Explore More »

Accepting Injustice: Revealing the Irrationality Behind the Detention Boats in Zaandam


What would you do if there were boats in your backyard on which people were detained without a criminal record? Would you question the situation or would you look away? 

A Chinese citizen travels to the Netherlands, fleeing his country in the hopes of greater opportunities and a friendlier political environment. He joins other Chinese immigrants in his new country, and spends several years working as a cook in a local Chinese restaurant. One day, the police raid the restaurant and arrest everyone without documents. He is sent to a floating prison-like facility and detained for months. The man decides to apply for asylum, but his request is denied by the Netherlands. Eventually the detention is lifted, because China is unwilling to accept undocumented citizens back into their country. The man is escorted off the detention boat, passes through its industrial surroundings, and heads to the central station. A ticket is purchased for him back to the city where he was originally arrested. Once geklinkerd, he is faced with the same option — working undocumented in a Chinese restaurant — that he had before, or or even worse. He may be arrested and imprisoned a second, third or fourth time because the system is unwilling to pull him out of purgatory.

These questions are not merely theoretical. In 2006, two detention boats were placed in a remote industrial area of Zaandam. These boats are used to detain illegal migrants and asylum seekers who are being deported out of the Netherlands. ‘‘Newly arrived migrants who are refused admission to the Netherlands are detained to prevent illegal residency. Other migrants are detained because they do not have a right of residence, and are waiting to return to their country of origin.’’ (Amnesty International, 2010)

The simple fact of not having proper documentation is sufficient to be detained ‘‘for months under circumstances that are much more severe than in normal prisons. Officially migrant detention is an administrative measure, not a penal one, but in practice it is the equivalent of imprisonment” (report: Justitia et Pax). Moreover, it is a general policy that immigrants in detention are placed in a two-man cell. It is therefore quite possible that you will need to share your cell with someone who, for example, has committed a serious criminal offense in his (or her) country of origin.

Amidst these changing Dutch immigration policies, in 2008 Amnesty International released a report titled, ‘The Netherlands: The detention of irregular migrants and asylum-seekers,’ in which it strongly criticized Dutch immigration practices with regard to the detention of illegal migrants and asylum seekers. In 2010, an updated version of this report was released that upheld the main critical conclusions of the 2008 report.

The use of detention boats in the Netherlands had already been criticized before 2006, which was the primary reason for the city council's negotiating that the detention boats would close in September 2011. However, last year — against all expectations — the detention boats' permit was extended to 2013, with a possible further extension.

This means that in the coming two years, many more illegal migrants and asylum seekers will be detained on these detention boats in Zaandam. As a result, many more migrants will be deprived of their liberty, and risk developing serious psychological problems due to their detention on these boats.

So, what has been the actual driving force behind the controversial extension of the permit for these boats?

The detention boats in Zaandam used as a trade-off?

As the economic crisis in the Netherlands and worldwide seems to have reached its peak, there is likewise a chance for xenophobia to spread as well, states Robert van de Griend, journalist of Vrij Nederland (21 maart 2009). This so-called "scapegoat mechanism" is holding migrants of every kind responsible for the crisis and its consequent loss of jobs. Such xenophobia has fuelled harsh political rhetoric towards migrants, which has become even more fierce over the past few years. Political parties such as Wilders' Freedom Party are quoted saying that the mass immigration has cost Dutch society hundred of millions of euros already, and that enough is enough.

His statements on migrants brought Wilders and his Freedom Party a lot of voters. Other parties and members of parliament followed Wilders in his rhetoric. Among them was Rita Verdonk, who stated that the more rigorous the immigration and integration policy, the better. In his column, Van de Griend quotes a professor in Methodology of the Social Sciences, Peer Scheepers, stating that research covering the period 1979-2004 shows that poor economic prospects result in the development of long-lasting xenophobic attitudes, especially among youngsters.

Leo Lucassen, Professor of Social History at Leiden University, in his lecture titled ‘Winners and Losers: how justified is pessimism about integration?’ describes several claims currently being made in Dutch politics that belong to a so-called rhetoric of fear. He cites the use of terminology such as ‘tsunami’ to refer to mass immigration, and negative descriptions of certain groups of non-Western and Muslim immigrants as posing a threat, in that such a systematic stigmatization of a large group in society would threaten the core values of Dutch society. Dorine Mans, president of the Dutch Council for Refugees stated that 22,000 Dutch citizens are returning to the Netherlands every year; in other words, the population of people remigrating is actually larger than that of asylum seekers. We can see, then, that the political rhetoric is exaggerated as part of a negative bias against asylum seekers. 

