Whether or not you’ve heard the phrase “going Dutch”, you probably instantly understand what this means. The Dutch are notoriously known for keeping tabs on every cent, and not shying away from sending you a Tikkie for last week’s borrel. Here’s why you should think twice before doing that this Valentine’s day. 

I had been living in the Netherlands for over three years when I first heard it. By that time, I had already experienced myself — and heard many stories about it — that dreaded moment at the end of dinner when the waiter comes with the bill.

What do the man and woman in the Netherlands expect from each other then? Is splitting the bill always acceptable?

Maybe it’s a cultural thing?

In many cultures, splitting the bill is not common practice at all, at least not for me, or many others coming from abroad to live in the Netherlands, or historically the majority of the Anglo-Saxon world from where the “going Dutch” phrase originally stemmed.

But why is this practice so ingrained in Dutch culture?

Coming from a country where everyone always insists (and almost fights) to foot the entire bill as a token of appreciation for the good time they have had, Dutch frugality was a bit of a shock for me. There are plenty of valid reasons to be conscious about how you spend your money, and the Dutch have mastered this with the invention of the Tikkie.

Dutchies see paying their own bill as something natural; it’s a part of their ego and a show of the independence they pride themselves so much on. Unfortunately, this attitude ended up bleeding into a situation where I think it simply doesn’t belong — dating.

READ MORE | 15 things to expect on a date with a Dutchie

Dating is no time to be frugal because it is all about good impressions. That is why I support the good old way that men should be taking over the bill. It might be a Sisyphean task to explain why I find the Dutch way ineffective, but it might have something to do with making men lazy, and women, well, underappreciated.

Clichés that are ruining dating

If you have read this far and you still fail to see why you can’t just split the bill with your date, you might well be supporting one of the following clichés (which I think are ruining the dating scene):

Cliché 1

“Women today have a job and are independent. They don’t need a man to pay for everything while dating.”

Interesting, but here’s a 2024 spin on that: “Women today don’t need to prove that they have a job and are independent. They are entitled to prefer men that take the initiative.”

Cliché 2

“Many women will only date a guy who is rich, with high social status and will expect him to pay for everything.”

Maybe. And so, what? Many men will only date women who are good-looking. It’s a trade-off of qualities, and definitely not wrong if it’s made clear and both people are okay with it from the get-go.

Women are hard-wired to look for a stable partner who can contribute to a possible new family. Men, on the other hand, are instinctively attracted to healthy-looking women.

The point is, if you are using that cliché to shame women with different priorities than yours, it’s time to stop.

Cliché 3

“Being a gentleman and paying for dinner doesn’t impress the women of today.”

Yes, it does. It especially does today, when it’s rare to find a guy who knows how to treat a woman he likes.

It’s not all about the money; it’s the gesture behind paying the bill that counts. It’s a show of appreciation and understanding of the effort that their date put into herself to look her best on that day with you. And, to an extent is a way of showing your financial stability, which is always impressive.

Why you wouldn’t go Dutch as a woman

If you are a woman in the Netherlands and it’s usual for you to suggest splitting the bill, ask yourself why you do that. Does it help fulfill your sense of independence, do you think it will impress him, or do you just feel awkward accepting him paying for the whole dinner?

Have you considered that you could be just perpetuating this new “norm” to fit into Dutch culture?

It’s normal for humans to want to belong, and we even go a long way to conform to what is generally accepted in society. But sometimes, it’s worth questioning whether these ideals serve their original purpose anymore.

Women who openly express a desire to be only with financially stable men are looked down upon. Debunking clichés that are meant to put shame on some women is a crucial part of establishing new norms of behaviour.

If you are like me, going Dutch on a date just wouldn’t send the right message. The law of attraction states that the feelings and desires you project, attract the same back at you.

It is best to be focused on what kind of relationship you want and, ultimately, what kind of man you wish to attract. First dates are a way of establishing how you want to be treated right from the start.

Why not go Dutch if you are a man

Simply because €34 will not make you any richer. You might argue that those dinners and drinks out add up, and if it weren’t for them, you could be driving that new scooter now. Possibly, but your new scooter will not impress her. Consistent and thoughtful gestures will.

To avoid surprises, carefully choose the place yourself according to your budget, so you don’t have to monitor her order, or, even worse, veto a meal or drink.

BONUS: What to do if she insists on paying:

Show her this article. If she just offers to pay: say no. Especially if you like her, do not accept. I would never offer that, but some women like to test the grounds.

Okay, but what if the date goes wrong?

It happens… a lot.

If you are a woman and you are having a horrible time, that would be a situation where paying your own part makes sense. You don’t want any gestures; you just want to leave. Understandable.

If you are a guy and your date goes wrong, be a class act, follow the advice above and eventually leave. Ghost if you need to. But really, do not send a Tikkie.

Will you be going Dutch this Valentine’s Day? Tell us in the comments below! 

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of DutchReview.

Wearing shoes in the house in the Netherlands: it’s a thing. For those of us who come from different cultures, it’s a strange thing — but where does this custom come from? 

I’ve already written about other interesting Dutch habits and have since bought a house in the Netherlands. That’s when a discussion came up when talking about visitors: will we have an Austrian household or a Dutch one?

Most importantly, how do we make Dutch guests understand my strange, urgent need that they have to take off their shoes in the hallway?

Cultural differences: Austria

Every time I enter a house, I take off my shoes immediately at the front door. I never considered that other people don’t do that or questioned why I do it. It’s in my system and has been a habit for as long as I remember.

My mom was especially nitpicky about it since we always had wooden floors, and she never liked dirty shoeprints on the floor. That’s why my brother and I always took our shoes off so as not to drag any dirt or snow inside the house. The reasons were that we neither wanted to make our mom mad nor clean the floor afterwards.

So, when coming to the Netherlands and visiting Dutch households, I always automatically took off my shoes — that is until my boyfriend told me that it is not common here. At first, I was a bit confused, but it was summer, warm weather, and I wore sandals, so I just listened.

Looking around, I noticed that nobody else was walking in socks or barefoot either. People even wore high heels in the living room and walked on tiny stilettos, pinching holes in the wooden floor.

So, why do Dutch people wear shoes in the house?

Afterwards, I couldn’t help but initiate a conversation about it with my boyfriend, who explained this Dutch phenomenon.

When I started to work here, I noticed that all the students ran around in their shoes too. In Austria, that would never happen. From kindergarten on, every kid wears slippers. You come to school, take off your shoes, and walk in slippers all day long.

Our teachers and parents always told us that it would be healthier for our feet, and the cleaning personnel were especially happy because we dragged less dirt inside. Only the teachers were allowed to walk in their normal shoes.

