Aline Terpstra, published 3 May 2024
What preceded
For decades, I have been a member of the Christian Union. Therefore, when I became involved with survivors of organised sadistic abuse, my hopes for entry into politics were mainly with that party. Hence, in 2019, I invited Mr Ceder, then a councillor in Amsterdam, for a conversation in which I told him about the horrific practices of organised sadistic abuse I encountered in my work as a psychologist. He responded with passionate emotion and promised to continue the conversation once he was in the second chamber.
Over the past 3 years, a group of 20 mental health practitioners has sent a total of 9 letters, to all MPs, never receiving a substantive response from the Christian Union. There has also been some contact by email and whatsapp, which did not lead to substantive conversation. With an urgent appeal to repeated promises of contact, we finally succeeded on February 28, less than a week before the committee debate where the Hendriks Commission report was to be discussed, to have a half-hour conversation with Mr Ceder of the Christian Union. Aline Terpstra and Martine Wielart from the group of 20 mental health practitioners conducted this conversation.
Content of talk and CU's absence from committee debate
The conversation was very disappointing for us. The crux of the conversation was that Mr Cedar kept repeating that there is no majority in the House for a second opinion enquiry. We argue with valid reasons for such an enquiry, including in our letter to parliamentarians. In the conversation, it became clear that the CU has absolutely no intention of sticking their necks out for this themselves. We did not hear any substantive arguments. We also definitely did not get the impression that the subject of organised sadistic abuse is alive and well within the party, nor did we get any sympathy for survivors.
Wryly, the Christian Union ended up not even being present during the committee debate on 6 March last, where the Hendriks committee report was discussed. CU spokeswoman Mirjam Bikker had herself represented by Michiel van Nispen of the SP in which their piece of text did not include a critical note about the entire report.
This is against the backdrop of the election programme of the CU, where spearhead 9 is 'we stand up against the injustice of human trafficking and addiction'....
Process after the interview
After the interview, we sent an extensive and as factual as possible report of the conversation to Mr Cedar, asking him to correct factual inaccuracies before posting it on this site. To this, the Christian Union indicated that we had not indicated in advance that we would publish a report and that a press officer should then have been present. They indicated that they assumed we would not post the report. Hence only a brief account of our findings.
NB. I have always remained a member of the CU until now. I sincerely hope that this report contributes to the Christian Union's constituency standing up and taking from their grassroots representatives independent research and informed action demands on behalf of srm survivors.
English (UK) 
Nederlands