‘The fact is that integration problems are wrongly connected to immigration policy’, says Robert van de Griend when we spoke with him at the headquarters of the weekly Vrij Nederland. The office is in an old building, but with a modern space. The ceilings are high, the desks sit in a open space, and journalists mill around as their thoughts are transferred from mind to paper. Robert is one of the younger journalists in the office, but has a respectable amount of experience under his belt. ‘The more people feel there are integration problems, the stricter the immigration policy is going to be. Which is strange, since the balance of immigration and integration is the same.’ Such facts are ignored in the rhetoric of fear sweeping through the Netherlands. Politicians appeal to such emotions in order to justify the use of detention centers, claiming the necessity for such facilities. 

In this report, we were hoping to find out what role the rhetoric of fear played in Zaandam. Did local politicians appeal to rampant fears of immigration in an attempt to justify the detention boats? Indeed, what we discovered was a top-down effect.

Bert Boer, former city council member of the Green Left Party and current President of Amnesty Zaanstad, agrees with Van de Griend. ‘I think it has to do with a general feeling in the Netherlands. All the measures on integration are accepted by a majority of people in this country. Zaandam is a very pleasant area to live in, with nice people. Just simple people living in simple houses. This is not a black area. But there are a lot of Wilders voters as there is still a feeling that our children cannot find jobs because of the immigrants.’

Ruud Pauw, however, disagrees. Claiming, ‘there is no fear at a local level,’ he insists that local politicians do not portray immigrants as people to be feared in order to justify the boats. According to him, this climate does not exist in Zaandam because the area already has a 400-year history dealing with immigrants, and thus the issue is not new. He believes that Geert Wilders has not had a great influence in Zaandam, and that any immigration-related fears there have trickled down from the national government; instead, it is the generally charged climate over immigration in the Netherlands that has had some effect. 

From Rotterdam to Zaandam 

The detention of illegalen has been investigated by Robert van de Griend over the past six years, beginning with a week of undercover research on the first prison boat in Rotterdam. The boats were built in 2004, as part of a prestigious project by the Ministry of Justice to make space in normal prisons for repeated criminal offenders. Through an emergency law, the detention boats were created. Van de Griend’s report on his experience as a security employee on one of the boats stirred up a fierce public debate about the injustice of imprisoning undocumented immigrants, and whether there is any question of inhumane conditions on the prison boats in Rotterdam and Dordrecht. Due to the intense public debate regarding these circumstances, eventual closure was inevitable. ‘The boats were said to be there for a certain time. They were old and shitty. The more and more political pressure from both society and media there came to shut these boats, left-wing minister Albayrak was left no choice then to close them down’, says Robert van de Griend. However, this controversial practice was copied in Zaandam, where two detention platforms were opened in 2006.

Bert Boer elaborates on how the idea for detention boats was presented to the local municipality of Zaanstad: ‘we knew that the conditions were very bad over there [in Rotterdam]. That’s why we did not want them over here. However, as a municipality you are not responsible for the policy of the government of the Netherlands. These boats are not against the law and the Dutch policy. Thus, this became a problematic issue as the local government can’t do much about it.’ Boer continues, ‘the Minister of Justice promised the council of Zaanstad a new prison that was supposed to be built – with jobs provided for at least 800 people – already.’ In return, the local municipality had to cooperate with the placement of the detention platforms in this industrial area for a five year period. State Secretary Teeven stated to the alderman that the boat would stay up until 2013, with a possibility for extension. If the local municipality did not agree, then the plans for a prison in Zaanstad would be cancelled.

Yet, Van de Griend states that the situation in Zaandam is similar to Rotterdam. ‘It started out as an alternative to prisons for undocumented immigrants as well. The population was told the boats would only stay there for five years. You can tell, if you see the boats, that it’s cheap material. It was supposed to be a temporary solution with a possibility of extension.’ For placement of the detention platforms, article 17 was invoked. This procedure was developed  in order to sideline the local council from influencing the decision-making process. In the end, as a symbolic political act, the mayor and aldermen of Zaanstad decided to give the council a voice. This was the impetus for an official discussion within the city council. 

