With the introduction of the e-Privacy Regulation, State Secretary Mona Keijzer wants to ban telemarketing without prior consent, including for charities. With this plan, the Secretary of State defies our democratic society and may even violate the Constitution.
Keijzer argues that a majority of people are bothered by telemarketing, citing European research that would show this. But results of research have no value if the questions are incorrectly or incompletely formulated. They are then even misleading. Therefore first some data in a row:
Exact figures are not known, but it is estimated that there are 3 to 5 million telephone solicitations by idealistic or charitable organizations (charities) each year. That amounts to an average of less than one phone call per year per household.
The number of telephone approaches by companies (energy, telecom, insurance) runs into tens of millions each year.
There is no distinction between charities and commercial enterprises in Keijzer's plans.
The ability for consumers to opt out of phone solicitation already exists, in partial areas or for all calls.
Keijzer's plans will severely restrict telephone solicitation by requiring an opt-in. People may then only be contacted - including by charities - if they have given prior written consent.
Possible implementation of Keijzer's plans will cost the charity sector an estimated 50 to 100 million euros per year in revenue. Money that cannot be spent on achieving the missions of charities.
Where Mona Keijzer claims she is protecting the public from these calls, she is actually doing the public wrong by lumping charities and corporations together.
Injustices exist in every society. Situations where people suffer seriously and for which the government cannot or will not take responsibility. Charities were founded to do something about this, based on the basic idea that people should and want to care for each other.
Consider, for example, the disease cancer. Almost every person will face it - directly or indirectly - in their lifetime. When the disease strikes us, we all want medicine to be available to cure us. Well, those drugs come from scientific research funded by charity. For the most part, that money is raised over the phone.
Another example: even today, children are abused in the sex industry, including in Asia. Hard work is being done to get these victims out of their horrible situation. The money to do that comes from fundraising, largely by phone.
If Mona Keijzer has her way, much of the income and thus the clout of charities will be lost. When the questions were asked in the survey on which the Secretary of State relies, all of the above essential information was not included. Therefore, we should distrust the results of that survey. And if Mona Keijzer thinks preventing a single phone call is more important than fighting these abuses, she does not have her priorities in order. Her plan is properly damaging to our society.
VluchtelingenWerk Nederland and Amnesty International. Two recruiting funds that have in common that they stand up for people in extremely difficult living conditions. Situations in which fundamental basic human rights play an important role. In their work, these funds regularly oppose the government. If Keijzer's plans go through, it means that the government will wing its own opposition.
The concept of "participation society" has been made a policy principle by the government. It has also indicated in policy documents that it wants to stimulate the giving behavior of the Dutch people. How can that be reconciled with the fact that the same government - on the basis of unsound research, of course - is making it harder and harder for charities to ask people who feel involved in their mission to support it?
And then there is the Constitution, Article 8. We have freedom of Association in the Netherlands. What we may infer from Article 8 - although it does not say it literally - is that the government is not allowed to impose restrictions on associations in seeking support for their mission.
In fact, if you restrict charities in their fundraising you restrict the ability of associations to engage in the activities necessary to achieve their goals. And thus also to maintain or develop that association. The question is justified whether Mona Keijzer should not pull back if this file is brought before the (European) court.
A healthy philanthropy climate keeps a democracy and rule of law like ours in balance. The work of charities makes an essential contribution to our society, and the government recognizes this. It is therefore unthinkable that Secretary of State Keijzer's plans will be implemented in their entirety. She should distinguish between companies on the one hand and charities and similar social organizations on the other, and give the latter group an exceptional position.
This article can also be found in the e-Privacy dossier
