Interview with youth candidate - Lieke Brewer #22

Who are you and where are you from?

My name is Lieke and I am originally from Maarssen. I was born and grew up there, and I went to secondary school in Breukelen. After that, I first did a gap year and then I started studying and moved to rooms in Utrecht. Once I did feel very much at home in Maarssen, but as a Maarssen native, Utrecht is the city you go to from a young age. In the beginning you have to get to know it a bit and you think it's such a big city, but actually it's just a big village. For me, Utrecht really is home!

What did you study?

I did a Bachelor's degree in psychology, social psychology being my specialisation. Partly because of that social psychology, I also got into criminology. The minor in criminology I did then was so incredibly interesting that I wanted to do a Master's in it as well. Social psychology is very much about social norms and values, and why people behave differently when other people are around, for instance. Criminology is also very much about deviant behaviour, actually. Why do people deviate from the social norms and values that many people seem to share anyway? So social psychology and criminology is a very natural combination for me.

When I came to Utrecht, I went to live in Zuilen: in a ienie-mini room of 5.5 m^2, including a rooming house. I had one of those high beds that sits on the next floor, with one of those super steep ladders that I was afraid if I drank too much once I would fall off. At the bottom I had put a bench there just to be sure. Fortunately, after a few years I was able to move on to a slightly bigger room.

What do you do now in your daily life?

I am now a trainee at the municipality of Amsterdam. It's a two-year traineeship and the idea is that you get to work in three different places. I'm now at the care and housing nuisance hotline, which is very interesting. You see a lot of care issues, mental health issues and a lot of safety issues, especially nuisance, coming together here. Harassment also occurs regularly. A lot often happens at the same time, which makes it a big challenge, but also a lot of fun. This workplace focuses a lot on the care side, such as mental health problems, but at my next place I want to focus a bit more on safety.

How long can you keep working at the care and housing nuisance hotlines and do you want to work in the Amsterdam municipality after those two years?

I can now continue working for the Amsterdam municipality until next September approximately. The idea is that after that you will be employed by them. After all, they invest a lot in us, we get training, we are allowed to shadow. So ideally they would like to keep us with them.

When looking for a job, I actually always thought I would end up working in Utrecht. I don't know exactly where, maybe in the municipality or at a research agency, maybe at uni. Then I ended up at Amsterdam and I did want to look further after that, but now I'm really enjoying myself there. Now I just really don't know yet what I want after this. I'm going to figure out the options first.

Can you talk a bit more about your exact work at the hotlines?

There are several hotlines, one in each city district. There is an urban programme manager who makes sure things are arranged jointly. The intention is that the working methods of the hotlines are basically the same. It is one Amsterdam and you want it to be unambiguous for residents as well. You want to apply effective things from one hotline to other hotlines. That is mainly what I am concerned with. We have different projects. For instance, we have drawn up an aggression protocol with various staff members, which is an umbrella document. That's about the actual work.

The people who actually handle the reports really come across different things. Sometimes it is solved in no time and sometimes it can drag on for years. That's tricky. You then speak to the nuisance reporters regularly, because they have to keep reporting. Then you can build a file: what is working and what is not working?

If we think someone is on the right track, that things are going well again and there are fewer reports about that person, we also want to keep a finger on the pulse in certain cases as a hotline ourselves. After all, in some situations there is a much higher risk of someone relapsing. You see this very much in hoarding and garbage collection, which is a psychological problem. People then tend not to be able to throw things away, or to collect. If that happens to an unhealthy extent, it can be detrimental to fire safety, or you can't walk around the house, or it attracts pests, for example. If cleaning has been done, chances are that one or two years later it will be seriously wrong again. As a hotline, you want to be there in time.

So why do safety and mental health appeal to you so much?

I just find it terribly interesting! Just what influences how a person behaves and how a person thinks? You can pinpoint all the factors that influence this, but a person is more than the sum of their parts. So then I wonder, how do those factors work together and then how do they shape a person?

In criminology, I find it interesting to look at people who deviate from the norms and values we all share. In mental health, certain things are seen as pathology. And then it's also interesting to wonder why that is seen as a disease picture and we think other things are quite normal. So the big difference is that a clinical picture is a healthcare problem, while criminal behaviour does not have to be a clinical picture. Perhaps the criminal behaviour stems from differences in norms and values, for example.

I also find the boundary of personal freedom very interesting: we are all free to be a bit crazy, and being a bit crazy is also quite normal. At the same time, you have to ask yourself when it goes too far and should intervene, and how.

In terms of safety, perhaps you should see some issues more as care calls. For example, if adolescents are evading the rules, that can be mainly a cry for attention. So in that sense, it also has a lot to do with each other.

Did you find your studies difficult or easy?

Both. On the one hand, it was easy because it was so interesting to learn all the neurological, biological, sociological theories. On the other hand, you also start looking at yourself very much, because they are typically things that touch on what is basic for you. Those norms and values very much determine how you look at the world and at yourself. It is difficult when you are forced to look at yourself so critically, it is confronting. As students, we also coached each other and had very personal conversations. So in that sense, my studies have been tough.

