DWARS Brabant puts best foot forward in debate night with JOVD 's-Hertogenbosch

On 17 December, DWARS-Brabant-Zeeland and JOVD ‘s-Hertogenbosch held an online debate. Both associations brought about eight participants and a few spectators. The debate was steered in the right direction by GroenLinks councillor Sanne Heijndijk from Tilburg and VVD councillor Alex Panhuizen, who had been appointed both mediator and jury of the debate. DWARS Brabant was declared the winner by them at the end of the evening.

The first statement was “The rapper Akwasi should be prosecuted”, following the rapper's statements on the dam during the Black Lives Matter demonstration. A report was filed against him, but after he publicly distanced himself from the statement, there was no prosecution. The JOVD members made it clear that they were against racism but felt that such statements calling for violence should always lead to prosecution. DWARS countered that it is reasonable to get very angry from not being heard. Moreover, it was not about threatening a real person and on top of that, apologies had already been issued. The debate of about half an hour stuck on these points. The jury ruled that the JOVD had won this round. With the JOVD, the members were slightly more united and with DWARS, the defence clearly came from only a few members.

The second proposition was “The Moria crisis has been handled inhumanely by the government” In September, a fire broke out in the overcrowded shelter on the Greek island of Lesbos. Soon after, the Dutch government announced its intention to take in refugees.

Rick opened the debate by explaining the situation better: the 100 refugees were only a small number of the total 13,000 refugees on the island. They had been living in very poor conditions for several years. Moreover, DWARS had not forgotten that the 100 refugees were exchanged with another quota for accepting refugees. The JOVD argued that the Netherlands can do little about the situation and that the problem should be addressed from a European perspective. According to Douwe, the European approach is blocked by the Council of Europe (consultations between ministers of member states), and no minutes are taken of these consultations. Douwe accused the Netherlands of obstructing this decision-making. The discussion then quickly turned into a broader debate on migration policies. In this, DWARS argued the duty to help people. The JOVD maintained that open borders and overly good reception would have a pull factor and that deaths at sea would be an inevitable consequence. Douwe responded by charging that this discussion was more of a provocation and not based on facts. The inhumane conditions would be the result of governments burying their heads in the sand even in the Council of Europe. After a fierce response to counter the accusations, Rick chose to calm tempers by emphasising agreement. In the closing statements, the need for a permanent one was again emphasised by JOVD, after which DWARS wanted to stress that for this to happen, the council of Europe needs to have a more transparent and factual debate. It should also make it easier for refugees to apply for asylum without travelling across a sea or border because now there is no possibility to do so. The jury gave a point to DWARS for this round because the JOVD could not properly explain their defence of the current migration policy and mentioning victims the Mediterranean actually weakened this narrative.

The third statement was slightly more open to interpretation: “We will only get out of the corona crisis in the green-social way.” DWARS had not forgotten the climate crisis and argued that it will have much worse consequences if no action is taken. The JOVDers were mainly concerned about the economy and national debt. Instead, the DWARSers wanted investments in the energy transition and jobs outside multinationals that had actually benefited from the crisis. An overhaul of the tax system or tax on energy would be needed for this and prevent the national debt from rising enormously. JOVD argued that the Netherlands would be better off contributing through technical innovation rather than making its own energy sources more sustainable as the latter would not have a huge effect on global emissions. DWARS finally brought in that the time to see innovation as the only climate remedy is really over. The energy transition must be set in motion with the resources we have now, combined with possible innovation. Finally, the jury designated DWARS as the winner of this round and thus of the evening.

The debate ended on an amiable note by both sides. A good discussion on new energy sources with the JOVD provided a good and understanding conclusion to the evening. DWARS Brabant thanks both mediators Sanne and Alex and the JOVD ‘s-Hertogenbosch. We look forward to engaging in another verbal battle with liberal youth in the future!