Before the actual placement of the boats, there was much negotiation between the council and  the Ministry of Justice regarding the conditions for this process. Boer explains, ‘We had long discussions in so-called workshops and subsequent council meetings within the local municipality on the provisions presented.’ The council stated that it does not want a provision in which asylum seekers who have exhausted legal remedies are being detained, nor have the the detention platforms serve as deportation centers run in an inhumane manner. From council documents, it becomes apparent that the alderman responsible for immigration and integration, Harm-Jan Egberts (PvdA), as well as delegates from the Ministry, made strong claims over a three-month period in an effort to convince the council that this category of asylum seekers would not be placed on the boat. One letter sent on April 4, 2006 states, ‘The boats will not be appointed as deportation centers, and no asylum seekers will be detained there.’ 

The majority of the council eventually ruled against the boats, but the Labor Party swung the election because they did not wish to become divided.  Finally the local municipality accepted the boats under strict conditions. “The Ministry of Justice was very easy in acknowledging our conditions,” Boer elaborates. 

We met with Annemarie Busser of Amnesty International in Amsterdam, who co-authored the original report on Zaandam in 2008. She emphasizes the process mentioned earlier: ‘the fact that the Ministry focused on realizing better circumstances was the main point on which the idea of the detention platforms was sold to the local municipality.’ ‘The boats are now somewhat better than in Rotterdam, but still not good enough’, Boer says.

The municipality was not overruled by the Ministry, since it had agreed to the boats in return for 800 new jobs through the building of a traditional prison. In addition, there was a promise from the Minister to keep an eye on conditions on the boat. In short, this was a power play between national and local politicians in which the local municipality was left to sell the idea of the detention boats to Zaandam's residents, and convince them that the platforms would be more secure and safe than had been the case in Rotterdam and Dordrecht. According to Boer, there was not an impressive reaction from the citizens. ‘There was some attention in the local newspaper, but it is read by only 15.000 people. It probably had a certain impact, in particular in churches and mosques where discussions on the matter took place.’ Despite some discussion in the public sphere, little attention was paid overall. Robert van de Griend agrees, saying, ‘these boats are easier than regular asylum or detention centers as they prevent asylum seekers from walking around the city. They are just put away in an industrial area. There is not much resentment in the actual community of Zaandam because the center is far from where their daily life takes place.' Over time, however, there has been a change in perception of the boats, according to Boer. ‘There is definitely more awareness now than in the past on what it means for an illegal to be on the boat, and for the citizens to have the detention platforms in their city’.

The legal justification for the detention of irregular immigrants and asylum-seekers in the Netherlands

The Netherlands is signatory to all relevant international human rights instruments, such as the European Convention on Human Rights. These provisions do not need to be implemented in national legislation, but can be directly invoked in Dutch courts. With regard to national immigration legislation laws, article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) plays an important role. It states that ‘‘everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law. (…) The lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorized entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition.’’

The Netherlands has used this provision from the European Convention to legally justify the detention of irregular immigrants and asylum-seekers. In Dutch national law, according to the Dutch Refugee Council in their national report titled "Becoming Vulnerable in Detention," there are two main legal grounds for detaining migrants: ‘‘Both grounds are applicable to asylum seekers as well as to other irregular migrants. Although no distinction in application is made, the migrants are detained at different wings in the detention centers.’’ 

The first set of legal grounds is laid down in article 3 in conjunction with article 6, paragraph 1 and 2 of the 2000 Aliens Act. article 6 states that "The alien to whom access is denied can be obliged to stay in a by the government official carrying out border control appointed space or location. And ‘a space of location, as meant in the first section, can be secured to prevent unauthorized leave." (article 6, Aliens Act of 2000) It must be noted that migrants who claim asylum after arriving in the Netherlands are detained on the grounds of article  3 of the Alien Act, as well. They are kept in detention throughout their asylum procedure. In practice, no individual decision is being made, nor are there other alternative measures being considered. 

The main critique of Dutch immigration policies is that detention is not applied as ultimum remedium.  For example, Resolution 1707 of  the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, while not legally binding to the Netherlands, stated that ‘detention should be used only if less intrusive measures have been tried and found insufficient. Consequently, priority should be given to alternatives to detention for the individuals in question (although they may also have human rights implications). Alternatives to detention are financially more attractive for the states concerned and have been found to be effective.’ 

The fact that detention is not applied as ultimum remedium is worrisome because, as previously stated, such detention has been shown to have a detrimental affect on the psychological well-being of migrants. Detainees have been permanently affected by their detention experiences, and found to have serious long-term mental health issues. Once allowed back into society, they may be too incapacitated to reach their full potential.

