In the Netherlands, as in many other countries worldwide, Hizb ut-Tahrir is the subject of a long running security debate. In this article, part of a two-piece series, we argue that the debate about this movement is in need of nuance, structure and theoretical substantiation. We first describe how politicians and the government reacted to the emerging of Hizb ut-Tahrir in the Netherlands, and the stereotypes of violent inclinations that have influenced this reaction. We argue that systematically removing such stereotyping from the debate is helpful to address the question to whether the ideas and activities of this Hizb ut-Tahrir are compatible with (the Dutch) democracy. We go on to explore whether ideas developed in the discipline of militant democracy may be helpful in answering this question.

In 2021 the National Centre of Expertise on Honour-related violence of the Dutch national police force (Landelijk Expertise Centrum Eer Gerelateerd Geweld) dealt with 628 complex cases of honour-related violence. One fifth of these cases (n = 138) occurred in Syrian communities. One third of these cases were about threats and a quarter about abuse. For this article half of these cases within a Syrian context were studied. In one of 75 political differences lead to violence. In the other cases family issues were at stake, especially regarding decent behavior of children and spouses, choosing wedding partners that are acceptable in the eyes of the family and terminating marriages without consent of the spouse and/or mutual families. Due to the frequency and the severity of these cases, violence within these communities deserves further (scientific) attention.

In various areas of law, attention to the law of evidence has increased significantly in recent decades. The same goes for the disciplinary law of various professions, such as that of lawyers and medics. It is noteworthy that Protestant church law pays limited attention to facts and evidence.
The purpose of this article is to clarify the regulation of fact-finding and evidence in Protestant church law and its theological backgrounds and to identify the points on which improvement of this regulation is desirable. The central question of this article is: ‘How is the regulation of evidence broadly regulated in Protestant church disciplinary law, and on which issues is further reflection needed in light of comparative law?’

The author discusses relevant differences in tax treatment within the Dutch category of charities, religion, spirituality and philosophy and between this and other Dutch categories of charities. In the Dutch charity scheme, the difference can be traced back to the legal form of ‘kerkgenootschap’. In the (implementation of the) tax laws, she notes differences in, among other things, the real estate tax and the energy tax refund. Insofar as there is no objective and reasonable justification for the differences in tax treatment, the author advocates removing those differences and makes recommendations to that effect.

On December 24th 2021 the Dutch Supreme Court ruled the income tax on investment revenue illegal as it contradicted the European Convention on Human Rights. The question is how to repair it. The social doctrine of the Church offers a frame by which a new tax law can be judged. It is based on the principles of human dignity. The social doctrine states that fiscal laws should be moderated and fair, benefitting the bonum commune.