Official Letter from Netherlands on Pastor Anderson ban

Map of the "Schengen area." The navy blue area shows the countries I was banned from this week, bringing the total up to 31 countries that I am now banned from.

This is a professional English translation of the Dutch original:

Immigration and Naturalization Service

Ministry of Justice and Security

THE STATE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND SECURITY

resolution

1. Subject

Name: Steven L. Anderson

Date of birth: 24 July 1981

Nationality: Citizen of America

Mr. Anderson is further referred to as 'person concerned'.

2. Intention

The intention is to declare the person concerned undesirable based on Section 67(1)(c) of the Aliens Act (Vw).

The person concerned has already been identified in the Schengen Information System (SIS) on the 26th of April 2019.

3. Motivation for the intention

On the 25th of April 2019, the National Coordinator for Counterterrorism and Security (NCTV) issued a letter to the Head of the IND, from which it can be concluded that the information available to the NCTV about the person concerned justifies the concern that in the Dutch context his speeches may cause tensions between different population groups and thus disrupt the public order and public peace. The letter is included as attachment to this Decision.

It should be noted that the person concerned was already the subject of an alert in the SIS on the 26th of April 2019, and now it can be concluded that, on the basis of the content of the letter from the NCTV, there are concrete indications that the person concerned constitutes a threat to public order. Reference is made to section A2/12r of the Aliens Act Implementation Guidelines (Vc). It is also considered that, on the basis of this alert, a third country national who is not subject to a visa requirement, such as the person concerned, and who poses a threat to public order, national security or public health, will not be allowed entry to the Netherlands.

The person concerned resides in the United States, or at least outside the territory of the European Union. The person concerned therefore falls within the scope of Article 67 of the Aliens Act. Pursuant to Article 67(1)(c)(v), a foreign national may be declared undesirable if he poses a threat to public order or national security and has no lawful residence as referred to in Article 8(a) to (e) or (l)(vw).

In this case, it turned out that the National Coordinator for Counterterrorism and Security (NCTV) concluded the following with regard to the person concerned in a letter dated 25 April 2019.

" Mr. Steven Anderson is an influential speaker/preacher who expresses hostility towards homosexuals and actively promotes intolerance.

On the basis of research, I characterize speaker Steven Anderson as follows:

a. Anderson's expressions are often made in a theological discussion and are in the context of his literal interpretation of the Bible. He's a fundamentalist Christian.

b. Anderson's sermons and statements are explicitly and fiercely against homosexuals and may incite hatred.

c. Anderson does not call for violence against homosexuals, but applauds it when they die. He thinks we/ the government should execute homosexuals.

d. Anderson is not openly anti-Semitic, but denies the Holocaust.

It can be noted that the information available to the NCTV about this speaker justifies the concern that in the Dutch context his lectures may cause tensions between population groups of different persuasions and thus disturb public order and public peace.

Incitement to hatred is punishable on the basis of Article 137d of the Penal Code and although the assessment of punishability will always depend on the individual merits of the case, it follows from the case law of the Supreme Court 2 that this may include statements that incite hatred or violence or discrimination, but also statements that encourage intolerance.

The statements made by the person concerned, including cheering on the deaths of homosexuals and the need for the government to execute homosexuals, are, by their very nature, intolerant. According to the letter from the NCIV, the person concerned is actively promoting intolerance. The statements made by the person concerned also imply that he is coming to the Netherlands for "preaching and soul winning events "3 . It can be deduced from this that the person in question also intends to influence others with his intolerant views.

In the light of the above, it is concluded that the person concerned is a real and imminent threat to public order and that the presence of the person concerned in the country constitutes a present, real and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society. Incitement to hatred of homosexuals affects a fundamental principle of society.

The intention to come to Amsterdam on the 23rd of May 2019, and by actively spreading his message and the intention to gain support for his ideas within the Netherlands, also constitutes a genuine and imminent threat to the public order. I also include the knowledge that, notwithstanding the efforts of the Dutch government in that respect, violence against persons of a sexual orientation other than heterosexual is not inconceivable in the Netherlands. Against this background, the risk cannot be accepted that the presence and public action of the person concerned will directly lead to an incorrect perception on the part of some and may contribute to the willingness of those persons to commit (serious) violent crimes against the group referred to here. In view of the far-reaching nature of the statements made by the person concerned, this also constitutes a sufficiently serious threat.

With this in consideration, it is concluded that there is a genuine, imminent and sufficiently serious threat to one of the fundamental principles of society.