In 2009, some 20% of migrants (or 1575, based on a total figure of 7867) were detained for longer than six months. In some cases, this ends in deportation. In other cases, a residence permit is granted. ‘Often, the detention is lifted because there is no view to deportation. In that case, the person is what is known as geklinkerd, the Dutch term in this context for being put out on the street. Many of these people remain (without legal residence status) in the Netherlands’ (Amnesty International, 2010). The tragic effect of being geklinkerd is that these migrants may be arrested and imprisoned a second, third or fourth time. There are cases of people who spent more than two years in immigration detention; ‘between 2004 and 2007, 7,700 people were detained on multiple occasions’ (Amnesty International, 2010).

Impression of seeing the detention boats in Zaandam

The term "boat" is a euphemism for the floating detention center in Zaandam. While it has been represented to the public as a detention center for illegalen, in reality it is a floating prison for people without documentation. In his recent speech, Professor Kalmhout points out, ‘It is particularly this associative connection between the concept of illegality to criminality by the European Human Rights Commissioner Thomas Hammarberg, the portrayal of these strangers provides. Hammarberg points out in particular the negative consequences that this image has to ensure that illegalen are not granted their human rights.’ 

When approaching the detention center located in the industrial district of the town, one would never guess that this is a boat. The center consists of two, large floating containers. It is easy to see the outline of the cells where about 300 men spend their time. Each cell contains a window, which cannot be opened and is covered by metal bars. At times the detainee's silhouette is visible. The entire area is colorless: a grey fence, grey containers and grey water  surrounds them. We had read about the floating detention center and had even seen pictures of this prison boat, but to see it in person was jarring. Many residents of Zaandam never see the floating prison. A visitor would probably never even know about it. Zaandam is a town of about 70,000 inhabitants, that is 20 kilometers from Amsterdam. It’s a quiet area consisting of small canals and row homes jazzed up with modern Dutch architecture. We were shown around the prison complex by Bert Boer. Bert explained to us his involvement in the movement protesting the prison boats. He is currently organizing vigils to stand in solidarity with the detained men in Zaandam.

As you drive by the warehouse and office spaces of the industrial area, your eyes are immediately drawn to the prison complex. On the left is a large parking lot where employees can be seen going to their cars, enjoying the luxury of fresh air. A white minivan drives slowly through the gates, carrying the newest detainees. A fence topped with barbed wire surrounds the entire complex, with security cameras monitoring every move. Through the fence, we looked at the floating containers housing the several hundred foreign men who are caught in limbo. The Netherlands won’t grant them asylum, and their native countries will not take them back. While observing the boat, we wondered if the men in their cells could see us. It’s hard to understand why these men are caged up when their only crime is to lack documentation, something beyond their control. It’s a strange sight to have four strangers walking around  observing this floating prison; we were the only people in the area not in uniform. After snapping a few pictures, we were immediately approached by guards and asked to turn off our cameras. We walked back along the fence, feeling the heaviness that such a place inevitably evokes. Before leaving, we were approached by another security guard who had been sent to ask us a few questions. It was made very clear that our behavior was suspicious, and we were informed that taking pictures requires a permit. After this brief discussion, we left the prison complex. 

Later, we talked with Bert in his brightly colored home full of paintings and ventriloquist dummies. Over tea and stroopwafels, he informed us of the volunteer initiatives related to the prison boats. He explained that after some time, a group of citizens in Zaandam had felt that there was indeed something wrong with these detention boats, and began to question the circumstances surrounding the center. One of them was Paula Pauw – a hardworking high school teacher – who realized that many of the men detained in these centers do not have any family or friends to visit them. Paula, who is the wife of Ruud Pauw, joined us for our interview in their stained-glass window shop. Despite her busy job as a teacher, Paula decided to set up a group in cooperation with Humanitas, a Dutch NGO which supports undocumented and illegal migrants, to visit the prisoners on these boats. Every week, she visits these men in Zaandam. When she has not been able to visit them for even one week, she starts to have a hard time sleeping. She understands all too well that she and the others in the group are the only people to listen and support the men on the detention boats.

Indeed, the group's support is indispensable for these men. However, despite their sincere help, the men's attitudes have changed from rather hopeful to depressed and angry. This is not hard to understand, when you realize that these men are deprived of their liberty for months at a time and treated as criminals.

