The liberal stance regarding religious freedom starts from a particular anthropology, which holds that in order to become fully human citizens must be able to build their lives on the foundations of their religious convictions. This starting point leads to distinctive conceptions of constitutionalism and democracy that make it possible for citizens to keep faith in liberal democracy. The so-called new critics of religious freedom, to the contrary, run the risk of eventually eroding trust in government by putting their substantial ideas of liberal democracy first and demanding of citizens and their organizations to act in conformity with these ideas.

Criminology has come under the spell of thinking negatively about safety and security. It’s focus merely lies on themes such as control, punishment and exclusion. Much interest therefore goes to public policing, private security, CCTV camera’s, anti-social behaviour orders, gated communities and prisons. Of course, this definition of security and security governance as the protection of citizens against crime and disorder must not be rejected out of hand. Without a minimum level of security, society would fall apart in chaos and despair. At the same time, however, we feel increasingly uncomfortable about the dominance of current negative – control and risk-oriented – approaches to (in)security as they overlook positive interpretations associated with trust, community and care. This introduction therefore provides an overview of academic literature that nuance, counter or resist hegemonic and negative meanings of security. In so doing, our aim is to introduce a positive turn in criminology’s interests and concerns regarding crime and disorder problems.

Intercultural communication is often portrayed as communication between people with a different ethnic or national background. People may interpret differences and misunderstandings arising in communication as especially grand and problematic. Sometimes, people see the reason for a difference in opinion or the conflict to be situated within the other (often national or ethnic) culture. They see themselves and others as a member of a different group, with a different culture and thus claim the differences to be related to the culture and not the individual person (culturalising or culturistic approach). This approach entails certain risks when it is seen as a condition to be able to speak to others and when handled as the sole frame of reference to interpret people’s meaning-making. An alternative approach can be found in a systemic and communication-theory approach, linking it to intersectionality, pluralism, diversity competence and the TOPOI model, as this article explains.

The contribution informs about some of the activities and the philosophy of Gevangenenzorg Nederland, a non-governmental organisation for the care for prisoners, member of the Prison Fellowship International. Holding a person responsible for his or her criminal conduct does not only mean punishment, but also individualizing the person as a person, with his or her own life, history and future. The stay in prison should help the person to return into society as a citizen with an equal status, rehabilitated by his punishment. But social reality is far removed from this ideal. The volunteers of Gevangenenzorg Nederland try to bring closer a form or charitable justice, focussing not so much on the risks that a person may be perceived to pose, but much more on the healthy and socially positive talents of the detainee, against the background of the ‘good lives model’ of Ward and Maruna (2007). The article describes the workshop offered to detainees ‘Speaking of guilt, remorse, victims and society’, wherein participants can investigate and discover in a systematic way their own degree and type of guilt and responsibilities and the avenues that might be available to express remorse and to make amends with victims and society. Family members or other significant others are called in in the stage of concluding the course with presenting ‘restorative gestures’ of any personal kind. Care after leaving the prison is offered and planned, hoping to facilitate a fully rehabilitated reintegration into society.