The Dutch Institute for Human Rights (College voor de Rechten van de Mens), the organization that adjudicates discrimination complaints, has dismissed whistleblowers who reported possible abuses. That is against the law. According to the Dutch broadcast called NOS, four of the eight board members have reported to the Ministry of Justice of intimidation, discrimination, and favoritism by chair member Jacobine Geel. After the report, two whistleblowers, Chébti and Lieuw, who both have a migration background, were told that their appointments would not be extended.

Reinier van Zutphen, the National Ombudsman, Henk Naves, the chairman of the Council for the Judiciary, and Aleid Wolfsen, chairman of the Dutch Data Protection Authority, who are members of the Advisory Council, support the Board’s approach. Integrity professor at the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam called Rob van Eijbergen calls this attitude remarkable because the law protects whistleblowers. The Advisory Board states that it does not know who the whistleblowers are, and that the dismissal of the Board members can therefore not be related to this. Van Eijbergen finds this hardly credible, stating that we can assume that they know who the reporters are, especially within such a small college.

The management crisis has major consequences for the functioning of the institute. As an independent body, the Institute for Human Rights consults the Dutch government on issues rulings in discrimination cases. These sessions are chaired by the board members. By law, the board must consist of at least nine board members. Because the two whistleblowers have to leave, a third whistleblower has decided to leave himself, and there is another member who is at the end of his second term, only four members are left to chair hearings and write opinions. The Ministry of Justice has appointed a broad-based committee chaired by Ms Sorgdrager to investigate the crisis.

Gosh, what a surprise, but not really. In the Netherlands, there is a list of people who supposedly stand for humanization and integrity, but are guilty of what they pretend to stand for. This ranges from human rights to network corruption and nepotism. In addition, there are scientific jerks who shout something about integrity from their ivory towers of science, who have literally not worked a day in their lives within the business world. Let alone with their feet in the mud. Or scientific jerks who come up with dry fare for integrity management at government bodies (local government/municipality, national, etc.). Dry fare that does not fit in with everyday business practices.

I am deeply annoyed by what I encounter, and by these ‘sacred representatives’ of humanization and doing the right thing, who are so unbelievably hypocritical, and cause one integrity breach after another. I may hope that these people will be supported by the whistleblower protection law.

My appeal to the public is: embrace whistleblowers more (I call them truth fighters), and cultivate a more critical view of the world. Look to find out how it really works. Stop the naivety. If more and more people start doing that, the hypocrites will have less and less room to maneuver to destroy people’s lives. Thanks.

Source: on the back of BNNVARA, Joop, as discussed with Franciso van Jole.