Once I became a teacher myself, I was a little bit proud to have that privilege. But seeing Dutch students coming to school completely soaked from cycling through the rain and then walking around on a carpeted floor at school left me quite surprised.

A quick search on Google

So pretty obviously, we have a cultural difference here. I was so completely taken by the subject that I googled it.

“In Northern Europe and Austria, it is considered rude and unhygienic to wear shoes in the house.” I like how Austria even got its special position in this sentence. Then it told me, “In the Netherlands, people don’t usually wear shoes in the house.” That means that it is not usual but quite common, especially for visitors.

I grew older, I grew wiser, and, to be honest, I inherited many characteristics of my mom. I know that I don’t want to have people walk around in my house in shoes. I love walking around in socks, and I simply have this “no-shoe attitude” deeply anchored in my Austrian heart.

So when it comes to having our own house in the Netherlands, I am probably a pretty annoying host. My boyfriend at least stands behind my rule, but I guess his main reason is “a happy wife means a happy life.”

What is your opinion on wearing shoes in the house? Tell us in the comments below!

Too much tourism, too much English on trams, and now too many students from abroad? As internationals, sometimes it’s hard not to adopt a growing sense that the Dutch government doesn’t like us very much.

Since voting to cut down on international students in 2019, the House of Representatives has been continually striving to keep non-Dutch citizens out of the Netherlands.

So far, any efforts by the Dutch government to do so have gone in vain. Much to their dismay, the country is brimming with internationals.

In fact, there’s even more of us

This year has seen a 1,200 increase non-EU applicants alone compared to last year — and remember, this is something EU internationals don’t have to submit. 

The Immigration and Naturalisation Service (IND) — i.e. the people tasked with handling non-EU student applications — say that sifting through additional forms is “daunting”. 

The latest development in this de-internationalization saga is the University of Amsterdam (UvA) demanding a €100 down payment for applications, purely to frighten off international students.

But why would the regering (government) want to exclude a group of people that enrich, diversify, and even fund their lives? (Think of those deliciously huge student fees for non-EU internationals).

I’m not necessarily saying the thwarting of immigration is a case of “biting the hand that feeds you”, but it’s also…not… not that?

The “reasons” they’ve provided

So what does the House of Representatives have to say for themselves? Here are the reasons both the government and Dutch universities have given to justify their decision — and here’s my hot take on their responses. 

The Dutch accommodation shortage

One reason that gets cited over and over again is the ongoing and persistently unpleasant accommodation shortage. 

You know, the one that has students scraping together an average of €715 euros a month? (If they’re lucky enough to find a room in the first place, that is.) 

Supposedly, by saying, “Don’t come here”, the government is just looking out for internationals, wanting to save them from the clutches of homelessness. 

READ MORE | The student housing nightmare: a tale of discrimination, fraud, and protest

After all, it seems that for them, this is the only viable option: limit the universities’ international student intake — as opposed to, say, building more student accommodation or imposing a price ceiling for money-grabbing landlords that capitalise on students’ desperation. 

Pff, that would be insane!

Too much work for university lecturers

Another complaint that can apparently be traced back to international students is the workload of university lecturers, who claim the excessive swarm of internationals with extra exams and papers to grade has them swamped.  

And let’s not forget the sweaty, stuffy lecture halls crammed full of promising young internationals who are apparently overly eager to learn the ways of the world. 

As a professor, it must be hard to know such an unreasonable amount of people are interested in hearing what you have to say.

Are internationals inherently less valuable? 

Do you believe these are the sole reasons why internationals are being encouraged to stay away? That’s up to you to decide. 

But riddle me this: If there was an overflow of Dutch students as opposed to internationals, would the government instruct them to take a hike as well? Would they put a halt to the education of their own citizens? 

Or maybe the House of Representatives would come to find that the room capacity and professorial workload suddenly weren’t such a big deal after all.

In fact, last year, the UvA attempted to set a quota ensuring that, while internationals were being excluded from their popular political science and psychology programmes, Dutchies wouldn’t be kicked out as well. 

See, they didn’t want to lose their budding Dutch uni babies along with internationals. Are you thinking what I’m thinking? Yep, that’s a well-aimed slap in the face of foreigners. 

Now, I’m not saying every native of this country is on board with some kind of “Make the Netherlands Dutch again” scheme — after all, plenty of nationals are more than willing to help out internationals. 

READ MORE | Why are the Dutch so good at speaking English?

But after the recent campaigning to ban English announcements on public transport — courtesy of the Language Defense Foundation —  and the outgoing minister for education threatening to do away with English-taught courses, an icky feeling has surfaced in the pit of my stomach.

It’s almost suggesting there’s a “them” versus “us” — us being the competitors, space occupiers, accommodation snatchers, and alienated “others”. 

How do the Dutch really feel about the influx of internationals? 

If I didn’t know any better, I would say it seems like a significant portion of government and university staff alike don’t find some people’s overseas origins favourable. 

And if I really didn’t know any better, I would say a good few don’t think internationals are welcome.  

Could the driving force be patriotic pride? Concerns about the Dutch language and culture being lost to the looming peril of anglicisation? 

READ MORE | ‘No internationals’: A tale of exclusion in the Dutch housing market

Or are the reasons a bit like the ones behind the “no internationals” policy liberally applied all over accommodation listings by discriminating Dutch landlords — that is, they just don’t like us that much? 

We ain’t budgin’ 

You can run, but you can’t hide. The Netherlands has become a multicultural hub with internationals (like yours truly) lurking at every turn.

And frankly, this didn’t happen by accident either; Amsterdam has welcomed tourists with outstretched, mercenary arms for literal centuries — up until the last few years, at least.  

READ MORE | 19 super annoying things internationals do in the Netherlands

Not only that but according to Universities of the Netherlands (UNL) spokesperson Gijs Kooistra, Dutch university attendees would also benefit from a diverse, multicultural student body. 

Kooistra also notes that the presence of English-taught courses in Dutch academia helps yield “the best academic staff” from overseas *cough*…but you didn’t hear it from us.

While these opinions aren’t intended to stir the pot or create an even larger divide between pro and anti-internationals, maybe they will serve as food for thought.

How do you feel about the Dutch government and universities’ action to reduce the intake of students from abroad? Share your thoughts in the comments below! 

The year 2022 has seen more high-up Dutchmen caught red-handed in sexual misconduct, the latest being Ajax’s Marc Overmars. It’s a sad, but familiar record on repeat. For lasting change in the Netherlands, what can be done about it?

Well, now is the time for men to really step up and show tangible solidarity and support for women.