What did you do in your gap year?

The plan was to travel for an extended period in Canada with a group. Only this was cancelled a week and a half in advance: I was the only one. I had already prepared everything and the expensive plane ticket was ready, which I had raised the money for by working every weekend for a long time. I did go to Vancouver, but I was all alone. It was quite a leap of faith, which was perhaps a little too enthusiastic. I was just a few months 18, had lived at home all my life, grown up safely. But I felt I had to do it anyway. It was the first and last time I was homesick. My mobile phone didn't work there then either, because there was no link to providers in Canada yet. And so I couldn't access my savings either. I could only Skype via my little laptop, despite the time difference. My parents really urged me to make sure I did and saw what I could nevertheless, so that I wouldn't regret it. I ended up spending only a few weeks there, while I had planned much more. I had to do and figure out everything myself in a country I didn't know, including arranging the return trip, for example. I learnt a lot from it. Although it was intense, it was still a very cool experience. The rest of the year I worked and saved money for my studies.

How did you become active at DWARS?

I first became active in the group of GroenLinks in Maarssen. There I gained experience and was able to help, which was great fun. Of course, the average age there was a bit higher than in Utrecht, so there was a need for some young voices. I was very welcome! When I started studying, I stopped in Maarssen, because of getting used to student life and making new contacts. Then I moved to Utrecht and really missed having politically substantive discussions. That's why I joined DWARS Utrecht. It was the most typical, fantastic DWARS activity ever: an organic wine tasting! It was accompanied by the politically substantive discussions I had missed so much. The people there were also very open and friendly, you were immediately one of them. I liked that so much that I immediately joined the department.

What did you do at DWARS?

What did I not done at DWARS! I served on the national board as well as on the divisional board. I also set up the rule of law and justice committee together with then board member social Funs Elbersen, which I became chairman of. I also served on the programme committee for the national board in the year before the Lower House elections. The candidates committee is the most recent thing I have done. Now I have not held a position at DWARS since the winter congress, which is a bit crazy!

How have you experienced being on the board?

It was super fun and very informative! I got into it quite quickly because things were a bit worse for GroenLinks and DWARS at the time. They were still looking for people for the national board. I hadn't been active for that long, but I felt so at home with DWARS and I wanted the experience anyway. Hence I had applied to be secretary. The math then is that you have to put in about 20 hours a week, but you can make it as busy as you want. I had to learn that a lot: how to set those boundaries. You can put endless time into DWARS, but you don't have endless time available. Of course, you also want to do it super well. I expected to be mainly organisational, but it was always political too. After all, as a board member of DWARS, you are concerned with what is going on at the time. What do we think? Where can we and do we want to make a point? That's what I liked most about being on the board.

We also staged fun actions. For example, when I was on the board, the Winter Olympics were in Sochi, Russia. We didn't want to be sour, but at the same time we really wanted to make a point. Human rights are being violated here. That is why we organised the action “the other side of the medal”. On the one hand, we wanted to throw out a congratulatory message and highlight the positive side, but on the other hand, we were able to bring to light the reality that many people did not know.

Have you always been interested in politics?

YES! I was brought up very socially engaged. My parents are both teachers at vmbo, they used to teach at Utrecht Zuid college. They also had difficult classes and encountered all sorts of things. At home, we talked about that at the kitchen table. And also what was in the newspaper that day. Because my father read the newspaper every morning, I started doing the same in group five or six, then I felt I belonged. “Dad reads the newspaper and so do I!” I got into it very naturally. During the elections when I was 14/15, I thought I should just decide for myself what I thought. It was nice and all that my parents were leftist, but what do I stand for myself? Then I all party programmes pored over. What was I doing to myself? There was a clear winner: GroenLinks! I just really liked that programme, and then I thought: that's it! And it has always been that way.

The nice thing is, at DWARS you also learn to remain very critical. What do I think and why do I think that? Do I think the same as DWARS and as GroenLinks? But still, GroenLinks has always been the party for me and that is still so much the case that I love doing things with it.

What did you learn during your active period in DWARS and can you take with you in your further pursuits, for example in the church?

An awful lot actually. At DWARS, you have a lot of opportunities to do and learn all sorts of things. An open door is debate and speaking skills and the like, of which the PJO parliament is a good example, but also negotiation skills. Actually, you learn much more than that, you learn to delve into all kinds of topics much more broadly. It's not just about your own topics then, but also a lot about things you wouldn't easily dive into yourself. You then learn about other perspectives at the same time, including those of other PJOs. On the one hand, you learn what they think and on the other, you learn how to deal with them. You learn to laugh with them, despite having super disagreements on content. That person you clash with can still be a really nice person, and they also have their opinions from their own ideals, just like us. At DWARS, you learn something like that much better than if you dive straight in.

What binds you to the city of Utrecht?

