The growth of the extreme right in the Netherlands has been causing concerns of academics and government officials.
https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2020/10/terrorism-tzar-warns-about-far-right-violence-as-mps-and-journalists-face-abuse/
https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2022/11/far-right-extremism-is-quietly-increasing-researchers-warn/
On New Years Eve, white power groups interfered with the national New Year's celebration and stated more actions will follow:
https://nltimes.nl/2023/01/03/telegram-group-claims-responsibility-neo-nazi-racist-erasmus-bridge-stunt
This market will resolve YES if in 2023 (any time zone), right-wing extremists (defined as political extremists motivated by a conservative and/or nationalist belief system, but excluding jihadist ideologies) will engage in a terrorist attack within the Netherlands. In contrast with more commonplace acts of violence and intimidations, terrorist attacks are defined here as actions with a clear intent to physically harm, maim or kill citizens. The market will resolve NO if this is not the case.
by what standard will you decide if an attack or a felony counts as "terrorist attack" and not just "felony"? i.e. who will have to call it terrorism to resolve the market?
I ask because sometimes police uses the term "terrorism" somewhat liberal, because when they do, they can use additional tools. For example: In the UK there were "181 arrests for terrorism-related activity" within a year: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/operation-of-police-powers-under-the-terrorism-act-2000-quarterly-update-to-june-2021/operation-of-police-powers-under-the-terrorism-act-2000-and-subsequent-legislation-arrests-outcomes-and-stop-and-search-great-britain-quarterly-u
I doubt that any of these case would resolve the market as yes if it had happened in the netherlands.
@BjornJurgens Good question. I was thinking of a "you know it when you see it", but I think a better view would be:
If perpetrators are prosecuted for a "terrorist felony" under Dutch law. I am not going for conviction here as that takes too long to determine. The assumption is that the charge is not imposed lightly, which seems reasonable to me
If there are no perpetrators to charge (e.g. in case of death during an attack or succesful getaway) the question is whether the incident is labeled as such by the prime minister or King. Again assuming they will not use the term lightly.
Suggestions for more precision are welcome. I'd certainly not label aiding or preparing for a terrorist attack as YES, as these crimes are distinct from a terrorist felony.
