Cabinet acknowledges institutional racism at the tax authorities: 'Unacceptable, extremely painful'

‍

The big word is out: the tax authorities had institutional racism, says Secretary of State Marnix van Rij. Previously, the cabinet did not want to use that term. But that is still happening, accompanied by the words that this is “unacceptable” and “extremely painful”.

Tobias the Hartog

May 30, 2022, 15:00Last update: 30 May 2022, 17:12

Everything revolves around the so-called “black lists” that the tax authorities used to detect fraud. In doing so, a distinction was made by nationality (e.g. Bulgarian), population group (such as Antillean) and sometimes by appearance. People with a non-Western appearance were assessed more strictly, as it turned out. For example, e-mails read: “Another fraudulent asylum seeker”. That was unacceptable, according to the Data Protection Authority.

Read also

videos

Fiscus itself broke the law for 7 years with a blacklist for fraudsters

Nevertheless, the cabinet struggled for a long time with what to call this. Discrimination, racism, or institutional racism? Literally using the dictionary and statements of the College of Human Rights, Secretary of State Marnix van Rij puzzled exactly which term applied to. Previously, the cabinet did not want to use the term institutional racism, because it would express that protocols were knowingly drawn up in such a way that the aim was to discriminate against people. Racism, he said earlier, would be an ideology, different from the wrong way of working. Moreover, discrimination is prohibited by law; racism and institutional racism are 'legally' not 'defined', says Van Rij.

Van Rij now writes in a letter to the House of Representatives that “there has been institutional racism” after all. Even if racism did not take place “organized” or “institutionalized”, he now says it can still be institutional racism. “It's also less about intent or intent, but more about behaviors that stem from unconscious prejudice and ignorance.” In an explanation, he says: “Without bad faith, it got very out of hand. There was no policy, no double checks.”

For example, Van Rij states that donations from immigrants to mosques were under scrutiny without being properly substantiated. He calls it “unacceptable” and “extremely painful”. “Institutional racism cannot and should not exist in our society.”

He notes that “even when it was not the intention” to crack down on groups, there has been discrimination based on “their origin or other characteristics such as nationality, age and gender”. Van Rij: “Even though there is no ideology that divides people into races, that doesn't make the examples found any less painful.”

Distinction may

By the way, Van Rij does write that the tax authorities as a whole are not guilty, but he puts the ball in the hands of a specific department. By the way, no one was fired there, but strong discussions were held.

The Secretary of State also notes that “risk selection” (read: fraud detection by selecting people) remains “necessary”. The fact that someone has dual nationality can be one such criterion, says Van Rij.

He warns that services that have to do this must therefore sometimes make a 'distinction', but that they must therefore be aware of 'the risk of discrimination'. “But I don't want the entire tax authorities to get into a cramp.” Fraud detection must remain possible. “Not every distinction is discriminatory when there is a justification for it.” He does announce that there will be increased supervision and that employees will receive training to prevent new accidents.

Research is still underway into the “actual consequences” of the 270,000 people on the lists. Presumably, many people didn't notice much about it, says Van Rij, but 5,000 to 15,000 people were really bothered. They can expect a 'compensation'. He does not expect it to rain claims. Also because institutional racism is not a “legal concept”.

‍