It really is home for me. I have the impression that Utrecht is a city where everyone is free to be themselves. That also means that being a bit different is also fine, that only adds to the city, to the diversity, in so many ways. Together we are Utrecht. So many great things are happening. As a volunteer, I have seen many people contributing voluntarily in all kinds of ways and neighbours helping each other. That is so nice to see. Utrecht really is a warm bath for me.

What do you want for a city like Utrecht?

I want it to be a safe city for everyone. It really is my favourite city and for good reason; a lot goes right. Also in terms of safety. But there are groups or individuals who feel less safe, perhaps because of politicians making statements about burning down mosques, for example. But it is also about people who have lived here for decades and have low incomes who do not feel safe in their neighbourhood because of car fires or burglaries. One of the bigger risks I see is that safety becomes a thing for people who have high incomes. If you have a lot of money, you can choose to live in the ‘best’, safest neighbourhood. The moment you live around the poverty line and you depend on, say, social rent, you depend on waiting time and the like and you don't have that same choice. It should not become dependent on your income whether you can live in a nice, safe neighbourhood, it should be for everyone. Everyone has the right to feel safe in the city.

How could you make Utrecht safer in a more sustainable way?

This can be done in many different ways. It is good to see that a lot is already going well. But if you notice that fewer officers are being deployed while you, as a municipality, are trying hard to make that neighbourhood safer, then that is a pity. At the same time, I think a large part of safety is “feeling”. This doesn't mean you don't have to do anything with it. Feeling unsafe touches the very basis of your life! Of your existence. This is why it is so important to me. This is similar to your way of thinking in mental health, depression is something you have anytime, anywhere. If you feel unsafe in your own home... That touches the whole security of your existence. So it has so much impact on people's lives. Improving the sense of security should really be a specific goal. From the very beginning of zoning public space, you have to think about safety and sense of security. You want to encourage ownership so that communal spaces are kept clean. Often these things are still paragraphs that are added to a plan later. That's just a shame, you lose a lot of opportunities there. This is an example of a structural way of how you make the whole city safer.

How does the topic of security fit with GroenLinks as a party?

GroenLinks may talk about safety more often and I try to do so on its behalf. We can all have wonderful plans in all sorts of areas, but nothing will come of it if safety is not in order. For instance, you can have nice poverty schemes, but if they are abused a lot it eats away at your support base. If municipal taxes go to schemes that are abused by people who don't need it at all, in no time everyone will be against those schemes. GroenLinks is the party for when you want to do something about security in a sustainable way. GroenLinksers are for sustainability in all areas, that it is well regulated for the long term. You can't leave it to dogmas of “harsh punishment”. That's a terrible shame, you lose all kinds of people who fall into all kinds of patterns that might mean so many great things for the city. If you only focus on “harsh punishment” you are pretty much only on symptom control. Of course you have to keep doing that, but if you do nothing with the causes then in the long run you solve nothing at all. People who are at risk of being seduced into criminal behaviour should be shown alternative routes, how they can become successful and make money in legal ways. This fits incredibly well with the whole GroenLinks story: you want to give equal opportunities to people. So people who really want to go for security are right at home with GL.

What do you currently experience as your biggest challenge?

A recent challenge was finding an affordable house in Utrecht! But this has succeeded now, I have found a house in Leidsche Rijn. The other day I also ran a HAH campaign there. It's a diverse neighbourhood in many ways, very nice.

Actually, my biggest challenge might be a GroenLinks challenge. Security is not necessarily the hot topic for GroenLinks. While for me that is just one story. GroenLinks opinions are all based on a certain ideology, to make society social and future-oriented. Structurally and for everyone, things have to get better. Safety fits into that for me very organically, because that is a very important part of this story. GroenLinks should propagate its safety story more and be proud of it! There is still a world to be won in this regard.

There are hopefully many great opportunities in the coming years. A project involving legal cannabis cultivation would be fantastic and that is also really something for GroenLinks. What you counteract with this is drug crime and undermining crime, which is really a problem today. You can also lower THC levels this way [THC is the active ingredient that gets you high], so you have less risk of mental health problems. This is also beneficial in terms of health, for instance for brain development in teenagers. On the one hand, you can then counteract the harmfulness and, on the other hand, you can counter drug crime, illegal cannabis farms and the abuse of vulnerable people that this often involves.

Also, as a municipality, you can do a lot on undermining crime and really sell the back end a slap. You have to realise that undermining crime requires the council, if you want to launder money, for example. So the council has to look very critically at themselves, their own functioning and at the city and be keen on countering undermining crime, otherwise it will encompass everything.

There is a recognition that it is a big problem. You try to ensure that all parties are aware of the risks. One example is that parties screen well when people want to join the council. A lot is already going well there. What is also important is to know when the alarm bells should ring when people come to a counter. What are the behavioural patterns that often indicate undermining? The people who have a lot of contact with the residents of Utrecht should be trained to know and notice things like that. If you take care of that, you have already won a world.