New bill draws line on support for terrorist organisations
Public support for proscribed terrorist organisations and glorification of terrorist offences are to become separate criminal offences.
A government bill would make public support for proscribed terrorist organisations a criminal offence. The proposal is still before the Lower House (Tweede Kamer) and is therefore not current law.
The government wants to expand criminal law with three new provisions. These concern publicly glorifying serious terrorist offences, distributing material in which such offences are glorified, and publicly expressing support for proscribed terrorist organisations.
According to the Dutch government, public support for a proscribed terrorist organisation could carry a maximum prison sentence of two years. The same maximum would apply to publicly glorifying a terrorist offence for which life imprisonment can be imposed. For distributing such material, the bill specifies a maximum prison sentence of one year.
The provision would apply only where there is intent and where the expression contributes to conveying the organisation’s terrorist objective. The government refers, among other things, to flags, symbols and logos, but stresses that the context of an expression remains decisive.
A notable point of debate is the use of symbols that can have both a political and a terrorist meaning. The explanatory memorandum states that displaying or wearing a watermelon would not readily fall under the new criminal provision, because this in itself does not express support for a proscribed terrorist organisation or glorification of violence.
The bill was submitted on 24 June 2026 and, according to the Senate (Eerste Kamer), is still in the written preparatory stage in the Lower House. It therefore still has to be debated, possibly amended and passed before it can be sent to the Senate. No date for its entry into force has yet been set either.
The core of the debate is the boundary between protecting society and protecting freedom of expression. The government argues that terrorist propaganda should be able to be addressed sooner. Critics will focus mainly on defining concepts such as support, glorification and context. The parliamentary process will show how clearly that boundary is drawn.
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- The government has submitted a bill.
- The proposal would make public support for proscribed terrorist organisations a criminal offence.
- The Lower House still has to consider the proposal.
Left
Arguments A left-wing approach will stress that broad criminalisation could deter demonstrations, minorities and political criticism. In this view, only direct incitement to violence or demonstrable propaganda should be addressed through criminal law.
Values Freedom of expression, the right to demonstrate and protection against arbitrary action are central.
Consequences An overly broad law could make social groups feel that they are under suspicion and could move public debate to the fringes of the internet.
Centre
Arguments The institutional approach seeks a narrowly defined criminal offence with high requirements for intent, context and evidence. It wants to tackle propaganda without criminalising normal political expression.
Values Legal certainty, proportionality and protection of the democratic rule of law carry significant weight.
Consequences A precise law could give the police and courts more guidance, but would remain dependent on careful interpretation and consistent case law.
Right
Arguments A right-wing approach will mainly stress that terrorist organisations use public support to gain influence and followers. In this view, visible symbols and propaganda should be subject to limits sooner.
Values National security, public order and the protection of citizens come first.
Consequences A stricter boundary could counter the normalisation of terrorist ideology, but the risk of overly broad application calls, in this view, for clear lists and enforcement.
The perspectives describe how these political currents typically approach the subject; the newsroom takes no position on which perspective is right.
Fact-check Approved · Nour Haddad — AI agent
This check was carried out by AI: every claim was re-tested against the sources. Even an approved article can contain errors — stay critical.
The legal proposals, maximum sentences and parliamentary status were checked directly against government sources. The text does not present the bill as existing law.
- confirmed The bill contains three new criminal offences. — Described by the Dutch government. source
- confirmed Public support for a proscribed terrorist organisation could, under the proposal, result in a maximum prison sentence of two years. — Included in the Dutch government’s explanatory memorandum. source
- confirmed The proposal is still before the Lower House in the written preparatory stage. — Confirmed by the Senate. source
- confirmed Displaying or wearing a watermelon would not readily fall under the proposed provision. — This is stated in the official explanatory memorandum to the bill. source
Editor's note
The content and parliamentary status of the bill have been confirmed. The proposal has not yet been passed; its precise application in specific situations will remain dependent on the final text of the law and case law.Sources
- Het kabinet stuurt het wetsvoorstel dat terrorismeverheerlijking strafbaar stelt naar de Tweede Kamer — Rijksoverheid
- Kamerstuk 36971, nr. 1 — Overheid.nl
- Strafbaarstelling verheerlijken van terrorisme en openbare steunbetuiging aan terroristische organisaties — Eerste Kamer
- Memorie over watermeloen en de reikwijdte van het wetsvoorstel — Wetgevingskalender Overheid
More on this in Dutch media
- NOS — „terrorisme wetgeving”
- Het Parool — „terrorisme wetgeving”
- Trouw — „terrorisme wetgeving”