Publishing addresses on the internet, intimidation, paint bombing and occupying buildings: the resistance against the Netherlands’ tough line on immigration is taking on a new edge. The Dutch Intelligence Service has issued a warning about radical asylum activists and the police are worried.

“In the Netherlands, everything is geared towards letting as few people as possible into our prosperous country. For years now, our immigration policy has been marked by deliberate egoism.” That is the message of the Netherlands’ asylum activists, a group of around 100 members who are resorting to increasingly extreme measures in their battle to turn the tide.

The asylum activists are fighting the strict Dutch regime under which thousands of people each year are detained while they wait for a final decision on their asylum application. The activists’ demands are not easily met. They are resolved to continue campaigning until no one is declared illegal, all borders are open and there is not a single detention centre left standing.

The Netherlands first encountered this new radical form of asylum activism on 11 November 2008. A woman who worked for the Dutch immigration service awoke to find her front door daubed with red paint and her car tyres punctured. A statement declared that the red paint symbolised “the blood of those who suffer under the practices of the immigration police ... This is a warning to all of her colleagues in this modern-day Gestapo. You bear responsibility for your actions.”

Wave of attacks
Such intimidation tactics are reminiscent of the radical animal rights movement. In their battle to protect animals, hard-line animal rights activists have been resorting to extreme measures for some time, including personal harassment, arson and paint bombing.

The Dutch Intelligence Service has warned of the radicalisation of asylum activists and says that we should steel ourselves for more illegal and intimidating actions against individuals. Since that first incident, reports suggest that dozens of immigration staff have been harassed and threatened at home.

The Netherlands is no stranger to asylum-related violence. In the early 1990s, it was shaken by a wave of attacks, the most serious being the bombing of the home of the Deputy Justice Minister of the time, Aad Kosto, in November 1991. Mr Kosto was not home at the time of the attack, for which the left-wing group RaRa was held responsible.

Prison
In September last year, the Mayor of Haarlemmermeer fell foul of the activists. Amsterdam’s Schiphol Airport comes under the Mayor’s jurisdiction and the activists did not take kindly to a new detention centre being built there. His house was daubed with paint and his tyres slashed. Again the activists left a calling card: “Your peaceful days are over now that you are intending to build a prison on your land to lock up people without documents.”

Deportation industry
Like the animal rights activists before them, the asylum activists are increasingly targeting companies or individuals indirectly involved in implementing policy. One such target is the construction company BAM, which is working on the new detention centre at Schiphol. In December, activists clad in white suits and armed with spray guns forced their way into BAM’s offices in Bunnik to disinfect the “contaminated” building. Action was also taken against employment agencies that supplied security staff for the detention centres.

On their website, the asylum activists have published the addresses and telephone numbers of dozens of companies that work in what they call “the deportation industry”. The list includes ministries and immigration offices, but also architects, contractors, security firms and even the drug store that supplies medicine for the detainees in deportation centres.

No choice
Dutch Immigration Minister Gerd Leers has confirmed that some companies have reconsidered their position after receiving threats from the activists. “When building new facilities we no longer have architects and construction firms to choose from because they are afraid of being confronted with activism.” The minister describes the situation as unacceptable. “These workers are implementing my decisions and they cannot be treated this way. Anyone who wants to get to them can deal with me first.”

(dd/rk)