Hopefully, the fact you are reading this means you have the curiosity and motivation, but where should you begin? This article proposes four areas to help explore and understand your own approach and influence.

Its intended audience is male, international or native, though all suggestions are welcomed and encouraged.

1. Educate yourself

Beginnings can be intimidating: you’re waltzing onto a battlefield equipped with ignorance in your right hand and good intentions in your left, but this is why doing the reading is vital.

Education should always be encouraged for self-development and growth. Yet, there’s an uncomfortable truth: not everyone is an avid reader.

Yet, for every The Second Sex (around 800 pages long) there are much shorter and brilliant reads, such as We Should All Be Feminists (60 pages), and Feminism is for Everybody (140 pages). Fictional literature and media from female writers also counts, as it introduces new perspectives and nurtures empathy and understanding.

All in all, making a conscious decision to read, listen to, and watch content from the myriad female talents out there is such a positive step forward. It’s not by accident that there are so many calls to increase female representation in all spheres of cultural and social life.

2. Practice active listening

You can be the most empathetic human being on the planet, but there are certain things you’ll never fully understand or experience. This is where active listening helps.

Women are faced with blatant and subtle pressures and expectations, constraints and controls, insecurities and safety concerns — there’s a lot to process.

However, it is of the utmost importance not to mistake listening as a reason for you to be meticulously schooled by the women in your life. It’s not their responsibility to educate men, and you’ll be assigning a form of emotional labour to them.

The best way to go about listening is to take the time to listen with compassion, but do it with an understanding of boundaries and context.

3. Be mindful

The more you engage, the more you learn, and the more you begin to challenge your own views.

You can start to question yourself by asking:

1. Why do I think this? Is there concrete proof to support what I believe?
2. Where does this view of mine come from?

From these basic questions, not only do you get a far better idea of what you believe, but also an understanding of the different cultural and environmental influences and biases that surround you.

Ultimately, mindfulness will place you in a stronger position to call out sexist behaviour and to promote less toxic environments.

4. Share your journey

Being confronted with ingrained biases and prejudices is deeply uncomfortable as daily situations, your upbringing and culture, the media and information you consume, as well as your formal education may be placed under in a new, unflattering light.

You’ll also be likely challenged with what is means to be a man and a positive male role model. For example, can male strength be redefined to support women? With something earned through compassion and justice, perhaps?  

Don’t begin this journey alone — encourage others and share with your mates, colleagues, and family members.

If you’re serious about supporting women, these are great places for you to start. Eventually, if we all put in the work, we can expect a brighter and, most importantly, fairer future in the Netherlands.

As an additional plus side, you’ll most likely find the best version of yourself along the way.

What do you think of these methods as stepping stones for addressing behavioral misconduct in the Netherlands? Tell us in the comments below!

Feature Image: Alexis Brown/Unsplash

The Netherlands offers a transient exploration of comfort, worldliness, absolutely zero stress and at times, dull predictability — all antithetical to America I’ve known for years.

Relocating to Amsterdam after a decade in New York City and Los Angeles has proven to be more than a simple geographical shift. The language barrier is increasingly smaller as everyone speaks English, and trying to learn Dutch requires the adorning of a badge “Speak Dutch to me! Please!”, alongside a persistent insistence.

READ MORE | 7 reasons why living in the Netherlands will change your life

This makes both culture and social scenes carry a digestible point of entry; I’ve yet to attend a festival, show, cafe-outing or bar-hopping that didn’t cater to the universal language of English. Perhaps it’s also the lowest common denominator, and I am that low point.

I’ll take it, as immigrating to America required seven years of E.S.L. classes (English as Second Language); running parallel to books-worth of complaints from my peers about the institutionally enforced requisite to take foreign language classes for a minimum of two years — of which they could pick from a lavish buffet offering comprehensive Spanish, French, Mandarin, or Japanese. Hardly torture.

School and early development

Academics has always been a point of departure between American and Dutch culture. In the States, the average high school graduating class (traditionally, 9th through 12th grade) has been over 700 students since the 1999-2000 academic year — a number so staggering that the average European student or graduate couldn’t, and shouldn’t, hope to relate to.

READ MORE | 4 reasons why Dutch kids are happier than American kids

Schools are farms, with many of the elite colleges and universities functioning as major corporations, with satellite offices in every American Metropolis, and London of course. New York University has a campus in many more cities than just New York; the University of Southern California reaches far beyond its Los Angeles campus; and, the Ivy Leagues are so much more than their historically young campuses — but they are young by European standards anyway.

I once saw a commemorative staircase in America that had been deemed a national monument due it its erection around the 1890s. This is not really a celebration-worthy feat for a country, particularly one that hasn’t seen war on its soil for a century before this magnificent hill ascending device was erected for a purpose I still haven’t sorted out.

Close-knit schooling

Growing up, I knew every one of my 25 classmates, their siblings, parents and after school activities. I knew the careers their parents had or didn’t have, and if someone was sick or if there were changes in family dynamics. I could tell you about them as though they were first cousins, and you’d leave the conversation thinking we had a lifelong relationship.

Somehow, we do. I’d drop what I was doing at the sight of any one of them. Car purchase was shared news, as were vacation plans, and everything that happened over the weekend became Monday’s entertainment. We didn’t have social media (what a time.) I recall only knowing people who could construct full sentences. We maintained planners and kept our plans, even without four calls and a bible verse of text exchanges.

READ MORE | The Dutch school system for dummies: a guide from one parent to another

What develops later in life is a greater sense of self. Kids ride their bikes to and from school with their friends. They understand how to function on their own two feet before they hit their late teens. A time where the average age group around them include the riskier early twenties guys trying to fish in a shallower pond, and unattainable women who introduced you to rejection on a level some toughness might help you through. Where might that toughness come from? Perhaps the exposure to different and unknown ways of life-found realities of your fellow students and friends.

The land of the free

America is all about achievement and working harder than the rest, often mistaking activity for accomplishment. Where the Dutch seek to find a balance between quality of life, and quality of work. You’ll make more money in America if you succeed, but you’ll work more and have less intangible value.

In the Netherlands, you’ll live smaller, have less material wealth but a full work week supposedly won’t surpass forty hours and the idea of a second job is far from normal.

At this point in my life, the only people I know who have a single job make more than 150K a year and have very little to talk about outside their income, or what happened in the 10 hours they were at the office today — with a few exceptions, as there always are. As a consequence, their place of employment becomes the halls of their high school, and the friends who don’t work there become memories to glorify between beers.

Connection to place

The United States has a lot to offer, most of which was there before anyone set sail, and some of it remains untouched. The American friends I have and keep, who forgive my massive European bias, all have very specific relationships to places they love.

