The previous chapter explained how VSP and Marlon spent three years dealing with framing, threats, intimidation, vandalism, theft, false accusations and provocation. That's essential to understanding what happened in late November. The incident at Bar Boele didn't come out of nowhere. It took place in a climate in which Marlon and VSP had for years been sought out, challenged, insulted and demonised.
Yet the media painted a completely different picture. Marlon Uljee and Reinout Vlaardingerbroek were said to be guilty of a hate crime. They were said to have beaten someone up for racist reasons. There was talk of serious assault, discrimination, hard blows, and a defenceless victim who had supposedly been attacked after merely calling them out on their behaviour.
That picture is not accurate.
No hard blows were dealt. No one was "beaten up". There was no racist motive, and certainly no hate crime. What did happen was a provoked bar-room scuffle, after an evening in which Marlon was once again harassed, insulted, sought out and provoked for hours by someone from the same activist circle that had been fighting VSP for years.
The evening started at the VU
In late November, the VU's university council held a constitutional drinks reception. Reinout was a member of that council. Marlon was there to support him. Without Marlon, Reinout would have stood there largely alone, in a hostile climate made up mostly of left-activist students, including many international students and representatives from ChangeVU, SRVU and VU for Palestine.
From the moment Marlon walked in, what had been happening for three years started again. Comments were made. People shouted "nazi" and "fascist". He was jostled. People from the circle of political opponents sought confrontation. As always, Marlon and Reinout tried to stay calm. They didn't engage, laughed it off, and tried to get through the evening normally.
The atmosphere was hostile from the start and only grew grimmer as the evening went on. Marlon was sometimes alone, but kept being approached or challenged regardless. The student involved, later cast in the media as the victim, harassed Marlon and Reinout already on the way to Bar Boele. He kept coming back, asking provocative questions, cursing at them and calling them fascists.
Over the course of the evening, Marlon asked him multiple times, not once, but repeatedly, roughly ten times in total, to leave him alone. On the way to Bar Boele it happened again, several times. The student involved didn't stop.
You're a fascist.
— the student involved, to Marlon, according to the witness statement of a political opponent and ally of his
According to her, Marlon only responded with a smile. Exactly as VSP had done for three years: not engaging with provocations, laughing off attempts to bait him, and avoiding confrontation. Ignore and de-escalate.
Bar Boele
After the formal part of the evening, the drinks moved to Bar Boele around 11pm. There was an open bar. Marlon and Reinout went along for one more drink. There, too, the harassment didn't stop.
At Bar Boele, Marlon and Reinout kept changing spots to get away from the nagging and the provocations. They moved three times. Still, the student involved kept seeking them out. He kept cursing at them, kept calling them fascists, kept provoking. Demeaning remarks were made, including things like "you must be ashamed to be a white man", "nazis", "fascists", "Nazi party" and "Hitlerjugend".
Marlon and Reinout repeatedly asked him to leave and go sit with his own friends. No one from his group pulled him away. On the contrary: the people around him visibly found it funny that he kept harassing Marlon and Reinout.
This is an important point. The media acted as though Marlon and Reinout attacked someone out of nowhere. But the reality is that they were the ones sought out, insulted and challenged all evening. They tried to keep their distance. They moved around. They asked him to leave. He kept coming back.
The direct trigger
After roughly three hours of provocation, Marlon and Reinout wanted to let it go and leave. That's exactly when the situation escalated. An ally of the student involved threw beer over Marlon. Not a little; Marlon was fully drenched.
That moment is crucial. Throwing the beer was the direct trigger for the scuffle. The camera footage shows that Marlon did not start by throwing beer, as was later suggested. First, beer was thrown over Marlon. Then Marlon was pushed by the later "victim". Only then did Marlon throw beer back, and the scuffle began.
After three years of threats, verbal abuse, provocation, intimidation and framing, this was the final straw. Marlon shouldn't have let himself be provoked. That was a mistake. As party chair, he should have walked away, however hard that was in the moment. But a mistake after three years of provocation is not a hate crime, not serious assault, and not proof of the frame opponents had spent years trying to build.
The scuffle
The physical moment lasted about thirty seconds. That, too, is visible on the camera footage. There was pushing and pulling from both sides. The student involved was the first to make physical contact with Marlon. What followed was a brief, chaotic scuffle in which several people tried to intervene.
Reinout played no active role in the physical scuffle. He too was challenged and cursed at that evening, but the footage shows he doesn't hit anyone and doesn't take part in any assault. He stands by, actively tries to de-escalate the situation, and isn't drawn into the physical moment the way it was later suggested. That makes the frame, that Marlon and Reinout together attacked someone, all the more misleading.
This needs to be placed in the right context. It was a brief, provoked scuffle after an evening full of provocations, verbal abuse and beer-throwing. There was pushing and pulling from both sides. There was no premeditated plan, no intent to injure anyone, and no targeted attack meant to cause harm.
