Credits: PILP
This submission is being published as part of the series at HRH, which is dedicated to Human Rights Day (s) to foster meaningful discussions on human rights issues.
By: Nawal Mustafa
Introduction
March 21st, the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, underscores the persistence of institutional racism. In the Netherlands, where racism manifests in various forms - including racial profiling by law enforcement, discriminatory government policies, and structural exclusion—movement lawyering can play a critical role in challenging these injustices. Movement lawyering (sometimes known as cause-lawyering or rebellious lawyering) is used by lawyers serving marginalised communities in combating racial profiling, poverty, housing inequality and by immigration lawyers. This approach seeks systemic change by aligning legal action with social movements. Movement lawyers prioritise community-centered strategies, social movement collaboration, and systemic change over case-by-case litigation. Conventional legal work usually focuses on achieving victories within the confines of the legal system, whereas movement lawyers aim to shift power structures by aligning legal action with broader struggles for justice. In the first section of the blog, I explain some key theoretical elements of movement lawyering. This will then be followed by a short discussion of how movement lawyering as an approach was applied by PILP in a legal case about the surveillance of the Al-Ansaar mosque in the municipality of Delft.
Movement lawyering as an effective and transformative approach
Movement lawyering is rooted in critical legal theory and social movement activism, and one of the fundamental ideas behind this approach is that the law is not neutral but often serves to maintain existing inequalities. Rather than only focusing on the law itself, lawyers working within this framework embrace an interdisciplinary and holistic tactic, combining litigation with grassroots organising, policy advocacy, public education, and media engagement. Furthermore, they act as supporters, facilitators, and strategic allies to communities fighting oppression. Thus, a key attribute of movement lawyering is that it is community-centered, not lawyer-led. Instead of imposing legal strategies, movement lawyers listen, learn, and co-create legal responses with communities to ensure that legal advocacy aligns with the needs, experiences, and priorities of those directly impacted. It is a long-term, relationship-based model of lawyering that invests in building collective power rather than seeking isolated legal victories.
In many legal systems, including in the Netherlands, movement lawyering remains underdeveloped compared to other forms of legal practice. The Dutch legal profession is traditionally divided between commercial lawyers, who serve corporate and private clients, and social lawyers, who litigate individual cases through legal aid. However, there is no strong tradition of movement lawyering, where legal work is done not for individuals alone but for the public interest and systemic change.
We have been experimenting at PILP, with movement lawyering over the past few years, applying its principles to human rights issues that affect a wide range of communities and activists such as the Roma, Sinti and travelers, the Muslim community, anti-racism and climate activists. We mainly litigate anti-discrimination cases that impact entire communities as well as cases that deal with the right to protest. As such, our work is focused on public interest cases rather than on individual representation, ensuring that legal strategies serve broader social movements and contribute to long-term structural social change. One of the most significant cases in which PILP applied movement lawyering in the Dutch context was in several legal against the covert surveillance of mosques by several Dutch municipalities. In the next section, I analyse the legal case of Al-Ansaar mosque against the municipality of Delft. This case serves as a critical example of how religious discrimination can be combated by using movement lawyering to challenge state overreach, and systemic violations of fundamental rights.
The Mosque Surveillance Case
In 2021, the Dutch newspaper NRC revealed that several Dutch municipalities had secretly commissioned a private research agency to monitor mosques and Islamic organisations. These covert investigations, conducted by Nuance door Training en Advies (NTA), involved gathering detailed personal data about imams, mosque leaders, and community members, including their religious practices, leadership structures, and personal relationships. The surveillance was conducted without informing those being monitored, raising serious concerns about privacy violations, religious discrimination, and government accountability. Furthermore, the surveillance was not based on any credible security threats but was instead part of a broader counterterrorism strategy that disproportionately targeted Muslim communities. Unlike other religious institutions, mosques were subjected to systematic monitoring, reinforcing the false narrative that Islam poses an inherent security risk In this case, Board members of the Al-Ansaar mosque wanted full access to the different reports that were written about them. However, they were denied access to these reports and in fact, NRC revealed that the mayor of Delft, destroyed some of the reports that NTA produced. This prevented them from understanding the extent of the surveillance and from challenging potential misrepresentations.
Applying Movement Lawyering
When the mosque surveillance case was uncovered, several affected mosques reached out to PILP for legal assistance. Rather than immediately filing lawsuits, we applied a movement lawyering approach, ensuring that the affected communities were central to shaping the legal response. The first step was to organise a general meeting, which took place in May 2022, with in all the mosques that had been surveilled. This allowed for an open dialogue, where community members could express their concerns, learn about their legal rights, and discuss possible legal avenues. Instead of the lawyers at PILP dictating the next steps, rather we facilitated a discussion that allowed the community to collectively decide how they wanted to proceed. Through these discussions, it became clear that the mosques were not solely focused on winning a court case but cared more about transparency. Their primary demand was to uncover what had been written about them in the surveillance reports and to ensure that such secret investigations would not happen again. After, this initial meeting, we again organised a follow-up meeting in September 2022. For this meeting, we prepared a ‘menu’ of possible legal venues that the mosques could take, stretching from possible criminal law procedures to options within administrative law. This also included the possible risks and chances of legal victory. After this, we asked the different mosque to reflect on what was presented and reach out to us if they decided to proceed. Recognising that each mosque had different experiences and concerns, each one was visited individually. By listening to their specific concerns and gathering personal testimonies, it was possible to develop a legal strategy that reflected the needs of each community. This was a time-intensive process, but essential for movement lawyering advocacy in human rights struggles requires investment, patience, and a willingness to learn from those affected.