One, from Montana, absolutely loves where she’s from, and I must admit I’ve always been smitten by it, as my own mild nationalism sings a similar tune. Another loves the service he provides to a nation that has ultimately given him a purpose in a capacity he’d never felt. A third find tremendous freedom in the idea of freedom and its daily struggles.

Some balance, perhaps

I’ve always regarded Europe as the place you grow up and raise your family, but America is the football pitch where you go to play the economic game of life. A place where you are tackled, get back up to show them who’s best and work tirelessly till you are high enough up to look down. Then you can go home, sub out, and hope whoever comes on after you somehow highlights the things you did.

To most who drank the elixir of the rat race, the field feels like a never-ending track that has fixed outcomes, and horses on steroids only sold to some. But it makes you feel alive and active in a way no other can, but you must be at your best, and on your A-game at all times.

Testing yourself against these stratospheric standards truly leaves one wanting when faced with a more relaxed Dutch narrative. One with an hour of work before the first coffee break, a question about price before quality, and less risk-taking.

Both arenas offer aspects that truly seem attractive in the contrast, but neither reigns supreme without the other to highlight its blessings. We need one another, and a vacation is only that, if you have a job to return to, otherwise you’re simply floating — which can be a great life.

What is your experience with these two countries? Let us know in the comments!

Editor’s Note: This article was originally published in May 2018 and was fully updated in January 2022 for your reading pleasure.

Feature Image: DutchReview/Canva

While drugs such as cannabis are decriminalised in the Netherlands, when it comes to policy surrounding hard drugs, the Dutch seem to have taken a page out of the United States’ book. In this article, we examine why all drugs should be decriminalised.

Dutch social liberal party D66 (Democrats 66) thinks the war on drugs in the Netherlands is a ‘road leading nowhere,’ but according to the Christian democratic party, ChristenUnie (Christian Union), the battle has not even started yet. Looking abroad for a moment gives us some insight into the Netherlands’ options when it comes to tackling the war on drugs.

The US versus Canadian approach

In the United States, Nixon’s war on drugs which started in 1971 — and also found its way to the Netherlands — has cost billions and, so far, solved nothing.

However, recently in Canada, the Vancouver City Council unanimously expressed its opinion on a controversial hard drug policy: legalising all hard drugs in Vancouver. This means that possessing small amounts of drugs, including cocaine, meth and heroin, will no longer be a punishable offence in Vancouver.

To show just how seriously they’re taking it, a Vancouver city councillor joined activists outside a police station on July 14 to distribute free heroin, meth and cocaine. The councillor tweeted that these ‘safe’ samples of illicit drugs could save users from a poisoned street supply that has caused an overdose crisis on Canada’s west coast.

This raises the question: should the Netherlands be looking at doing the same? And is D66 right about the war on drugs not leading anywhere?

Again, the answer lies in how other countries are faring. Let’s take a look.

An increasingly violent problem abroad

Countries such as Mexico and Afghanistan have been struggling with the devastating effects of the drug trade for years. Also, in countries with many drug addicts, such as Iran and the United States, drugs and crime appear to go hand in hand.

So it’s not really a surprise that after such a long time of waging war against drugs, the idea is now to either decriminalise or legalise them.

And yes, if the measure seems desperate, it suits the moment. It’s not just drug overdoses that cities and municipalities have to contend with, but also the violence, mayhem and death that comes with the trafficking of drugs.

The Economist reports that the British Columbia (BC) health office, where Vancouver is located, declared an emergency over deaths from drug overdoses five years ago. Dealers were lacing street drugs with lethal levels of fentanyl, a cheap and potent opioid. British Columbia’s rate of illicit-drug deaths has more than doubled since then, with around 2,000 people dying from overdoses in the year to May — more than those killed by COVID-19.

Since Richard Nixon started the war on drugs in 1971 (which subsequently spread worldwide), billions have been spent, and nothing has really changed. Cartels still exist and are still trafficking drugs; the drug trade has even gotten more violent, cartels have even fortified their modus operandi and have also changed with the times — a lot of them are now heavily and well-armed that they can easily defeat the governments of some small countries.

They also use the latest and most innovative gadgets for drug trafficking, making them more effective and richer. So what exactly has the so-called war on drugs achieved?

Why drugs are illegal in the Netherlands

In the Netherlands, some drugs are socially accepted (such as alcohol, nicotine in tobacco, the caffeine in coffee, tea and cola). While cannabis may be illegal, it is decriminalised for personal use.

The truth is that a lot of drugs often have devastating effects on users. While the effects of caffeine are fairly harmless, alcohol leads to serious addiction and diseases such as Korsakoff’s syndrome. Additionally, tobacco smoking leads to a high risk of lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), including emphysema and chronic bronchitis.

Cannabis can also be addictive and harm lung tissues and cause scarring and damage to small blood vessels.

Hallucinogens such as in some mushrooms and LSD change the way a person thinks and perceives things. They artificially induce psychosis. In general, hallucinogens are not addictive but can be dangerous because the user completely loses contact with reality and, in some cases, can endanger themselves and others.

READ MORE | Truffles in the Netherlands: everything you need to know for a psychedelic trip in 2021

Additionally, the effects of hallucinogens, such as LSD vary from person to person and depend on the amount taken. In short: given the extremely nasty effects of most drugs, it would be wise to limit their use in some way. This is why drug laws exist in almost all countries (Opium Act in the Netherlands) to make the trade and possession of certain drugs illegal.

The unintended consequences of drug prohibition

Alcohol is a dangerous hard drug, more dangerous than marijuana or LSD. No wonder the United States prohibited it in the 1920s after other hard drugs such as cocaine were banned. However, as history tells us, the consequences of prohibition turned out to be disastrous.

Extensive smuggling operations sprang up, and illegal distilleries were set up all over the country. In the end, most Americans didn’t even feel the ban on alcohol because the substance was everywhere.

Criminals like Al Capone became wealthy by stealing industrial alcohol and processing it into illegal whiskey. To eliminate the problem, the US government decided to make it compulsory to mix industrial alcohol with certain types of lethal poisons.

The result: thousands died. The ban on alcohol also led to an increase in organised crime. It wasn’t such a wonder that President Roosevelt decided to end Prohibition in the 1930s.

Since when has the prohibition of anything ever worked? When Peru drove out its coca growers, they moved to Colombia. When Colombia kicked them out, they went back to Peru? And when the Caribbean cocaine-trafficking route was sealed, new, bloodier ones sprang up in Mexico and Central America.

The big seizure of drugs has still not slowed down cartels and independent traffickers. The violence of drug trafficking and the war on drugs has created widows, orphans, refugees, etc. It’s one of the major reasons why the US southern border is crawling with refugees seeking a haven.