Although we were not able to obtain a permit to tour the boat, we have a general idea of the conditions these men face. Paula, a volunteer with Humanitas, visits the boat once a week. She told us what she has witnessed for herself. It is well-known that the detainees are strip-searched when first entering the boat, in accordance with article 59 of the Aliens Act. It is also possible that these men are once again strip-searched after having spent time with visitors. Amnesty International criticizes the strip-searches in their report, describing them as a violation of bodily integrity, which should only be used as a last resort.

Once inside, the men are usually two to a cell. In theory there is enough free space within the Zaandam detention center for some men to have their own cell; however, due to financial cutbacks,  the general policy is two men per cell. These men sit in their cells from 5pm-8am every day. According to a report in 2010 by Amnesty International, migrants are required to remain in their cells 13-16 hours per day. The report states that in practice, migrants may be spending less than 8 hours outside of their cells, since they receive extra cell time when the staff are in meetings. This cell is small and contains two beds, a small bathroom area and a tiny TV. There is very little privacy for these men. Imagine if one man smokes and another one doesn’t: the nonsmoker has to be in this environment for 13-16 hours per day. Paula explained to us that such conditions inevitably breed anger and depression.

We met with Annemarie Busser of Amnesty International in Amsterdam, who co-authored the original report on Zaandam in 2008. In addition, we met with Ruud Pauw, the head of the local ROSA party. Both stated to us that various organizations, especially Amnesty International, have requested permission to complete a study of the psychological conditions among prisoners on the boat. The national government denied the rights to this study, even though it is a well-known fact that the men suffer from a variety of symptoms. Paula shared one extreme case with us, in which a detainee woke up to find that his cellmate had committed suicide by hanging himself. In addition, other violations of human rights have occurred on the boat. Ruud stated that in the past, a detainee has asked for a doctor but been denied treatment.

A report done by the Ministry of Justice in 2010 criticized the shortage of activities and recreational time available to the detainees. As previously mentioned, the men have less than 8 hours per day to participate in these activities. Amnesty International states that they are only allowed two 45 minute periods outdoors per week. While observing the detention center from the outside, we could see small, enclosed soccer areas. At the time of our visit, it did not appear that anyone was using them. Detainees also do not have the right to work or participate in educational programs. This is striking, given that inmates in regular prisons receive that right. Yet, the detained men’s only crime is to be undocumented. In other words, prisoners in the Netherlands receive more rights than the detained men in Zaandam. This is itself is a violation of Dutch law, which states under the Explanatory Memorandum to the Penitentiary Principles Act that migrants in detention are entitled to employment.. The lack of activities, employment and educational services creates a great sense of frustration for the detainees. Amnesty reports that much of their free time is spent hanging out in the halls or in the empty activity centers. This, of course, leads to boredom and ultimately adds to the anger and depression that many of these men already feel.

The visitor groups at the detention boats

Several groups in Zaandam have joined in a movement to fight for the rights of the detainees. Bert Boer of Amnesty International is one of the volunteers. Through his work with Amnesty, he is putting pressure on the authorities in charge of these boats. Ideally the boats will be closed down, but in the meantime, simply an improvement in conditions would be a start. We asked Bert why he decided to be involved with the boats in Zaandam, “It is good to be involved because we always think that when we speak about human rights it is in far away countries … For me it is unacceptable that the human rights in the Netherlands are not accepted and carried out.” Bert is now working with other local groups to organize vigils where people will stand in solidarity with the men on these boats. Churches, mosques, anarchist groups and others are all working together to protest the boats and to do their part in improving the lives of the detainees.

Humanitas is one such group. Paula Pauw has been visiting the men once a week for the past year and a half. She described one particular conflict that has been brewing within the volunteer community. A local Christian group, Exodus, also visits the men once a week, providing them with snacks and opportunities to speak with others. The work of Exodus and Humanitas is very similar. The pastor within Exodus works for the municipality, and has caused trouble for Humanitas. In Paula’s opinion, it seems as if he does not want Humanitas to volunteer on the boats; just Exodus. A similar situation occurred in Rotterdam, where a Christian group made it impossible for anyone else to volunteer. The volunteers have been granted permits to enter the boats, but are obligated to sign a contract which prohibits them from sharing the reality of what is happening on the boats. Permits can be and have been revoked, due to volunteers' having spread news of the harsh conditions endured by the detainees. Paula stated that the pastor, using this procedure, has succeeded in having the permits of several Humanitas members revoked. Paula is afraid that the same may occur in Zaandam.