It is therefore considered that in this case the interests of public order and public security to be protected, should prevail over the interests of the person concerned, that are served by a (temporary) stay in the Netherlands. It is considered that, in view of the conclusion in the NCTV's letter, in this case the interest of protecting public order must prevail over the freedom of the person concerned to express his or her freedom of expression and religion. In view of this, the intention is to declare the person concerned an undesirable foreign national on the basis of Article 67(1)(c) of the Aliens Act Implementation Guidelines (VW).

In addition, the following is being considered. The information at my disposal does not indicate that the decision declaring the person concerned undesirable to be in breach of his private or family life or family life as referred to in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Nor has there been any evidence of any particular facts or circumstances on the basis of which an undesirability should not be pronounced.

As noted earlier, there is also reason, apart from the pronouncement of undesirability on the basis of section A2/12 of the Aliens Act implementation guidelines, to report the person concerned to the SIS for a period of two years, because there are concrete indications that the person concerned poses a threat to public order. This alert shall have immediate effect. The person concerned may request that it be revoked or may object to it.

The pronouncement of undesirability will remain in force until it is lifted. Pursuant to Section 68 of the Aliens Act, the pronouncement of undesirability can only be lifted on request and subject to certain conditions. Article 6.6, paragraphs 2 and 3, of the Aliens Decree (Vb) does not provide for a period after which the pronouncement of undesirability in a situation such as this one is in any case lifted.

4. Submission of Opinion

Pursuant to Articles 4:7 and 4:8 of the General Administrative Law Act, the person concerned may express his views on the intention to declare him as an undesirable decision (in writing) and in doing so may present facts and circumstances which, in his opinion, should be taken into account in the decision-making process.

The party concerned will be given the opportunity to express his views on the intention in writing within two weeks of the date of this intention and/or following the day of the announcement in the Netherlands Government Gazette, i.e. ending on the 15th of May 2019. This opinion must be sent by the person concerned, his (special) agent or a lawyer, if he declares that he is specifically authorised, to the fax and P.O. Box mentioned on the first page of this intention, with reference to V-number: 2872359350 and/or to the e-mail address mentioned on the first page of this intention.

The Opinion was submitted in due time if it was delivered by post before the end of the two-week period, provided that it was received no later than one week after the expiry of the deadline. The absence of an opinion after that period does not preclude the adoption of a decision.

The Hague, 29 April 2019

on behalf of the Secretary of State for Security and Justice,

(This letter was produced in an automated process and is therefore not signed)

Senior employee

To the Director-General of the Immigration and Naturalization Service

Date 25 April 2019

Concerns information regarding Mr. Steven Anderson

The NCTV has received information indicating that Mr. Steven Anderson intends to speak during a visit on the 23rd of May 2019 to Amsterdam. The person concerned himself has announced this in various films on social media. In this context, I would like to inform you of the following.

Mr Steven Anderson is an influential speaker/preacher who expresses hostility towards homosexuals and actively promotes intolerance.

On the basis of research, I characterize speaker Steven Anderson as follows:

a. Anderson's expressions are often made in a theological discussion and are in the context of his literal interpretation of the Bible. He's a fundamentalist Christian.

b. Anderson's sermons and statements are explicitly and fiercely against homosexuals and may incite hatred.

c. Anderson does not call for violence against homosexuals, but applauds it when they die. He thinks we/ the government should execute homosexuals.

d. Anderson is not openly anti-Semitic, but denies the Holocaust.

It can be noted that the information available to the NCTV about this speaker justifies the concern that in the Dutch context his lectures may cause tensions between population groups of different persuasions and thus disturb public order and public peace.

on behalf of the Secretary of State for Security and Justice,

(signature)

H.P. Schreinemachers

Director of National Crisis Management

Highlights from John Chrysostom Sermon against Homos

Excerpts from "Homily 4 on Romans" by John Chrysostom (4th Century A.D.)

ROM. I. 26, 27.-"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one towards another."

...having dishonored that which was natural, they ran after that which was contrary to nature. But that which is contrary to nature hath in it an irksomeness and displeasingness, so that they could not fairly allege even pleasure. For genuine pleasure is that which is according to nature. But when God hath left one, then all things are turned upside down. And thus not only was their doctrine Satanical, but their life too was diabolical.

Here in the place of the world he sets the pleasure according to nature, which they would have enjoyed with more sense of security and greater glad-heartedness, and so have been far removed from shameful deeds. But they would not; whence they are quite out of the pale of pardon, and have done an insult to nature itself. And a yet more disgraceful thing than these is it, when even the women seek after these intercourses, who ought to have more sense of shame than men.