The US and the Netherlands’ cocaine consumption

A similar scenario to Prohibition can be seen in the United States today. The US has the highest cocaine consumption: an estimated 1,000 milligrams per year, five to ten doses per American. About three per cent of the population uses a lot of cocaine— much more than in the Netherlands or Europe.

So it’s basically safe to say that the war on drugs has been nothing but a failed project or experiment. It’s also safe to say that whatever Nixon thought he would eradicate, he only made stronger. Drugs are a bigger problem today than ever.

Cocaine use in the Netherlands is also at an all-time high. Statistics show that in 1997 approximately three per cent of the population admitted to having used cocaine at least once in their lives. By 2018, this had increased to more than five per cent.

The illegal status of hard drugs in the Netherlands has also not worked. If there is one thing we have learned from the decriminalisation of cannabis, it’s that the cannabis trade can be regulated, taxed, and new policies developed for the improvement of the sector. We also don’t have (cannabis) drug rings fighting over ‘territories’ anymore.

READ MORE | Should drugs be regulated? This Dutch governing party thinks so

The same cannot be said of the hard drugs trade in the Netherlands. At this point, decriminalising all drugs in the country seems like the best course of action. And there are precedents for decriminalisation. Portugal is a perfect example.

The Portuguese decriminalisation of all drugs

Portugal had a long and major drug problem. In 1999, no less than 1% of the population was addicted to heroin and other hard drugs. The country also had the highest number of drug-related HIV deaths in Europe.

Portugal decided to change course in 2001 and did the unthinkable. All drugs were decriminalised, which meant that the possession of small amounts of drugs was no longer a criminal offence. Possessing drugs for personal use is instead treated as an administrative offence: no longer punishable by imprisonment and does not result in the user having a criminal record and being stigmatised.

Therefore, drug users are not arrested but must appear before a special committee where a doctor, a lawyer, and a social worker prescribes treatment or issues a fine.

Following Portugal’s example would be so much better for the Netherlands because the American war on drugs — which the Netherlands is obviously copying when it comes to hard drugs — isn’t doing us any favours.

The balloon effect

The premise of this war has always been ‘fewer drugs = fewer (societal) problems’. Or ‘no drugs = no addiction’. Therefore, the focus has been to destroy the supply of drugs. However, a lot of people, especially politicians, find it difficult to understand that destroying ‘supply’ leaves the root cause of drug use untreated. Eliminating ‘supply’ will not make ‘demand’ go away.

There is also the balloon effect to think about. The ‘balloon effect’ draws an analogy between attempts to eradicate the production of illegal drugs and the phenomenon of the same name when a latex balloon is compressed: the air does not disappear but is moved to a place with less resistance.

Pushing down on drug production in one region causes it to bulge somewhere else. All US anti-drug tactics have done is they have forced drug traffickers to search for ‘safer areas’ with less government pressure to eliminate the flow of narcotics.

And this is mostly where the Netherlands and much of Europe come in. When cartels in South America first started trafficking narcotics, their major market was Florida and New York.

When the US kickstarted the war on drugs, they immediately started searching for new markets with less government pressure. Europe became that ‘new market’ or ‘safe area’.

Nowadays, traffickers often use the Netherlands as both a market and an entry point into Europe.

How the Dutch war on drugs is different

It is important to state that drug users are treated much differently in the Netherlands than in the US. Even though there are no talks about the decriminalisation of all drugs yet, the Netherlands focuses on rehabilitation rather than punishment. For example, the advent of drug consumption rooms in the Netherlands has been a welcome initiative.

However, it still doesn’t solve the stigma and other injustices that go hand in hand with the illegal status of hard drugs. Think about injustices like unlawful and unfair incarceration, racial profiling, etc.

The world is not black or white

Firstly, one must never look at life with a binary mentality. Life isn’t ‘black or white’ or ‘either-or’. You may not believe it, but the writer of this piece has never done drugs in his life. Not even smoked a cigarette, but it doesn’t mean that those who use drugs should be condemned or treated as outcasts.

It is perfectly possible not to be a marijuana user and still want it to be legalised for others. In the same way, you may have never used any (hard) drug but still understand that the so-called war on drugs is bollocks.

An ideal world would be where people stay away from hard/harmful drugs, but that is not a reality. There will always be demand for soft or hard drugs, and punishment instead of rehabilitation is not the right way to handle things.

Some people are also fully aware of the harm that certain drugs pose and are willing to accept all the risks, which in all honesty, is their choice, as long as they are not hurting others. What this group of people need is help, not to be locked up and treated like terrorists.

Time to try a different approach

It’s time to try a different approach in the Netherlands. To support this stance, let us take a closer look at Portugal. The Portuguese policy on decriminalisation has led to the following results:

The Portuguese model also directly influenced the 2020 decriminalisation policy passed in Oregon and the proposed decriminalisation measures in Norway.

The results of Portugal’s so-called radical plan were clearly positive. From 41% regular drug users in 2001 to 28% in 2012. The use of hard drugs, as well as the crime associated with it, decreased drastically. The number of HIV infections has also drastically reduced, as well as other drug-related problems.

However, decriminalisation is not the same as legalisation. Possessing or using drugs remains illegal in Portugal, but you won’t get a criminal record that stigmatises you for life because of it.

Benefits of decriminalising all drugs in the Netherlands

Would decriminalising all drugs in the Netherlands work?

The fact is, not everyone is convinced that the decriminalisation of all drugs in the Netherlands (or anywhere) will save lives. The initiative often doesn’t work if not managed properly. But the truth is that the war on drugs has not borne any fruit. The collateral damage is way too much.

The decriminalisation of all drugs in the Netherlands and much of Europe would, in principle, mean that drug use would only have one victim: the user. By regulating drug use, the damage is limited, and time, effort, and funds are directed towards helping users overcome their addiction.

The point is, in the long run, decriminalisation will do more good than harm and make for better regulation. Drug dealers will also be less incentivised because why put so much energy into selling something legal, especially when the legal version is of better quality?

READ MORE | Your complete guide to drugs in the Netherlands

Decriminalisation also doesn’t mean that people are being encouraged to use drugs; instead, it’s all about trying to understand that addiction isn’t a sin. Addicts are not terrorists who should be thrown in prison and left to rot. They need help.

Society needs to understand that the demand for drugs is never going to disappear. People will try drugs either out of curiosity, peer pressure, the search for an escape from a difficult reality, recreational purposes, or just because they are addicted. And also that getting rid of the drug trade would still not get rid of the demand for drugs.

