The last aspect of antiracism to discuss is the different way Bij1 proposes to view transgressions. I will highlight three different policy suggestions that show what this different way to view crime consists of.
The first policy proposal to discuss is Bij1’s suggestion to decriminalize sex work.
“Sexworkers should never be obliged to share any special personal information or to register. The Wet Regulering Sekswerk (WRS) will be abolished – sexwork will be decriminalised.”
Bij1, 2020, p. 22
In particular, Bij1 proposes to abolish a law called the ‘Wet Regulering Sekswerk’ (WRS). The WRS is the law which compels sex workers to apply for a permit before they are allowed to do their work legally (Raad van State, 2020). To apply for this permit, sex workers have to be interviewed by their local municipality so they can determine whether they work out of their own free will or whether they are forced or coerced to work (Ibid). As I mentioned in a previous section regarding sex work, these permits are not easily granted or are quickly revoked and any sex worker without a permit can be fined as can their customers (Ibid). As the previously cited report of the Raad van State states, the permits became a barrier for sex workers to do their work, which meant that many were forced to operate outside of the law, increasing the chances of abuse (Ibid). To abolish this law would mean decriminalizing sex work, since sex workers are punished through this law for not having a permit. This policy proposal shows how Bij1
35 wants to change what we consider a crime and in Bij1’s connection to antiracism I think they reproduce a discourse of antiracism as connected to changing our views on who is a criminal.
The second policy proposal to discuss is Bij1’s suggestion to share responsibility of debts between creditor and debtor (Bij1, 2020, p. 28).
“The shared responsibility of creditors for debts is laid down by law. As a result, we are forcing them to stop charging interest and selling on instalment as a profit model. Debt cancellation is encouraged, debt collection agencies are banned.”
Bij1, 2020, p. 28
The Dutch institute Nibud found that one third of Dutch households carried some debt in 2018, while the CBS found that 650.000 households carry a problematic amount of debt (Volkskrant, 2021). The number of people in debt has sustained a considerable industry of creditors making money through interest and debt collection agencies. Currently, the responsibility of a debt lies on the shoulders of the debtor, which means that it is their responsibility to pay back the debt. Bij1 proposes that this
responsibility becomes the creditor’s responsibility as well, which means that a debtor would have increased legal grounds if they do not have the funds to pay back the debt. Shared responsibility in this regard would mean that creditors could no longer benefit from debt and instead they would need to treat unpaid debts as a service to the debtor. In this policy proposal I see a step towards Bij1’s different way to view crime. Failure to pay back a debt from this perspective is not an individual failure, but a societal failure. Similar to the previous proposal, this proposal shows Bij1’s shift to a different perspective on who is the wrong-doer. Given Bij1’s antiracist platform, I suggest that Bij1 here pushes a discourse of
antiracism as tied to societal responsibility for transgressions.
The third policy proposal to discuss builds on the perspective of individual failure becoming a societal failure. Bij1 proposes that prison sentences become an extremity and they will focus on more community service sentences.
“Prison sentences will become a remedy only for extreme cases. From now on, we will be handing out community service sentences.”
Bij1, 2020, p. 102
One reason for their proposal is the fact that community service sentences seem to reduce recidivism rates (Boone, 2010). Another reason is that community service sentences are noticeably more white than Dutch prisons (Idem, p. 33). Where half of the Dutch prisoners have a Dutch background, this group represents almost three quarters (72.1%) of community service workers (Ibid). Bij1 hopes to decrease this disparity by lowering the required conditions of entry into a community service sentence. This policy proposal is indicative of Bij1’s conviction that punishment and imprisonment are racist systems which remove
36 individuals from society to relieve that society from the burden and risk these individuals pose to it.
Community service sentences are seen by Bij1 as a way to have the community participate in carrying that burden. Similar to the previous policy suggestion, crime in this respect is not seen as an individual failure, but rather as a societal failure. Again, given Bij1’s dedication to strive for racial equality in every policy proposal, I think Bij1 is reproducing a discourse where antiracism is linked with societal responsibility for transgressions.
The three policy proposals discussed in this section show a different way to view transgression and, in this paragraph, I briefly discuss their relation to each other. The first policy proposal was intended to decriminalize sex work, the second was intended to halt profiteering off debts and the third was meant to increase the amount of community service sentences. I chose these three policy proposals of
decriminalization, shared responsibility and rehabilitative sentences to highlight a general shift for how Bij1 views transgression. First, they aim to narrow the definition of transgressions and second, they propose to alter how transgressions are viewed and subsequently punished. Decriminalization of sex work suggests that Bij1 wants to change what constitutes a transgression, while the other proposals suggest that transgressions are a societal responsibility. Through Bij1’s emphasis on antiracism I suggest that they are pushing a discourse of racism as connected to transgressions and societal responsibility. As I will discuss in the next chapter, decriminalizing transgressions and making them societal responsibilities is antiracist in how the status quo justifies racist living conditions through stories of individual failure.
37
Through their policy proposals, Bij1 articulates several aspects of antiracism. In the second chapter I described antiracism as context-dependent and tendentious, and in this chapter, I will discuss the aspects of antiracism articulated by Bij1 as context-dependent and tendentious. I will show how Bij1’s articulation of antiracism challenges the status quo, but also how their articulation of antiracism reproduces the status quo. To reiterate, the research question for this thesis is:
How do political party Bij1’s policy proposals challenge and reproduce the racist status quo in the Netherlands?
An analysis of how Bij1 challenges or reproduces the status quo in their policy proposals is important because Bij1 has the unique chance to define what antiracist policy entails for Dutch politics. Additionally, a discussion of Bij1’s antiracism as tendentious and context-dependent can be used to understand
antiracism’s subversive qualities. In other words, I show how this perspective on antiracism is useful to study challenges of the status quo. This chapter is divided into two sections. The first is a discussion of the aspects of antiracism and the second serves as the conclusion to my thesis.