But thanks!!


Squatting in The Netherlands at present enjoys a semi legal status. Whilst there is no written ‘right to squat’, there does exist a strong tradition of squatting, which is broadly recognised by judges, the police and by some segments of the public. Squatted social centers are widely established in the country and an estimated few thousand people live in squats.

In recent weeks, squatting has come under attack. The Christian Democrat and the various liberal parties - a majority in parliament - would have squatting outlawed altogether. In the official rhetoric, squatting is primarily linked to organised crime and ‘people who squat a building for a day and organise a lucrative illegal rave’. The first charge is a nonsense: in actual fact, squatters often find themselves at loggerheads with organised crime (especially when it involves property speculation). Certainly in Amsterdam, there are a number of examples of squatters in direct opposition to organised crime, most notably (for anyone who is really into this) in the case of Bertus Lueskes. As for the illegal raves, they do exist and often in exist squats. However, they form but a part of what happens in squats, and in this sense are simply not the main issue.

What is the main issue? The clamp down on squatting must be perceived as a clamp down on the extra-parliamentary movement in general. After all, squatting is very important for the extra-parliamentary movement. Those who were present at the 2nd Peoples Global Action Conference in Leiden (NL) can testify to the importance of the squatted social center. To put it starkly: if the proposed ban on squatting were to go ahead, a myriad of projects would become homeless. These include a number of Give Away/Free Shops, various vegan cafes, info shops, support points for illegalised peoples, bars and concert venues, housing spaces etc. etc. And none of these projects would be able to function in (expensive) hired spaces, for owing to their very nature they are low budget ;-) initiatives.

The eviction of the Vliegende Hond (which means Flying Dog) is worrying, because the Council (of Utrecht) is using a new strategy. The Council has stated that unless the suqat is evicted, the owner will be fined. What they have done, is levy a “preventive fine” on the owners of the squatted building, which in turn supplies the owners of an “immediate need” for the squatters to leave. After all, if the squatters do not leave, then the owner becomes liable for hefty fines... As regards Dutch Law, it is very dubious whether such a move by the Council is legal. Obviously, this is being challenged. Nevertheless, the tendency this signals is worrying.