To summarise

The idea behind this article is not to support the use of drugs but that we should at least start the conversation on how the war on drugs has not helped anyone. It’s a conversation that many politicians are afraid to start or engage in.

Think about the fact that alcohol is legal in the Netherlands but LSD is not. This is absurd because alcohol is so much worse than LSD. So why demonise the use of LSD while allowing the populace free access to something much worse? It’s even more absurd that conservative parties like ChristenUnie always throw out decriminalisation without mentioning its benefits or disproving the relevant arguments against the war on drugs.

“It is high time we replaced punishment with aid,” Norwegian Health Minister Bent Høie said in February when talking about his country’s efforts to decriminalise all drugs. “Punishment for the possession of hard drugs leads to stigma and social exclusion.”

Oregon moved ahead in 2020 with the decriminalisation of all drugs, a trend that already exists in more than thirty countries, with more than fifty different models of decriminalisation policies. The war on drugs makes no sense, and Uruguay was brilliant to have stayed out of it. They never joined the war on drugs: this can be seen in the fact that they were the only country that never had the need to decriminalise or legalise the personal use of cannabis because it was never a criminal offence to start with.

Maybe it’s high time the Netherlands joined the decriminalisation trend. There’s a lot to learn from the progress of countries like Portugal. And even more we can learn from countries and cities that are following in their footsteps.

Do you think that decriminalising all drugs in the Netherlands would save lives or make things worse? Let us know what you think in the comments!

Feature Image: FussSergei/Depositphotos

Being a parent is no piece of cake, no matter where you are from. However, the way you choose to take on this great journey can vary depending on the culture and country where you grew up.

As an expat, here are some advantages and shortcomings I have encountered when it comes to raising a little one (or little ones) in the Netherlands:

Freedom of space

There is so much space for a child to run around, play, cycle… you name it! The Dutch urban landscape comes with multiple playground options and open spaces in general. There is even a good chance you live close to a forest, you are just left hoping for some decent weather.

It is super cute to watch entire families on their bikes just enjoying a nice Saturday morning. I feel that my little dude is truly privileged for being able to experience all this and I am very grateful. This country is, without a doubt, a great place for a kid to grow up.

Child safety in the Netherlands

The first time that I saw Dutch mother on her bicycle with one toddler on the backseat and a little baby on the front one (and no helmets) I have to be honest, I freaked out!

I understand that cycling culture is deeply rooted in this land but I feared this was taking things a little too far. Not long after, I learned how to spot the expat parents — the ones that put helmets on their children — clearly. This is not a judgement, just pure old fashioned culture shock, I guess.

To this day, I cannot bring myself to hop on a bike with my son. There… I said it, not even a bakfiets (mom bike) will convince me to do so.

Attentiveness

Ok guys, work with me. I come from Mexico, a Latin American country where family culture can be quite overwhelming; by this I mean SUPER overprotective and, at times, overbearing (I feel like you are sensing the pattern here).

While this all derives from love, it can also result in being too apprehensive when it comes to watching your child having fun and the craziness that discovering the world brings with it (going down the slide headfirst comes to mind).

Dutch mothers and fathers on the other hand, can be found casually strolling through the park with coffee in hand, chatting away their morning with other parents; or maybe sitting on a bench without a care in the world, and their children you might wonder?

Probably tripping over a ball, another child, or landing on his/her butt after trying to climb the swings. At first, I have to admit I was not getting it at all, and then time made me realise that perhaps this is just their way of raising strong individuals.

I admit I could stress a lot less over this matter, but how about we all just meet in a happy middle ground?

Daycare in the Netherlands

Let’s see, this is a touchy subject. While I 100% love the daycare my son goes to, I feel like the Dutch system does not cater for all kinds of lifestyles, circumstances and scenarios.

For instance, the childcare allowance “kinderopvangtoeslag“ is wonderful, for those that meet the requirements. If you find yourself with a freelance writer job for other countries (*cough*) or you happen to be employed by a company within thee European Union and stationed here, but not directly in a Dutch company, well… you do not qualify for said benefit.

As a result, you will have to break the bank in order to pay for daycare. No wonder it is uncommon for a child to attend five days a week.

READ MORE| Dutch primary schools and childcare to reopen on February 8, cabinet decides

However, once you can get past the fact that the monthly invoice is as much as rent, there are many upsides. For example, the teaching methodology (usually some sort of Montessori/Reggio Emilia/Waldorf fusion), the healthy organic food (mostly vegetarian, Yei!), music class, yoga class, and so on, makes me almost forget how much money we could be saving (ouch!)

The Dutch work life balance

Having said this, it is also remarkable how a normal workweek in the Netherlands can look like 20/24/32 hours and it is not frowned upon at all. Even better, it is perfectly normal for men to do the same and work four days a week leaving space for “papadag” (daddy day).

This obviously means much healthier work life balance, and therefore, more quality time with your tiny human.

Like everything in life, being a parent in the Netherlands has its pros and cons; it is up to each person to decide how to handle the challenge.

How do you feel about parenting in the Netherlands? Let us know in the comments below! 

FeatureImage: Kate Emslie/Unsplash

Royal Dutch Shell has finally been held accountable for the damage the oil company has caused to multiple Nigerian villages over the past years. The Dutch higher court ruled in favour of the Nigerian plaintiffs, ruling that the Dutch company had breached its duty of care. Chuka walks us through why this is so much more than a win in the court. 

In the few years I spent as a child in Nigeria’s Delta state, one thing that was often talked about by elders was the fact that the region was rich in oil. The collection of riverine states in the South-South and Niger Delta region had for centuries been popular for their fishing, farming, irrigation methods, authentic and tasty fish delicacies, and their colorful water carnivals. Water was their kin, their goddesses were usually water spirits, and fishing and farming were how they put food on their table.

Most of this changed when oil was discovered and the Dutch multinational, Shell, permanently moved in. It was a case of a rich and well-connected bully moving into their victim’s home and constantly making life unbearable for them.

Oil spills ruin livelihoods

Almost 20 years ago, four farmers from the Niger Delta lost everything due to the oil pollution from Shell. Their agricultural land became unusable, their drinking water was often filled with crude oil, fish disappeared from the rivers, and as a result, they could no longer put food on the table for their families.

They also had no more income to send their children to school. They became desperate because they had no money to buy bottled drinking water. And even more desperate, when it turned out that the oil spill was making them sick and there was no money to go to the hospital.

The destruction caused by this Dutch company didn’t end there. In 2005 a leak occurred in an underground pipeline in the community of Oruma. It took eleven days for the hole in the pipe to be closed. An area the size of ten football fields had been destroyed.

In another region, Goi, 24,000 liters of crude oil had just leaked the year before. Shell remediated the areas, but the farmers received no compensation.

