So the TU/e gave the orders, more specifically a security employee, in consultation with his manager. In addition to giving the order, a complaint has also been made on behalf of the TU/e as the victim of the incident. That much became clear from the police report, which clearly states who made what decisions prior to the arrests, as well as what declaration was made afterwards.

Now that it has become clear by the court that the intervention should have never taken place - certainly not to this degree - for a demonstration such as the one that took place in the Auditorium, Cursor has requested responses from the parties involved.

The first student on trial, Bram Boer, says he is very happy with the judge's ruling. Boer: “It feels very empowering to know that we indeed had the right to demonstrate. But waiting in front of the courtroom for the trial to begin felt cold and weird.”

Boer could count on many supporters in the courtroom. “The fact that the judge sided with us without a single doubt was a nice confirmation of our right to protest at TU/e ​​and also a signal that we can be critical on our own university without the TU/e ​​calling the cops on us. This fact is one we’re sure to use in the (near) future”, says Boer also on behalf of University Rebellion, implying that new actions are on the way.

Apologies

Boer asks the Executive Board “for apologies for the requisition and execution thereof." Besides that he also asks "for transparency on the university's third stream funding: the money that among others companies give to the university for research and education.” Furthermore he underlines another important demand of University Rebellion: “Cut ties with the fossil fuel industry that is destroying our planet. If the TU/e decides to host these companies (Shell, BP, Exxonmobile, ed.) again, I will be standing right there again and I hope many will join me.”

The Executive Board responds to judge's ruling: "We believe the right to demonstrate is very important. In principle, we always have room for demonstrations, such as the series of small and large demonstrations by University Rebellion, and the demonstrations here on campus last week, in response to the situation in Iran."

Wervingsdagen, the organizer of the career fair where the demonstration took place, was also asked for a response, but did not respond. Boris Zwaan, former president of the Wervingsdagen in 2020, did react. He says that the selection of companies by the Wervingsdagen is decided by the study associations in dialogue with alumni of the biggest employers. “The ‘Committee of Recommendation’ has no influence on it,” says Zwaan, as, according to him, Bram Boer is suggesting.

Joint action

In its response, the police maintains the position that what happened on March 15 was a joint action by TU/e, the municipality and the police, as stated earlier. “On the day in question, we as the police acted in consultation with the TU and the mayor (former mayor Jorritsma, ed.). After demanded by security and police officers to vacate the property, we proceeded to arrest those who did not comply with this demand. The suspects have been arrested for local trespassing. The judge has reviewed the case and has ruled that there has been a violation of Article 11 of the WOM (a Dutch law for demonstrations, ed.). We have taken note of this ruling and will consider how it affects our actions in similar situations in the future.”

Political parties GroenLinks and the Partij voor de Dieren will ask council questions on this subject in the municipal council on October 11. Cursor will follow up on the answers – which usually come four weeks later.