It remains strange to dance at a festival while the world is on fire. Is that okay? Can it be? Is that collective energy with which we are jumping and stomping here with thousands not better spent elsewhere? These are questions that certainly press on you a few times during such a weekend. Not only when you see the huge procession of festival migrants with plastic pop-up tents passing by. Also when artists address a social injustice while announcing their new single, you suddenly become (painfully) aware of how absurd it is to try to clap along for social justice with a beer in hand.

What applies to us as visitors applies even more to the people organizing a festival. They grapple with the question for a whole year whether this is truly the most meaningful thing to do in this time. In the case of Into The Great Wide Open, we clearly see this struggle reflected, for example in the ambition to become a circular and climate-positive festival and in the attention for promoting and adhering to The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

But this human concern and the question of what a cultural festival could contribute emerged this year in a different way as well. Under the title 'Tribunals are coming,' two hearings were organized, complete with judge (with gavel) and a portrait of the king. The goal: to motivate the festival audience towards active citizenship. I was there as the clerk, on behalf of you all. Below, you can read my report. Please judge for yourself.

Right to protest

It is Saturday morning when the first session takes place. The morning sun filters through the trees in patches, the chirping of birds mixes with the smell of coffee and pancakes, and a large banner shows the now-famous tribunal threat. Program maker and moderator Kees Foekema welcomes the fully assembled audience with the question of whether this carefree late-summer festival bubble can be reconciled with what awaits us on Monday at the quay: leaders who disregard our civil rights. Other countries have shown that a democracy can dissolve itself, so shouldn’t we prepare, arm ourselves? And how do we do that? How do we actively shape our citizenship? Those are the questions for today and tomorrow, with special attention today for the right to protest.

Kees Foekema and Tamar de Waal | Image by Marit Veenstra

Audience | Image by Marit Veenstra

The judge of the day is Tamar de Waal, legal philosopher at Amsterdam Law School and columnist for De Groene Amsterdammer. As customary, everyone stands when she enters the courtroom. 'The right to protest is a negative right,' Tamar teaches us. 'That means it is about something the government is not allowed to do, namely intervening in a protest. The government must facilitate a protest. It is therefore not necessary to obtain permission for a protest, but a protest must be announced in advance. However, too many protests are being banned in the Netherlands, as the ombudsman recently established.'

And that is not the only concern that Tamar has regarding the Constitution: 'Our largest coalition party seems to have become milder, but the program still contains a radical point that is in conflict with the Constitution. After the elections, the sentiment was that the PVV should govern because they won. That is a misconception. We have a coalition system to ensure that radical parties cannot simply come to power through an election victory. Coalitions must safeguard the Constitution. Recognizing the Constitution is not left or right; it is the common ground from which we start. Only then can politics begin. So, in a way, we are behaving quite conservatively today.'

Online citizenship

One of the two guests with whom the right to protest is discussed this morning is Nugah Shrestha, the person behind the Instagram account Politieke Jongeren. Nugah talks about how he felt compelled by the rise of politicians like Wilders and Trump to ask the question of what his citizenship is as a non-Western migrant of color. With his account, he aims to motivate young people to think about politics and speak out.

Especially the latter, according to him, happens too little: 'I think many debates are not held out of discomfort. Especially in this time, it is important to speak out. With my account, I hope to contribute to that. The online reach is enormous. Companies pay millions to influencers and my account also did not get a shadowban for nothing. Of course, the question arises whether that reach really leads to physical change, but you can ask the same about an evening in a debate center.'

It is the question that is central today: what does real change look like? 'I believe in small changes,' says Nugah. 'In having a one-on-one conversation with someone outside your bubble, in your sports team, or with your family. I believe that the problem on the left is that they lack the certainty to have these conversations. Someone once told me that you should not have hope, but instead, it is much more important to know where you stand. I miss that in

Nugah Shrestha | Image by Marit Veenstra

Carolina Trujillo | Image by Marit Veenstra

‘In the Netherlands, we have a culture of televised debates of for and against. We engage in conversations based on oppositions instead of searching together for a solution. We want sensation. Online, that is even worse. We need to think about how we are going to organize the internet as a public space and how we need to regulate it. Right now, we are too dependent on big tech companies. I think, for instance, a requirement for identification and a ban on anonymous accounts could be a good solution for many hate and fake news problems.' 'In the Netherlands, yes,' Tamar adds, 'but in other countries, it is very important to be able to express yourself anonymously online.'

Civil disobedience

Carolina Trujillo is also guesting this morning. Carolina is an author, columnist for NRC Handelsblad, and (animal rights) activist. 'Who here is against animal cruelty?' she asks almost immediately to the ITGWO audience, to which all hands go up. 'And who here is actually vegan?' Only five hands remain raised. 'There you have it. You don't live by your values!' This leads to much discomfort. 'And vegetarian then? Organic?' comes a voice from the audience. 'It all goes to the same slaughterhouse! We are kept in the dark about the products we buy. Therefore: Don’t look away! Know what you are paying for!'

