76 Votes: The Dutch Parliament Does What Has Never Been Done Before

On March 9, 2026, the Dutch House of Representatives adopted a motion calling on the government to ban the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliated organizations in the Netherlands. The motion was proposed by Party for Freedom (PVV) MPs Maikel Boon and Geert Wilders, and received 76 votes in favour — marking the first time such an effort has succeeded in the Dutch parliament. PVV has attempted this before. It has never succeeded until now.

This is a great initiative by the Dutch parliament — one that came after years of political debate, sustained activism, and a considerable body of work to raise awareness, particularly following the publication of French and European reports highlighting the threat posed by the Islamist movement to national security in Europe. It is, above all, the product of sustained pressure from civil society, researchers, and a coalition of international human rights organizations who have spent years documenting what the Muslim Brotherhood is, what it does, and what it seeks to achieve in European societies.

This Vote Is the Fruit of Sustained Civil Society Action — Including Ours

This initiative did not emerge from nowhere. It is the culmination of a long chain of efforts — by researchers, human rights advocates, diaspora communities, and civil society organizations — to force European governments to confront the reality of Muslim Brotherhood infiltration in their societies. As someone who has been directly involved in this work, I want to trace that chain with precision.

• Ongoing — Multiple Years Civil society organizations across Europe raise awareness about Muslim Brotherhood infiltration, publishing reports, organizing conferences, and submitting evidence to parliamentary committees and intelligence bodies.
• French Government Report A comprehensive French government report warns of the Muslim Brotherhood’s long-term strategy of societal infiltration — not through violent terrorism, but through the patient takeover of institutions, educational bodies, and civil society organizations with the ultimate goal of establishing Sharia-based governance.
• January 22, 2026 — Paris The French parliament adopts a resolution to ban the Muslim Brotherhood — establishing European legislative precedent and providing a direct reference point for the Dutch motion that would follow weeks later.
• December 2025 — The Hague / ICC A coalition of international human rights organizations — including the European Association for the Defense of Minorities — organizes a rally in front of the International Criminal Court, calling for the designation of the Muslim Brotherhood on the EU and Dutch terrorist lists. Experts, political activists, and diaspora advocates participate. This action comes as part of a series of coordinated events across Europe.
• March 9, 2026 — The Hague The Dutch House of Representatives adopts the PVV motion with 76 votes. For the first time in Dutch parliamentary history, a motion to ban the Muslim Brotherhood passes. The advocacy has borne fruit.

The Muslim Brotherhood Ban Passed. Six Other Boon-Wilders Motions Were Not Passed.

It is important to be precise about what the Dutch parliament adopted — and what it rejected. Boon and Wilders submitted a total package of motions on March 9. Only the motion to ban the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliated organizations was adopted. Six additional motions were rejected by the House.

We record them here not to endorse or condemn them, but because understanding the full scope of what was proposed — and what was not accepted — matters for an accurate reading of this parliamentary moment. The Muslim Brotherhood ban passed on its own merits, on the strength of the evidence and European precedent, not as part of a broader ideological package.

The Arguments Against — And Why They Must Be Examined Honestly

The adoption of this motion was not without opposition, and the arguments raised against it deserve to be stated — and answered — honestly. The Dutch system values precision in its counterterrorism designations, and the arguments made by those who voted against the motion reflect genuine legal and institutional concerns that the government will now have to navigate as it considers how — and whether — to implement the motion’s intent.

These are not trivial objections. But they are also not decisive ones. The Muslim Brotherhood’s threat to European democracies is not primarily expressed through visible acts of terrorism — that is precisely what makes it uniquely dangerous and uniquely difficult to address through existing counterterrorism frameworks designed for organizations like Al-Qaeda or Daesh. The French report’s warning of long-term infiltration as the Brotherhood’s method is the key: it is a threat to democratic institutions, not a threat assessed through the lens of imminent violence alone. The legal frameworks may need to evolve to meet this challenge — and that evolution must now begin in the Netherlands.

Powerful — But Not Yet Law: The Road from Motion to Ban

An adopted motion in the Dutch parliamentary system is politically powerful — but it does not automatically become law. Understanding the path from this historic vote to an actual legally enforced ban on the Muslim Brotherhood in the Netherlands is essential for setting realistic expectations and ensuring that the political momentum generated on March 9 is not dissipated.

France Led, the Netherlands Followed — Now the Rest of Europe Must Act

The Muslim Brotherhood’s infiltration strategy is a European problem, not a national one. Its networks do not respect borders. An organization banned in the Netherlands that continues to operate freely in Belgium or Germany will simply redirect its activities through whichever country offers the most permissive environment. A patchwork of national bans is better than nothing. But a coordinated European approach — including EU-level designation — is the only framework adequate to the scale of the challenge.

Sunday, November 23: European Coalition Gathers at the ICC to Condemn Brotherhood Infiltration

This action contributes to the growing international movement for the official designation of the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization — in accordance with legislation already in force in the United States, and in countries including Austria, Bahrain, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. It is not the first such action. It is part of a sustained, coordinated campaign across democratic nations to force the international community to confront what intelligence agencies, parliamentarians, and civil society organizations have been documenting for years.

The November 20th EU Parliament report is particularly significant: it documents the financing of Muslim Brotherhood activities using European taxpayer funds — channelled through EU-funded civil society grants, integration programs, and cultural organizations that serve as Brotherhood-affiliated fronts. This is not a theoretical threat. It is a fiscal reality that makes every European citizen an unwitting contributor to the Brotherhood’s long-term infiltration strategy.

What Intelligence Agencies and Parliamentarians Are Documenting

The case for designating the Muslim Brotherhood is not built on assertion — it is built on a growing body of intelligence reporting, parliamentary investigations, and documented patterns of activity that cross borders and jurisdictions. Numerous reports from intelligence agencies and parliamentarians across Europe and the wider world have now converged on a consistent picture.