For decades, millions of inhabitants of the Niger Delta have been living with the consequences of large-scale oil pollution. Every year 16,000 babies die as a result of pollution, and life expectancy in the region is 10 years lower than in the rest of Nigeria.

Not just a court ruling — also a warning

Niger Deltans are still currently celebrating the court win. To win against Shell — one of the most powerful and richest companies in the world — is no small feat.

Eric Dooh from Goi, one of the four Nigerian plaintiffs said: “Finally there is some justice for the Nigerian people suffering the consequences of Shell’s oil spillages. It is a bittersweet victory, since two of the plaintiffs, including my father, did not live to see the end of this trial. But this verdict brings hope for the future of the people in the Niger delta.”

“After years of litigation there is finally justice for many of my clients, only the case in Ikot Ada Udo is still ongoing. Not only is Shell liable for the oil spill and my clients will get what they are entitled to, but this case also shows that European companies must be made to behave responsibly abroad,” Channa Samkalden, the lawyer representing the Nigerian farmers and Milieudefensie says.

“This is fantastic news for the affected farmers. It is enormous that Shell has to compensate for the damage. This is also a warning for all Dutch transnational corporations involved in injustice and human rights violations worldwide. Victims of environmental pollution, land grabbing, or exploitation now have a better chance to win a legal battle against the companies involved. People in developing countries are no longer without rights in the face of transnational corporations,” said Donald Pols, director of Milieudefensie/Friends of the Earth Netherlands.

Shell was well aware of the risks but did not care

The verdict, in this case, is very important because, for the first time in history, a Dutch multinational is held responsible for the damages it wreaked on people abroad. History can bear testament to how much the Dutch government and the multinationals they have aided — profited from — love to run away from taking responsibility for their atrocities.

A case in point being the Dutch East India Company (VOC). Presently, the court has ruled that Shell knew their pipelines were badly maintained and that oil theft was common in the region. They also knew that some areas were difficult to reach. Still, Shell did nothing to limit those risks. And when oil spillage occurred, cleanup was never done immediately, and in most cases not done at all. Sometimes, it took days, weeks, and even months before any kind of cleanup was done.

Why did it take 13 years?

The court case took 13 years because attorneys had to spend most of the time discussing proceedings in court, and having to scale hurdles thrown at them by Shell. It also took years for Milieudefensie to gain access to some of Shell’s important documents. These were necessary to prove that Shell’s head office was responsible for its subsidiary. And most importantly, they opened the floor for the case to be heard in a Dutch court.

Another factor in the length of the case was that the Nigerian plaintiffs had no money to support their families, let alone focus on the case. One must have food to eat before they can fight for justice.

The Netherlands needs to do more

As someone of Nigerian descent, with family in Nigeria, especially in the Niger Delta region, I celebrated this win against Shell as if I had won the lottery. For some, however, victory came too late. Two of the plaintiffs died a few years ago. 13 years is a long time, especially in the Niger Delta, where people have a short life due to the effects of oil pollution.

While this is certainly a victory, no victim should have to wait such a long time for justice. It is high time that the Dutch government and the European Union came up with better laws. Laws that force companies to behave (sustainably and respectfully) beyond national borders.

No action by Shell yet

When oil was discovered in the Niger Delta, there were lots of mixed feelings. Some called it a “blessing” and said it would bring wealth, growth, and development to the region. Others argued that it would open the doors for greedy and powerful multinationals to come into the region and destroy it.

The pessimists probably never foresaw a scenario where their own (corrupt) government would help these multinationals in destroying the region’s wildlife, nature, and people. Despite decades of promises, projects, reports, and other lawsuits, the Niger Delta remains heavily polluted. Oil leaks are the order of the day. The cleaning operations that the Nigerian government, Shell, and others have spoken of have still not started after more than 10 years of so-called preparations.

Oil pipeline sabotages sometimes appear to have been caused by Shell employees, according to a report by Milieudefensie/Friends of the Earth Nigeria. The corrupt nature of Nigerian politicians who are often bribed by Shell has also not helped in any way.

Tight (er) rules for (European) companies

It shouldn’t cost a marathon effort and 1.5 million euros to get compensation from Shell for 4 farmers from Nigeria. That’s just unacceptable and it’s why we need better laws so that European companies such as Shell can be held responsible for what they do abroad.

There must be a duty of care so that companies actively prevent damage throughout the (production) chain. There needs to be transparency so that everyone can see exactly what is happening outside of our borders. People who are victims of European companies must have access to justice in Europe. This should be a given, considering how the Netherlands and European Union like to pride themselves as a beacon of liberty, freedom, and justice.

Organizations like Milieudefensie should be supported and encouraged in their work and fight for these victims of injustice. They are currently also conducting a climate lawsuit against Shell.

Much more damage

In addition, Amnesty International and some widows of nine murdered Nigerian men have taken Shell to court. In 1995, nine men (The Ogoni Nine — Ken Saro-Wiwa, Saturday Dobee, Nordu Eawo, Daniel Gbooko, Paul Levera, Felix Nuate, Baribor Bera, Barinem Kiobel, and John Kpuine) of the Ogoni tribe were murdered by the Nigerian military dictatorship for demonstrating against Shell’s oil pollution on their lands.

Their court case at the time, which was a sham, featured witnesses bribed by Shell to testify against Ken Saro-Wiwa and others — a charge that Shell has always denied. In the twenty-five years that have followed, there have been unrelenting campaigns to hold Shell accountable for its crimes.

Not one Shell executive has grown a conscience or become repentant enough to recognize that it’s never too late to try and heal the wounds, and have the corporate courage to apologize and compensate the countless people that their lives have been destroyed. Instead, Shell executives sit every day in their blood-soaked boardrooms and spend millions hiring fancy public relations experts to try and rebrand their image. Reminds you a little bit of the Dutch government and its attitude to its colonial and slavery past, doesn’t it?

More than just a court case win

While compensation from Shell will never bring back those that have died, the verdict from the Dutch appeals court is hopeful, because it means that Dutch (and European) companies that ignore human rights and environmental regulations abroad can no longer do so with impunity.

They now run the risk of not only being brought to justice but also being convicted. This is mainly due to the unrelenting efforts of the brave Niger Deltans, brilliant lawyers in Nigeria, and the good folks at Milieudefensie who worked tirelessly in often difficult circumstances to get justice for those victims who couldn’t stand up to a Dutch bully on their own. This gives hope for the entire region and far beyond.

The verdict was more than just a win in a court for a bunch of farmers, it was also a win for the Ogoni nine, for the Niger Delta, and all other victims of injustice at the hands of powerful multinationals whose cut-throat methods of chasing profit, and unfettered capitalism leaves nothing but death and destruction in its wake.