But if you say, and whence came this intensity of lust? It was from the desertion of God: and whence is the desertion of God? from the iniquity of them that left Him; "men with men working that which is unseemly." Do not, he means, because you have heard that they burned, suppose that the evil was only in desire. For the greater part of it came of their luxuriousness, which also kindled into flame their lust. And this is why he did not say being swept along or being overtaken, an expression he uses elsewhere; but what? working. They made a business of the sin, and not only a business, but even one zealously followed up. And he called it not lust, but that which is unseemly, and that properly. For they both dishonored nature, and trampled on the laws.

For these are treated in the same way as women that play the whore. Or rather their plight is more miserable. For in the case of the one the intercourse, even if lawless, is yet according to nature: but this is contrary both to law and nature. For even if there were no hell, and no punishment had been threatened, this were worse than any punishment. Yet if you say "they found pleasure in it," you tell me what adds to the vengeance. For suppose I were to see a person running naked, with his body all besmeared with mire, and yet not covering himself, but exulting in it, I should not rejoice with him, but should rather bewail that he did not even perceive that he was doing shamefully. But that I may show the atrocity in a yet clearer light, bear with me in one more example. Now if any one condemned a virgin to live in close dens, and to have intercourse with unreasoning brutes, and then she was pleased with such intercourse, would she not for this be especially a worthy object of tears, as being unable to be freed from this misery owing to her not even perceiving the misery? It is plain surely to every one. But if that were a grievous thing, neither is this less so than that.

For if when discoursing about fornication Paul said, that "Every sin which a man doeth is without the body, but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body" (1 Cor. vi. 18); what shall we say of this madness, which is so much worse than fornication as cannot even be expressed? For I should not only say that thou hast become a woman, but that thou hast lost thy manhood, and hast neither changed into that nature nor kept that which thou haddest, but thou hast been a traitor to both of them at once, and deserving both of men and women to be driven out and stoned, as having wronged either sex. And that thou mayest learn what the real force of this is, if any one were to come and assure you that he would make you a dog instead of being a man, would you not flee from him as a plague? But, lo! thou hast not made thyself a dog out of a man, but an animal more disgraceful than this. For this is useful unto service, but he that hath thus given himself up is serviceable for nothing.

But if you would know the enormity of the evil from other grounds, ask on what account the lawgivers punish them that make men eunuchs, and you will see that it is absolutely for no other reason than because they mutilate nature. And yet the injustice they do is nothing to this. For there have been those that were mutilated and were in many cases useful after their mutilation. But nothing can there be more worthless than a man who has pandered himself. For not the soul only, but the body also of one who hath been so treated, is disgraced, and deserves to be driven out everywhere. How many hells shall be enough for such? But if thou scoffest at hearing of hell and believest not that fire, remember Sodom. For we have seen, surely we have seen, even in this present life, a semblance of hell. For since many would utterly disbelieve the things to come after the resurrection, hearing now of an unquenchable fire, God brings them to a right mind by things present. For such is the burning of Sodom, and that conflagration! And they know it well that have been at the place, and have seen with their eyes that scourge divinely sent, and the effect of the lightnings from above. (Jude 7.)

Consider how great is that sin, to have forced hell to appear even before its time! For whereas many thought scorn of His words, by His deeds did God show them the image thereof in a certain novel way. For that rain was unwonted, for that the intercourse was contrary to nature, and it deluged the land, since lust had done so with their souls. Wherefore also the rain was the opposite of the customary rain. Now not only did it fail to stir up the womb of the earth to the production of fruits, but made it even useless for the reception of seed. For such was also the intercourse of the men, making a body of this sort more worthless than the very land of Sodom. And what is there more detestable than a man who hath pandered himself, or what more execrable? Oh, what madness! Oh, what distraction! Whence came this lust lewdly revelling and making man's nature all that enemies could? or even worse than that, by as much as the soul is better than the body. Oh, ye that were more senseless than irrational creatures, and more shameless than dogs! for in no case does such intercourse take place with them, but nature acknowledgeth her own limits. But ye have even made our race dishonored below things irrational, by such indignities inflicted upon and by each other. Whence then were these evils born? Of luxury; of not knowing God. For so soon as any have cast out the fear of Him, all that is good straightway goes to ruin.

Read the whole "Homily 4 on Romans" here.