Nugah mentions what is happening now as the kind of discomfort he spoke of earlier. But this incident shows that discomfort does not only start outside one’s own bubble. Within the festival bubble and our bubbles at home, there is enough to confront each other with. Carolina is punk, someone who knows what she stands for and is unafraid to shove our own laziness and hypocrisy in our faces. It is impossible to remain deaf to that. And it can only be that after these words, next year’s entire food supply at ITGWO will be vegan.

Right to protest? As far as Carolina is concerned, we need to tackle it a lot harder. When asked where she finds hope as an activist, she replies that she has no hope at all. 'We are too focused on hope, peacefulness, and so on. We need to dare a lot more, like the farmers do, for example. Our protests are too tame, too compliant. Even Extinction Rebellion - absolutely passive! If you genuinely believe climate change is such a big issue, what are you doing sitting around!'

Again, there is much awkward shuffling. 'What should we do then?' comes a voice. 'Every protest movement has a radical wing that pushes the boundaries. Martin Luther King had Malcolm X, for example.' 'So violence?' someone shouts. 'I’m not allowed to say that here,' replies Carolina with a sidelong glance at judge Tamar - before naming a few examples of it. Even our judge of the day must admit that Rosa Parks did not file her protest in a compliant manner. Thus, Carolina immediately put the 'theory of the radical wing' into practice: extremes are necessary to shift the middle.

Engaging in conversation

Finally, the audience is also encouraged to think about solutions, but first, Tamar is asked whether progressive leftists are overly reliant on the Constitution. According to Kees, there seems to be a tendency to think: let them try, the judge will deny those radical ideas anyway. According to Tamar, this is a dangerous misconception: 'If we think the judges will solve it, democracy will disappear. The checking against the Constitution is done by politicians in the First and Second Chambers. The most important thing is that anti-constitutional parties stay as far away from power as possible.'

A solution from the audience suggests engaging in conversation outside the bubble. The extreme right is not the danger itself but a reaction to ten years of neoliberal policies by the VVD, as Nugah previously indicated. 'But how then?' another person chimes in. 'In those conversations, so many untruths arise that it’s almost as if you don’t share the same reality.' 'Equal, but not equal in work,' Kees terms this. Nugah agrees with Carolina: 'We are too proper. We need to break bubbles and not always want to be nice and cozy.'

Tamar also addresses the manner of conversing with each other. For a good conversation, both online and offline, good information is essential, but it is not just about reasonable argumentation. 'We don’t need to meticulously counter every argument. It’s also about a bigger story we tell, about the energy we emit, a positivity. Don’t we all want a nicer life? And shouldn’t happy animals be part of that too?' This is the kind of politics Kamala Harris is currently practicing in the US, called 'politics of joy': no endless technocratic debates about the Constitution, no 'sour left,' but 'Join the fight to save democracy - and let’s have some fun while we do it.'

The closing words belong to someone from the audience, who, with the energy Tamar spoke of and inspired by Carolina, calls upon everyone to 'know what the boundaries are and then stretch them.' He closes with a call to come to the A12 on September 14.

Image by Marit Veenstra

Right to health

The next morning, a large number of festival-goers have gathered again in the 'rechtsduinpan' of ITGWO. While yesterday the negative right to protest was central, today a positive right is discussed, namely the right to health. Article 22 of the Constitution states that the government is obliged to take measures to promote public health, Tamar explains. But how well do we actually know that Constitution?

Tamar calls for actively engaging in legal citizenship: 'It is important that we become more aware of our rights. Compared to other countries, we know much less about our own Constitution in the Netherlands. But the government has certain social obligations, like housing for instance. Now it is made to seem as if its significance is a political issue, but it is a duty of the government regardless of political color. The same applies to the right to health.'

Today Bénédicte Ficq and Teun van de Keuken are present to discuss this right. Bénédicte is a Dutch lawyer and is introduced as 'The terror of Tata Steel.' Teun is a journalist, writer, podcaster, and program maker who recently published the book Human beings are a plofkip. Bénédicte reinforces Tamar's point by stating that although this is a less concrete right, legislation does offer sufficient possibilities: 'Criminal law can be a way to do something against indifferent lousy companies like Tata

Bénédicte Ficq | Image by Marit Veenstra

Teun van de Keuken | Image by Marit Veenstra

'Anyone living next to a farmer who uses pesticides on his land can do more than we usually think,' Bénédicte continues. 'If I have to inhale toxic substances here every day, I can appeal against that. I have the right to health. But first, we need to ask whose public domain is it actually.

Bénédicte concludes that often there are different interests at play that contradict each other. 'A company like Schiphol doesn’t give a damn about our health and only wants to grow, even if it comes at the expense of our livability. At the same time, the government is part of that club. How on earth can that be reconciled? That is the discussion we need to have. The government must not be a shareholder in a polluting company!'