I hope this is not the end. I hope Shell continues to be held responsible and made to pay for all of its atrocities in Nigeria, and other parts of the world. I hope this is the beginning of the end for unfettered and unsustainable capitalism, not just in Africa, but all over the world. I hope.

What are your thoughts on the Shell verdict? Tell us your thoughts in the comments below. 

Feature Image: Bill Oxford/Unsplash.

This low land has made it to the top of several indices — happiness, best childhood, tallest people, and best non-native English speakers. But when it comes to the use of plastic, there is much room for improvement.

I hail from one of the most populous countries of Asia (read most polluted), and to me, even the cigarette smoke outside Schipol airport smells fairly clean. Call it being eco-conscious or even thrifty — cycling as a way of life, along with tiny electric cars and gleaming solar panels contribute to the charming outdoors in the Netherlands. But in this seemingly eco-conscious culture, something else I’ve noticed doesn’t add up.

In my early months in the Netherlands, I’d spends hours in the neighbourhood supermarkets where even the not-so-authentic Indiaase gerechten made me feel closer home. However, while local Albert Heijns and Jumbos helped alleviate some homesickness, they did make me sick of something else — the omnipresent plastic.

Plastic, plastic everywhere

Rows of cling-wrapped aubergines and cucumbers resembling a certain condomed something, buckets of snoepgroente, citrus, and onion families sitting in plastic wicker, corn cobs packed in plastic with a plastic tray and bananas staring glumly out of the hideous Chiquita bag; all adorn the supermarkets. Broccoli, cauliflower, and cabbages are given the same plastic treatment.

When the eco-warrior in me had screamed herself hoarse, I tried to choose only loose produce. The result? I had to completely give up certain veggies. (Try finding coloured bell peppers without plastic). Also, I had to bring my own produce bags, or else use the clearly harmful (and free!) clear plastic bags.

Food, stationery, and household cleaners; everything is touched by the curse of polyethene. Even the very few bulk bins force us to buy stuff in plastic boxes of various sizes.

Plastic laws too elastic

It is astonishing that a country so developed could be so lax about plastic consumption. Many shops warrant mindless consumption of single-use plastics. In fact, in their seasonal magazine, one of the supermarket giants justifies their use of plastic by terming food wastage a bigger problem than plastic.

Neighbouring Germany and Sweden are pioneers of efficient recycling and reduced rubbish. Whereas the Netherlands uses less than 10%  recycled plastic in a year. (I wonder where all the plastic waste I painfully segregate goes. Floating happily on the high seas?)

Among other attributes, the Netherlands is possibly also one of the biggest lovers of bureaucracy. When mandating a facemask during a raging pandemic takes over a month, the government might well debate the plastic issue for the next few years. Also, the cabinet has ruled that all plastic needs to be recyclable by 2025, but will it?

Bursting the plastic bubble

In a land that is pro-choice, consumers are given no choice but to buy plastic in some form or the other. As the supply chain ends with us, the onus of dealing with the waste also falls on us. And in the present scenario, after living several hours of professional lives from home, we just cannot muster the energy to do much separation, plastic or not.

What if businesses are made responsible instead? Perhaps then will our local AHs and Jumbos look closer at Asian supermarkets that use indigenous materials for packaging. Or take inspiration from package-free grocery stores that are mushrooming in trendy LA.

Meanwhile, we might have to moonlight as superheroes to combat the caustic plastic. I, for one, on learning about food miles, took advantage of this time to grow my own veggies. Also, jogging to the supermarket armed with cloth bags finishes my weekly dose of exercise. And those who treat themselves to chips after all the hard work (as I do), you could actually convert all non-degradable crisp packets to blankets. Food for thought, eh?

What do you do to save the world? Tell us in the comments below!

Feature Image: Karolina Grabowska/Pexels

Having spent all 23 years of my life in South Africa — often dubbed the world’s rape capital — reading that the Leiden man who raped and assaulted students was slapped with only a four-year sentence is devastating.

As a woman in South Africa, being catcalled relentlessly and being approached continuously by men lurking in shadows made hyperawareness not only a necessity, but a habit.

I remember walking to the gym with my sister and trying to conceal pepper spray under my sleeve in case of an attack. Horror stories from friends, peers, and on the news made me feel like none of the preventative measures I was taking were strong enough.

Living in fear

In a survey conducted by the South African Medical Research Council, approximately one in four men who participated admitted to committing rape. The World Population Review published rape statistics by country in 2020, and (no surprise here), South Africa has the recorded highest rate of rape in the world, with 132.4 incidents per 100,000 people. And these are just the incidents that were reported.

These numbers are not an accurate reflection of the severity of the rape crisis in my home country. Ineffective government schemes, overt racial tension, and heightened reality of gender-based violence are just some of the reasons why growing up in South Africa was so hostile. Looking over my shoulder while walking to class at university, or changing plans to arrive safely, were daily occurrences.

These are just some of the attitudes South African women have adopted to try to maintain a semblance of safety: my pepper spray and taser gun, hyper-anxiety and general mistrust of any man on the street are the realities of all South African women. We are bound together by the real threat of becoming another report to add to our country’s high statistic ranking.

The Netherlands fallacy

The constant threat of rape and sexual assault is, naturally, the main reason for me having immigrated to the Netherlands. I thought I’d left the news headlines of the mishandling of rape behind me, but I was clearly wrong.

The fear that women in Leiden experience, and will continue to experience, because of this man is an all too familiar feeling. That I — a native of the world’s rape capital — can relate to this climate of insecurity in Leiden is shocking.

Not only is the sentence of just four years unjust, but how is punishment for rape quantifiable to begin with? How many years will it take the three young women in Leiden, who were subjected to such an act against their will, to recover from this?

Soft punishment

I am not a naïve idealist: I know that crimes of sexual assault and gender-based violence occur in even the safest and most egalitarian societies. I am scathing, though, in my criticism of this conviction.

While a part of me thinks “at least he got caught and is going to jail,” this optimistic view shatters against the handling of this story. That the rapist will be “subject to some restrictions” upon being released from prison is a slap in the face for the victims. By allowing the criminal to remain unnamed, this crime becomes an anonymous one.

Where I’m from, victim-blaming, a corrupt system and the sheer number of reports make South Africa a rapists’ paradise. That the “plus side” of this Leiden sentence is that this individual was simply sentenced is horrific.

Is the bar of justice set that low in this, seemingly progressive, country?

What do you think of the sentence? Tell us your opinion in the comments below. 

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of DutchReview.

Feature Image: Eric Ward/Unsplash