This demand for truth and accountability shaped PILP’s legal strategy because the mosques that we ended up representing decided to follow a civil law procedure based on Article 843a of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure (Rv). Since the lawyers of PILP specialise in human rights litigation rather than litigation based on this specific article, they were assisted by lawyers from the law firm Simmons & Simmons, who, pro bono, provided expertise in Article 843a and supported us in preparing the case.
Article 843a governs the right to access documents in civil proceedings, also known as the duty of disclosure. A request under Article 843a allows parties in a legal dispute, under certain conditions, to obtain inspection, copies, or extracts of specific documents from another party (either the opposing party or a third party). The request serves to determine or strengthen the legal position of the applicant Article 843a RV requires that there is: (1) a legitimate interest (rechtsbelang), (2) that requested documents must relate to a legal relationship (rechtsbetrekking) in which the claimant is a party, and (3) that the request concerns specific documents, and is not of general nature. The aim of Article 843a is to facilitate efficient fact-finding for parties involved in a legal dispute and can be used in a substantive tort action procedure to prove that a wrongful conduct took place. A successful claim under Article 843a Rv means that only the requesting party is granted access to and/or a copy of the document.
It was argued in the Article 843a procedure that Al-Ansaar, its board and its visitors were subjected to undercover surveillance and that this constitutes a wrongful act (Article 6:162 of the Dutch Civil Code (BW). A wrongful act constitutes a legal relationship within the meaning of Article 843a of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure (Rv).
It was alleged that the actions of the municipality constituted a violation of the prohibition of discrimination as stated Article 14 of the ECHR (in conjunction with Article 8 of the ECHR), and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 of the ECHR, because no other religious community was subjected to the undercover surveillance, as the municipality targeted only the Muslim community in Delft. Moreover, the right to privacy, as protected under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), was directly infringed upon because NTA, on behalf of the municipality, collected and stored personal data without legal justification. Furthermore, the municipalities’ refusal to disclose the surveillance reports further violated Article 13 of the ECHR, which guarantees the right to an effective legal remedy. For a claim for the disclosure of documents under Article 843a Rv to be granted, it is not required that it has already been established that an unlawful act has been committed against the party requesting disclosure. The applicable standard is that the existence of the alleged unlawful act must be sufficiently plausible.
The civil court in The Hague decided on 12 February 2025 that AL-Ansaar sufficiently demonstrated that, as a legal entity, it can invoke Article 8 of the ECHR and that the investigation commissioned by the municipality constitutes an interference, without legal basis. The court also stated that Al-Ansaar made it sufficiently plausible that this interference can constitutes an unlawful act. The court did not further elaborate on the action of the municipality constitute a violation of the prohibition of discrimination as stated Article 14 of the ECHR and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 of the ECHR. This will be more prominent in the substantive procedure that will follow. The municipality was order by the court to provide the report and several other documents to the Al-Ansaar. The court set-up certain conditions for this, including the redaction of specific names and contact details of individuals.
Conclusion
Movement lawyering is a framework that is highly contextual and continually in development. The real challenge is in applying this theoretical approach to practice. There are many ethical and professional requirement that may not allow for this type of lawyering. It can, therefore, not be one-size fits all approach, rather it is a fluid process where the lawyers and their clients in each case negotiate their collaboration and the legal approach. The mosque surveillance case exemplifies how movement lawyering can serve as a critical tool in the fight against discrimination. By centering affected communities and leveraging legal strategies for broader social change, movement lawyering challenges the deep-rooted structures that perpetuate racial and religious profiling.
In the Netherlands, cases like the unlawful surveillance of mosques demonstrate that racism is not just an issue that impact specific individuals but is often embedded in state policies and practices. Movement lawyering provides a pathway to dismantle these injustices by shifting power to those most affected and ensuring that legal action is not merely reactive but transformative. However, this work requires long-term engagement, sustainable resources, and a willingness to challenge both legal and societal norms that sustain inequality.
The International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination reminds us that legal victories alone are not enough - systemic change requires persistent advocacy, coalition-building, and grassroots mobilisation. As movement lawyering continues to evolve in the Netherlands, it holds the potential to reshape the legal landscape by making justice more accessible.
Bio:
Nawal Mustafa is an assistant professor of cultural studies at the University of Amsterdam. Her research focuses on the formation of racial categories in law, with a focus on intersectional aspects of Islamophobia and antiblack racism. Nawal did her PhD thesis (2023) on the regulation of interracial relationships in the UK at the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam and worked previously as postdoctoral research on the legal history of slavery in the Dutch Empire. Nawal is also affiliated with PILP, a human rights law firm in the Netherland, as a legal strategic advisor.