Blurring the line between alleged extremism and legitimate viewpoints threatens to narrow public debate

On 22 September, the Dutch security and anti-terrorism services, AIVD and NCTV, published the report “Behind the façade” on what they term “strategic normalisation by the far-right movement”. The report warns against extremists who present their ideas in a moderate guise. In the accompanying press release, the agencies go a step further. They state that it is “of great importance” that it does not become normal to talk about, for example, remigration without knowing what right-wing extremists mean by it.

Before we examine the content of the report, it is important to consider the definitions of right-wing extremists and the far right. In the past, the state distinguished between violence and/or lawlessness on the one hand, and respect for the law on the other. Furthermore, the distinction between the radical right and the far right can be made on the basis of respect for a democratically elected majority government: popular sovereignty. These categories seem to be becoming increasingly blurred and used interchangeably. This creates the risk that innocent citizens, whether or not they hold ‘radical’ views, will be lumped together with violent extremists.

Remigration

The fixation on the term ‘remigration’ is remarkable. Remigration is, in fact, neither a fabrication of extremists nor a euphemism for their so-called true aims. After all, the Netherlands itself had a Remigration Act for many years, administered by the SVB bank, which provided a remigration allowance for those who voluntarily returned to their country of origin. Indeed, 20 years ago, under Balkenende, the Netherlands had a negative net migration balance, as more people were leaving than arriving.

The authorities themselves acknowledge, incidentally, that the ‘term’ remigration is not new. The term now features in the election manifestos of several parties. However, its use appears to be under suspicion, as part of the fight against right-wing extremism.

Anyone who has read George Orwell’s 1984 will recognise the mechanism. In Newspeak, words disappear from the language or are stripped of their original meaning. Language is framed in such a way that certain thoughts, ideas, views and feelings become increasingly difficult to express. Words take on a connotation that makes their users suspect from the outset.

When does something become extremism?

The report provides a precise definition of what constitutes extremism – ‘a willingness, motivated by ideology, to engage in non-violent and/or violent activities that undermine the democratic legal order’ - but the term ‘far right’ is not defined anywhere. At the same time, views on traditions, gender relations and criticism of diversity policy are cited as “points of entry” for extremists. And that is worrying, because the line between ‘extremism’ and legitimate political debate is becoming blurred. And what does it mean for citizens when their choice of words is assessed and possibly even monitored by an intelligence service? At the same time, the AIVD and NCTV acknowledge that concerns about migration among many citizens are ‘justified’. A dilemma, in short.

A free society requires security services to exercise the utmost restraint when it comes to political debate. FVD MP Iem Al Biyati has therefore tabled parliamentary questions to the Ministers of Justice and Security and of the Interior.

Questions from MP Al Biyati (FVD) to the Minister of Justice and Security and the Minister of the Interior and Kingdom Relations regarding the report ‘Behind the façade – Strategic normalisation by the far-right movement’.

1. Are you familiar with the report “Behind the façade” published by the AIVD and NCTV in September 2026?

2. Who commissions the drafting of reports such as ‘Behind the façade’?

3. How do you explain the title of this report written by the AIVD and NCTV?

4. Do you acknowledge that it is undesirable for intelligence services to pass judgement on the ideology of democratically elected political parties?

5. In what way did the Supervisory Committee on the Intelligence and Security Services oversee the activities of the AIVD that form the basis of this report?

6. What exactly is the distinction between ‘far right’, ‘right-wing extremist’ and ‘extreme right’?

7. Why does the report fail to define the first term, even though it plays a key role in the report?

8. Are you familiar with the definition of the ‘far right’ as set out by the leading political scientist and expert on the radical right, Cas Mudde?

9. If the answer to question eight is in the affirmative, do you see a difference between this definition and that of the AIVD, and how do you explain this difference?

10. What objective criteria do the AIVD and NCTV use to classify a political party, movement or individual as ‘far-right’?

11. Who sets these criteria?

12. Do you agree that advocating a strict migration policy, a halt to asylum, restrictions on family reunification or the promotion of voluntary return are legitimate political positions?

13. The report acknowledges that ‘remigration’ is also an official term for voluntary return; how do you prevent politicians or members of the public who use the word in that sense from being perceived as being on a par with ‘far-right extremists’?

14. Are you aware that the Netherlands has had a remigration law in place for many years, administered by the SVB, which provides for a remigration allowance and remigration support?

15. Why are “conservative” views on gender relations, national traditions or criticism of diversity and inclusion policies cited in this report as points of reference for “right-wing extremists”?

16. Do you share the view that the aforementioned ‘conservative’ views are not, in themselves, extremist?

17. How does the passage on discussions concerning “a more neutral approach to Christian holidays” relate to the right of citizens and politicians to speak out in favour of preserving traditions without being stigmatised?

18. Do you share the concern that a report by the intelligence services linking political statements to the normalisation of extremism could have a ‘chilling effect’ on free debate?

19. Do you acknowledge that the report itself states that the Netherlands is indeed undergoing demographic changes as a result of migration and that citizens have ‘genuine concerns’?

20. Why is the report partly based on publications by organisations with a distinctly activist profile, such as Hope not Hate and the Centre for the Study of Organised Hate?

21. In the press release of 22 September 2026, the AIVD and the NCTV state that it is “of great importance that it does not become normal to speak of, for example, remigration without knowing what right-wing extremists actually mean by this” – is it desirable for an intelligence and security service to specify the conditions under which the use of certain words in public debate may be considered normal?

22. How has the definition of (right-wing) extremism at the AIVD and NCTV evolved over the past 20 years?

23. Do you acknowledge that a shift in the meaning of ‘extremism’ could result in citizens being wrongly labelled as extremists?

24. Can you confirm that it is not the role of the government, the AIVD or the NCTV to dictate which words citizens are permitted to use?

25. If you cannot confirm question 24, can you then publish an official list of banned words that may no longer be used?

26. Do you share the view that intelligence and security services must exercise the utmost restraint when interpreting mainstream political debate, as they otherwise run the risk of giving the impression that they are favouring certain political parties over others?

27. How do you prevent views that have been part of mainstream political debate and election manifestos for years from subsequently being labelled as dangerous in the public perception by a report from the security services?

28. According to this report, intimidation and threats are said to lead to ‘self-censorship’, but do you acknowledge that this report by the AIVD and NCTV may also lead to self-censorship because citizens fear being wrongly labelled as ‘extremists’?

29. Do you acknowledge that one must first have an a priori definition of the concept of ‘normal’ before one can even speak of ‘normalisation’?

30. How do you prevent ordinary citizens who express critical views on migration from practising self-censorship for fear of being seen as “extremists”?

31. How many full-time equivalents (FTEs) did the drafting and publication of this report cost?

32. In what way was artificial intelligence used to write this report?