Communication with political parties

Reactions of political parties to, among other things, the fire letter from 20 mental health care workers that led to the motion for an independent investigation

Aline Terpstra, last update 1 February 2022

Since October 2020, the GGZ treatment group has been writing well-founded letters to the Lower House about the major problem of organised sadistic abuse in our country and the absolute necessity of a truly independent investigation. Following this fire letter, a new motion was submitted by Gideon van Meijeren. The motion asked for the dissolution of the current Hendriks Committee and the appointment of a new committee, outside the influence of the Ministry of Justice and subject to the preconditions set out in the fire letter.

Independent research is desperately needed. After all, many victims of organised ritual abuse have been testifying for decades. This includes the involvement of high-ranking figures, particularly of the judiciary. Many court cases against high-ranking figures who were linked to child abuse seemed to disappear into thin air. An independent investigation is then the only alternative. It is obvious that an investigation under the control of the Ministry of Justice is not independent. It is also easy to see why many victims do not dare speak up in that context. Yet almost all parties voted against it, and they turned out to have cooperated. Elsewhere the website a analysis of their joint explanation of vote.

Below is a summary of the communications we have had recently with various political parties regarding independent research.

Christian Union

Beginning November 2021

Until now (one year), the no member of parliament of the Christian Union In spite of our repeated requests, no one has bothered to talk to us in person to get informed about this terrible affair. Neither did Don Ceder, who in 2019 (he was not yet a member of parliament at the time) indicated after a good conversation that he would look into the subject. Recently, he promised again to be informed by us, together with Mirjam Bikker, about this extremely important subject.

However, despite repeated requests, this has not happened to date. We urge Mirjam Bikker (portfolio holder for Justice and Security) and Don Ceder to keep this promise and at least be well informed before the vote on the motion on Tuesday, 9 November.

Update 1 February 2022

Don Ceder's last message is from 31 October, see here for a copy of the whatsapp conversation, in which he promised to let me know if he knew anything more (about planning a personal interview with Mirjam Bikker and himself). To date, I have not heard from him.

Mirjam Bikker, too, after an initially very friendly e-mail in April 2021, has not responded to anything, see here for the mail exchange.  

Forum for Democracy

Gideon Van Meijeren, portfolio holder Justice and Security of the FVD, has energetically taken up the alarm signals of the GGZ treatment group and submitted a new motion, text see elsewhere on this website.



 November 2021

Groenlinks states that they consider it 'naturally very important' that victims are listened to. They state 'that is also the reason why we initially submitted a motion asking for an independent investigation. Now, of course, we are going to see to it that the motion is carried out properly.' 

Now that this Hendriks Committee has been shown to be completely under the control of the Ministry of Justice and is therefore far from independent, and now that this is also evident from their actions to date, we are therefore counting on the support of GreenLeft for this motion.

Update 1 February 2022

GroenLinks also voted against the motion, although it was known to them that many victims do not dare to talk and it is clear that the motion is not being carried out properly at all, see here for argumentation.


Beginning November 2021

The SGP has already shown that they recognise that it is essential that this investigation is independent, and that they understand why it cannot be done under Justice. We therefore count on their support for the motion.

Update 1 February 2022

Nevertheless, SGP also voted against the motion. See here for the e-mail exchange with Kees van der Staaij.


The SP, as the initiator of the first motion, initially made a case for the Hendriks Committee to investigate the extent of organised sadistic abuse. In response to our letter, they stated that they were in favour of the report going directly to the Lower House, and not first to the Ministry of Justice. Both points were dismissed by Minister Grapperhaus and the Hendriks Committee.

Now that this is the case, we expect that the SP, which said 'A', will stick to this 'A' and support the new motion. 

Update 1 February 2022

The SP nevertheless voted against the motion.


Volt indicates that the issue is in the sight of Michiel van Nispen of SP and Lisa Westerveld of Groenlinks, and therefore in theirs. It is not clear how they are cooperating with SP and Groenlinks.

Update 1 February 2022

Meanwhile, it has become clear that the said parties were working behind the scenes on an explanation of vote to explain their vote against. An analysis of the fallacies in this explanation of vote can be found here.

Apart from automatic/general acknowledgement of receipt, we have received no response from other political parties.