Wanneer heeft een strafzitting betekenis? Hoe kunnen we de kostbare tijd op zo’n manier benutten dat er niet alleen een grens wordt getrokken bij gedrag dat in strijd is met de regels, maar dat de schade hersteld wordt, er moreel inzicht ontstaat en de breuk in de samenleving hersteld wordt? Het vraagt om een nieuw perspectief op de zitting – de zitting als modern ritueel.

Waar gebruiken we een zittingszaal eigenlijk voor? Als arena voor een strijd? Als een plek waar hoor en wederhoor plaatsvindt? Wat voor ruimte is er nodig om recht te spreken? We zijn met verschillende mensen in gesprek gegaan over deze vragen, ook met wetenschappers, en zo werd de kiem gelegd voor het vak Design of Justice, dat op acht onderwijsinstellingen zal worden gedoceerd. In deze bijdrage doen wij verslag van de eerste resultaten hiervan.

Since society was secularized, the values of democracy based on the rule of law seem to have the best (potential) binding force for social cohesion. These values are linked to Christianity however. The relation between both will be explained by a critical review of Larry Siedentops Inventing the individual and Olivier Roy’s l’Europe est-elle chrétienne?

‘The victim’ is an important figure in restorative justice, but who is this victim? In this article, I will review articles published in this journal between 2005 and 2019 in order to establish the characteristics of victims recognized in the field of restorative justice. It first needs to be noted that there is not one homogeneous victim group. The diversity in victims and their needs calls for research investigating when, for whom, and under which circumstances restorative justice practices lead to victim satisfaction. Many articles reviewed address this question. When I nevertheless try to extract an ideal type of victim of restorative justice, it seems that the victim is agentic and resilient, expresses a wide range of emotions, prioritizes reparation over punitive measures and is overall very satisfied with the restorative justice practice.

The worldwide ‘lockdown’ due to Covid-19 has had an accelerating effect on the ongoing discussion of Islamic burial in the Netherlands. Because of the closure of airspace Moroccan and Turkish-Dutch deceased could no longer be repatriated to be buried in their country of origin. This increased the pressure on cemeteries in the Netherlands to provide for the requirements and rituals of an Islamic burial. And this in turn showed the importance of the discussion that is already taking place in the House of Representatives about changes to the laws and regulations concerning burials. These three dimensions of Islamic burial in the Netherlands – personal, practical and legal – are discussed in this article.

In this article, we report on our initial findings (from the field) regarding conflict resolution among the Maroons in Suriname. After first providing some background information about the Maroons (section 2), we describe their manner of conflict resolution after a crime has taken place and we explain what justice within this context entails for them (section 3). Subsequently, we try to distil ‘the useful elements’ from the Maroons’ approach to crime, that is to say elements with which modern restorative justice, i.e. restorative justice that meets, inter alia, human rights and constitutional requirements, can be nourished and strengthened. We also discuss some of the challenges we have encountered, where the traditional legal system and the modern criminal justice system come together (section 4). Then we try to build some possible bridges between the two legal systems (section 5). The contribution concludes with providing a window on the future of the development of restorative justice in Suriname and the Netherlands.

This article outlines two points of criticism related to Christopher Marshall’s discussion of a relational justice of care. First, addressing the needs of the parties involved in a criminal justice case finds its appropriate place in the post-trial stage. In the pre-trial and trial stages, protecting the legal rights and equal treatment of suspects should take priority over caring for suspects. Secondly, if the outcome of the restorative encounter in the pre-trial stages has a bearing on the verdict of the judge, the encounter may risk to lose its authenticity. The offender may have reason to believe that a socially appropriate performance will be rewarded with less punishment.

In countries like Belgium and The Netherlands, there seems to be overwhelming public acceptance of transplantation and organ donation. Yet, paradoxically, part of the public refuses post-mortal donation of their own organs or of those of family members. It is customary within the transplantation context to accept the refusal of organ donation by family members “in order to accommodate their feelings”. I argue that this attitude does not take seriously what is really behind the refusal of donation by (at least some) family members. My hypothesis is that even in very secularized societies, this refusal is determined by cultural-symbolic attitudes vis-à-vis the (dead) human body (and some of its parts). The blind spot for this reality, both in the practice of and discussions around organ donation, prevents understanding of what is producing the paradox mentioned.