Teun sees an obligation resting on us as well. According to him, we have started to view the government as something external rather than as our representatives. 'We experience politics as consumers. Every four years, we order a new cabinet, and then we complain that our "iPhone" doesn't do what we want. We need to actively take up our citizenship. We are the citizens. The government must do what we want.'

'Take the carbon footprint. It was invented by a well-paid campaign agency on behalf of BP to divert the entire discussion about fossil fuels away from the industry's responsibility to the individual's responsibility. We need a government that stands up to these kinds of big companies that don’t care about us.'

Conflict of interest

But that is precisely the problem, according to Bénédicte: 'The government is in the pocket of the industries. Just look at the tobacco and gambling industries. Addressing this will always be dismissed by pointing out how much it will cost us. But if we tie discussions about climate and the health of the public domain to short-term interests, we will always lose. We need to depoliticize these themes.'

Tamar points out that such issues are never hopeless from the start. Take, for example, the Urgenda case. 'Law is an argumentative practice and that provides opportunities.' Bénédicte enthusiastically adds: 'It’s about language, about how things are framed and how we see things differently because of that. Language is the instrument of change. It can be used through law, but it is just as much the instrument of the poet, the writer, and the artist.'

The audience is busily taking notes | Image by Marit Veenstra

However, Teun places a caveat here as well, which was also made yesterday. Is it not a weak argument to solve everything through the courts? 'Where are we ourselves in all this? The left is so weak; we’re just waiting around.' Bénédicte does not entirely agree: 'That left-right distinction is dangerous. These problems are too big to resolve from within a bubble.' Teun agrees: 'What matters is that there are companies that only care about profit, but profit is not the only value, and we all need to speak up more about that.'

'If people really realize what turning point we are at,' asserts Bénédicte, 'if we really realize that everything we have always taken for granted might soon no longer be there, such as clean drinking water, if we truly realize that large companies are ruining everything that is necessary, then everyone will stand up.' 

Ethics

A man at the interruption microphone states that as a citizenship teacher, he teaches his students the classic methods of exerting political influence but also observes that none of his students would quickly write a letter. What methods of influence are there for this new generation? Bénédicte places her hope in ‘climate influencers,’ on Tiktok and podcasts. When she asks Teun if he is on Tiktok, he replies, 'No, my children find that embarrassing.' 'But you’ve written a book; you have a social responsibility!'

Image by Marit Veenstra

In that book, Teun advocates for free school lunches, linked to education about nutrition. 'We stubbornly cling to our idea of free choice, but unhealthy food is made so appealing by substances and advertising. Children can go to the local supermarket during their break, where frikandel rolls and energy drinks are already prepared for them. That choice should be taken from them, for example by providing a school lunch. Then everyone gets to eat, everyone eats healthily, and they stay in school. We can think in these ways about societal changes. We could sit on the A12 - Bénédicte and I have done that too - but we can also provide free school lunches.'

Again today, the critically important question of what we can actually do is discussed. And again today, that proves to be challenging. Teun: 'Government, get involved. More guidance!' Tamar: 'The whole culture needs to change.' Bénédicte: 'Everyone needs to take a step in their own behavioral change.' Someone from the audience expresses it as a matter of ethics: 'We need to return to an ethic where we do something out of conviction; where we do not do something for the sake of the result but because it is simply right and important.'

Audience | Image by Marit Veenstra

Tamar de Waal | Image by Marit Veenstra
That is also the point Tamar picks up in her closing statement. 'Teun raised the question of where we are as citizens. We have too much started to behave like consumers. We placed too much trust in democracy, too much trust in science, technology, and market forces. But where is the ethics? What are the principles? Whose is the public domain? In what kind of world do we want to live? Those are the questions. We need to think, inform ourselves, and speak out. There is not one solution, one way; we need ALL ways, ALL channels, ALL forms. We all need to engage.'

Final verdict

Like yesterday, the last word goes to someone from the audience. This time a student who says he also always buys a frikandel roll and energy drink during his break. He poses the question of how students like him can be motivated to choose a sandwich with eggplant instead of a donut. What does he think? 'Get rid of the donuts.'

With the following applause from the ITGWO audience, the session comes to an end, and Kees closes this morning with the slogan that has inspired so many social changes: 'Be realistic, demand the impossible.'

This has proven to be an unrealistic idea: a strong substantive program on active legal citizenship on the early morning of a multi-day festival. That ITGWO organizes this is itself a testament to the kind of citizenship that has been discussed throughout. Whatever profession you have, you are also always a citizen of the society in which you practice that profession. Business or commercial interests never exist in isolation. You cannot limit yourself to that. And that amazes me most about the bad guys that were discussed here: it is also their democracy that they are eroding, also their environment that they are destroying, also their world that could be a much nicer and more enjoyable place - for everyone.

We’ll catch them. With fewer donuts and more of this.

Roel Meijvis