Under the slogan “We are all Palestinians”, a coalition of more than 100 organisations had called on the Dutch public to gather at Dam Square in Amsterdam on Saturday, November 30, to protest. However, the Amsterdam municipality announced today that it will not permit the demonstration at Dam Square

In a case that underscores the ongoing tension between civic rights and state authority, we found ourselves in court today, November 29, to challenge the city’s attempt to restrict our right to protest. The protest was to hold the slogan of “We are all Palestinians”, a coalition of more than 100 organisations, that called on the Dutch public to gather in Dam Square, Amsterdam, to support the Palestinian cause.

This legal battle is not just about a specific demonstration but about the broader struggle for public space and democratic freedoms. The authorities’ arguments revolved around vague notions of public order and safety, but our commitment to peaceful, lawful demonstration remains unwavering. What follows is a summary of the proceedings and our reflections on the arguments presented.

The court proceedings

At the court proceedings, the legal team representing the Mayor of Amsterdam, alongside police representatives, sought to frame the demonstration as a risk to public order, particularly on a busy Saturday afternoon ahead of the Sinterklaas festivities. The police commander argued for alternative locations away from the city centre, claiming these would enable an overstretched police force to ensure safety and public order. Generalisations were used to portray that day as the busiest of the year, and the potential presence of counter-protesters was cited to further amplify perceived risks. This reflects the language often used in disputes over public spaces and public perceptions.

We reminded the judge that this is the umpteenth time we have organised demonstrations, all of which have been peaceful and without resulting charges. We also pointed out that last-minute changes to the location – despite our notice given on 8 November, with the city only informing us on November 28 – could cause confusion in public spaces. Furthermore, we highlighted that the authorities have provided no concrete justifications, only a ‘mist’ of vague generalisations. We emphasised that our perspective should be grounded not in the concerns of the police but in the constitution and fundamental rights.

The outcome

The judge, requiring more time to issue a written judgment, concluded the proceedings without delivering an outcome. While we remain confident in our case, especially in light of the authorities’ weak arguments, we remain cautious. Should we win, there is a concern that the very ‘mists’ hinted at by the police could materialise.

Conclusion

This case is about far more than one protest. It reflects the growing challenges faced by citizens seeking to exercise their democratic rights in increasingly contested public spaces. We are not only fighting for the right to protest but also resisting the narrative that public order must come at the expense of constitutional freedoms. Regardless of the court’s eventual decision, our resolve to stand up for these principles remains undiminished. This is a fight not just for us but for the integrity of democracy itself.

Do you want to be informed of DiEM25's actions? Sign up here