This is the second part of the revised translation of ‘Understanding sharia in the West’ that was published in the Journal of Law, Religion and State 2018, 6, p. 236-273. The first part of the translation appeared in Tijdschrift voor Religie, Recht en Beleid 2019, 3, p. 17-31.

Do religious motives result in greater freedom of action? This question cannot be answered with a simple yes or no. First of all, a distinction must be made between conduct that falls within the scope of the right to freedom of religion as opposed to other conduct. This distinction in turn needs some qualification. The aforementioned right can, after all, be restricted. The conduct in question could moreover fall within the purview of another fundamental right, as a result of which persons without religious motives are entitled to invoke another fundamental right. All these distinctions will be reviewed in this article. Special attention will be given to religiously motivated statements condemning homosexuality and the religiously motivated refusal to have children vaccinated.

Deze bijdrage bespreekt het op 30 oktober 2019 door de parlementaire werkgroep-Van der Staaij gepresenteerde voorstel voor een nieuw Reglement van Orde van de Tweede Kamer. Na een bespreking van enkele algemene punten wordt specifiek ingegaan op de voorstellen die betrekking hebben op de wetgevingsprocedure. De conclusie is dat er bepaald geen grootscheepse wijzigingen worden voorgesteld ten opzichte van het huidige Reglement van Orde. Wel een wezenlijke verandering is de oplossing die de werkgroep heeft bedacht voor de problematiek van de zogeheten verweesde initiatiefvoorstellen (en amendementen). Daarnaast wordt ingegaan op de volgende onderwerpen en veranderingen die de werkgroep op dat vlak wel of juist niet heeft voorgesteld: de schriftelijke voorbereiding van wetsvoorstellen, het wetgevingsoverleg, artikelsgewijze behandeling en stemming, vernummering van een wetsvoorstel, technische briefings en de voorbereiding van initiatiefvoorstellen.

This article focuses on the ways the NVU, Pegida and Voorpost - three far-right groups from the Netherlands - make use of social media platforms in the year 2017. Our results show that these extreme right-wing groups use social media to spread their ideology, to construct a group identity, and to call for (democratic) forms of resistances. In addition, our findings illustrate that these far-right groups seem to adjust to their digital surroundings: they do not change or conceal their extremist ideas, but rather manage their online content to ensure that their ideologies can be disseminated through social media.

The Dutch social-liberal party D66 was founded in 1966, in the aftermath of the pillarisation (on religious grounds) of Dutch society. The founders of D66 wanted to ‘blow up’ the pillarised political system. They strongly took distance from religions that were in their views oppressing. A certain anti-religion attitude was a part of the DNA of the party. For decades it was ‘bon ton’ to criticise religion. A turning point has recently been observed by the writer. There is still a discomfort in relation to religion, but this discomfort is more related to not-knowing than being against. The writer pleads for going beyond the discomfort. Religion – in the broad sense of the word – has a lot to offer to society. We indeed can’t live without binding stories, places that are loaded with meaning and festivities that reminds ourselves of who we are and who we would want to be. Finally the modernity and religion can strengthen each other: where modernity is skilled in criticising religion, the Christian religion can make a contribution by criticising modernity.

Crises and disasters can seriously affect the health, well-being and functioning of the people involved. From a governance perspective, it is important that public leaders and crisis managers are aware of what the psychosocial dimension of crisis management entails. The objective of the current contribution is to analyse dilemmas and challenges described in evaluations of crises that occurred in the Netherlands between 2012 and 2016. Thirty-six evaluations were analysed against the background of a theoretical framework combining crisis leadership tasks and psychosocial support principles along the crisis life cycle. Public leaders and crisis managers had to deal with classical crisis problems concerning coordination, collaboration and communication. Other recurring themes were linked to social media, and the tension between tasks such as meaning making (social recognition), account giving and learning. Moreover, the analysis illustrates how difficult it is to gain insight into the needs, problems and vulnerabilities of the individuals and groups affected.