistan, where the position of women is so different? After months of discussion and court rulings, Dutch Immigration and Asylum Minister Gerd Leers last week uttered the words of deliverance: Sahar can stay because she has become “too Westernised”.

But what precisely is ‘too Westernised’? Minister Leers has provided a tortuous definition:

“Being Westernised is an umbrella term for a number of ways of behaving by which you and I and girls of a certain age define things through what we say and how we think. Here, in this country, we’re brought up with the idea that men and women are equal. That’s not the same in Afghanistan.”

The minister has come up with four defining criteria:

1. You have to be an Afghan girl.
Although there are other countries where women have a subordinate position, the situation in Afghanistan is much worse. Boys who have become Westernised in the Netherlands can go to school in Afghanistan, are not treated like second class citizens and can say what they like. As long as they are not homosexual, but according to Minister Leers that is another matter.

2. You have to be between ten and 18 years old, and have been in the Netherlands for at least eight years.
“It is actually quite simple. If you are a two-year-old child, you have not formed your identity in the Netherlands to such an extent that you could call it Westernised. That goes for a lot of young children. They are still flexible and can change,” the minister said.

3. The links with Afghan culture have to be completely severed.
The minister thinks there are families who have clear links with the Afghan culture and others that have severed all links. This should also be considered. Is the home decorated with Afghan rugs hanging on the walls or is there a replica of Rembrandt’s Nightwatch? Do they listen to Afghan music or Lady Gaga? Do they wear burkas or skinny jeans? Is there a copy of the Qur’an next to the bed or [contemporary Dutch author] Harry Mulisch?

4. The family has not deliberately frustrated the asylum process.
The fourth criterion has nothing to do with Westernisation. The minister thinks it is quite defendable when a family appeals a rejected asylum request. In Sahar’s case it took ten years to complete the process. However, if the family deliberately appeals every decision with the aim of preventing deportation, then they are frustrating the procedure. It is a subtle difference. But if this is the case, it could mean Westernised girls being sent back to Afghanistan anyway.

The decision brings Sahar’s case to an end. But anti-Islam Freedom Party MP Hero Brinkman warns that people can fake being too Westernised. He says the new definition “is a completely crazy way to determine whether or not someone can stay here.”

There are 400 girls who are in a similar situation as Sahar. Each one will be considered against the new criteria. A difficult task as the minister says between 40 and 100 will be allowed to stay. The rest will be considered able to adapt back in Afghanistan.

(nc/rk)