The irrationality of the Dutch immigration policy

Recent research has shown that approximately 98 percent of Dutch citizens have foreign ancestors. Immigration is an intrinsic part of the Netherlands' identity as a country. Nonetheless, during a survey in 2008, almost 60 percent of the surveyed Dutch referred to the decision to admit large groups of immigrants as “the biggest mistake in Dutch history”. This is an odd response, considering that these people only themselves obtained their citizenship because their ancestors were once immigrants.

In the Netherlands, fear greatly influences our immigration policies. On June 28, 2011, Vice-Prime Minister Verhagen stated that the fear of foreigners is ‘justified’. PErhaps not coincidentally, this news article was accompanied by a photo of a Muslim. Such fear is fueling a new worldwide trend in which detention is used as a migration management tool, with refugees, asylum seekers and migrants detained for prolonged periods of time. However, there are humane and cost-effective mechanisms to prevent unnecessary and damaging detention, and ensure  that detention is only ever used as a last resort. There are alternatives to unnecessary immigration detention. When you observe some of these better practices with regard to immigration policies, it becomes apparent that making immigration detention the main focus of one's immigration policy is rather irrational.

Research has revealed that immigration detention is not an effective tool for deterring immigrants from traveling to a certain county, for the simple reason that asylum seekers and illegal migrants are not aware of detention policy or its impact in the country of destination. They may simply view it as an inevitable part of the journey, and fail to convey the deterrence message back to those in the country of origin.

Moreover, research has shown that many of these alternatives to detention cost less. In Canada and Australia, a savings was noted of 93% and 69%, respectively. Even more importantly, it has been shown that these alternatives succeed at maintaining high rates of compliance. For instance, in Belgium, a pilot program that worked with families facing removal had an 82% compliance rate.

The most critical fact is that around 20.000 illegal migrants and asylum seekers are detained in the Netherlands. Research has clearly shown that prolonged detention can cause serious physiological problems. Do we truly wish to take such a risk, of having our immigration policy damage innocent people's mental health? Can we really accept the fact that people without no criminal record are detained for months?

The irrationality that lies behind the Dutch immigration policy is a clear result of the power of our own fear. When will we decide not to be led by fear?  As Shirley Maclaine once said, ‘Fear makes strangers of people who would be friends.’

It is this same fear that has detained around 300 men in Zaandam, and prevents so many people in the Netherlands from befriending these undocumented men. Their treatment is inhumane and unwarranted. It is not enough for conditions to be improved; the detention boat needs to be shut down. Local citizens have been doing amazing work rather than standing idly by.

The Dutch government is making little effort to put an end to this harsh treatment. In our interview with Arno Pinxter of the Dutch Refugee Council, he stated, “I think that detention centers will be used more than ever before. This government wants to send people back. In practice this means they will be detained first.” In the meantime, we invite any member of the Dutch government who reads this to join us in spending a week – only a fraction of the average 94-day stay – on the detention boat, and directly experience the unfairness of these national policies.



Boer, Bert. President Amnesty International Zaanstad. Zaandam, The Netherlands. June 19, 2011.

Busser, Annemarie. Senior Policy Officer at Amnesty International. Amsterdam, The Netherlands. June 23, 2011.

Griend, van de, Robert. Journalist Vrij Nederland. Amsterdam, The Netherlands. June 19, 2011.

Manson, Dorine. President of Dutch Council for Refugees. Amsterdam, The Netherlands. June 28, 2011.

Pauw, Ruud. Politician for ROSA-party Zaanstad. Wormerveer, The Netherlands. June 24, 2011 

Pauw, Paula. High school teacher and volunteer for Humanitas. Wormerveer, The Netherlands. June 24, 2011.

Pinxter, Arno. Consultant Asylum Procedures at Dutch Council for Refugees. Amsterdam, The Netherlands. June 27, 2011.


Amnesty International


Humanistisch Verbond 


Justitia et Pax 


Robert van de Griend                                                                               


International Detention Coalition                                                           



Speech by Kalmthout http://www.justitiaetpax.nl/userfiles/file/Tekst%20afscheidsrede%20Prof_%20Dr_%20A_M_%20van%20Kalmthout.pdf 

Explore More »

Share this Article

About This Article

HIA Program:

Netherlands Netherlands 2011


Related Media

I Am Palestine
by Karina Goulordava, Netherlands 2011
Browse all content