What happened was that Marlon, after hours of being goaded and provoked, got swept into a physical confrontation he should have avoided. His actions were aimed at stopping the ongoing provocation and shutting it down, certainly not at seriously harming anyone.
This is exactly why the media frame is so disproportionate. Statements from the "victim" claimed:
Both of them jumped up from the table, grabbed the complainant, and hit him several times.
— statement by the student involved
The complainant ended up on his stomach. The suspect punched the complainant several times in the head.
— statement by the student involved
That is not what the camera footage shows.
Reinout hit no one. Marlon did not deliver a series of punches. The story of multiple hard blows to the head is not supported by the footage, the medical records, or the injuries. If several punches to the head had actually landed, you'd expect injury to that side of the face, and marks on Marlon's hands. Those injuries aren't there.
What the footage does show: a struggle breaks out, Marlon and the student involved slip and end up on the ground together. At one point Marlon is briefly on top of the student involved. In that chaotic moment, he pushes the other's face toward the ground and says: "Are you done now?" There was never an intent to injure anyone, only to make him stop.
That shouldn't have happened. Marlon shouldn't have let himself be provoked. But this is something entirely different from the picture of a racially motivated serious assault in which someone was supposedly beaten with multiple punches.
The end result of the entire provoked scuffle was a bloody nose. No serious injuries. No harm consistent with the story of multiple hard blows. Photos and a medical report of the injuries are in our possession. They show that the picture painted in the media doesn't hold up.
For privacy reasons, and because we don't want to bring the name and face of the student involved into the public eye, we are not publishing the camera footage or photos online.
Journalists or other parties who want to view the footage can get in touch. We're happy to show what really happened.
After the scuffle
After the scuffle, those involved were separated. The student involved, however, didn't stop provoking. He kept shouting and seeking confrontation again. Marlon and Reinout had had enough. They wanted to leave, grab their coats, and get out of there.
It continued outside, too. Representatives and allies from the circle of ChangeVU, SRVU and VU for Palestine kept challenging them. Marlon and Reinout were filmed. People shouted things like "nazi", "fascist" and "fuck white men" again. Everything was aimed at provoking them once more.
Marlon and Reinout chose to leave in order to prevent further escalation. It was later suggested that they fled because the police had been called. That's not true. They left because they wanted to de-escalate the situation, and because it was clear that staying would only lead to further provocation.
No defenceless, random victim
Note
We deliberately do not name the student involved in this chapter. That is a considered choice. We ask everyone reading this to focus on the facts and context described here, rather than on identifying, approaching, or sharing details about individuals.
The media portrayed the student involved as a defenceless, random student who became a victim of political violence without provocation. That picture is misleading.
The student involved was not a neutral bystander, but an outspoken activist from the same political circle that had long opposed VSP. He was active with both VU for Palestine and ChangeVU, two organisations from that same circle. He wasn't just someone who happened to be present, but someone from an activist environment in which VSP had been cast as the enemy for years.
That background is relevant. VU for Palestine is not an innocent debating club. The organisation and its supporters were involved in hard-line actions, occupations, confrontations and escalations at the VU and UvA. Ad Valvas itself wrote about the case of VU board member Marcel Nollen, who was chased, cornered and assaulted by pro-Palestinian activists. It reported he was hit in the stomach, that people shouted through a megaphone right next to his ear, and that he suffered lasting hearing damage and tinnitus.
It's notable, too, that this case, despite the far more serious injuries and despite happening earlier, still hasn't been dealt with on the merits. That stands in stark contrast to the speed and intensity with which the Bar Boele incident involving Marlon and Reinout was picked up and framed. The Nollen case involved demonstrably more severe physical harm. Bar Boele involved a provoked scuffle that ended in a bloody nose.
The behaviour of the student involved, after the incident, doesn't fit the picture of someone who was thoroughly intimidated and too afraid to return to campus, either. He stayed visibly active in student politics, campaigned on social media and on campus, and kept organising demonstrations and occupations. When Marlon returned to campus a week after the first articles were published, the student involved laughed at him as he walked past, clearly meant to provoke and challenge him again. There was no sign of him being "afraid"; quite the opposite. He also later showed up at the court hearing, where he again positioned himself provocatively toward Marlon's family alongside allies, and mocked and provoked Marlon's visibly emotional mother.
This isn't mentioned to attack anyone personally, but because it's necessary to understand the media frame. This wasn't a random student who happened to become a victim of political violence, but someone who moved in an activist circle involved in provocation, vandalism, occupations, and even assault causing lasting harm to university administrators. That evening too, he actively sought confrontation with Marlon and Reinout.
The witnesses weren't neutral
The picture of independent witnesses doesn't hold up either.
There were seven witnesses. Of those seven, five were elected to the USR for ChangeVU, either at the time or later.
The student involved himself also ended up on that list and was elected. The remaining two witnesses were affiliated with, or came from, that same circle of ChangeVU, VU for Palestine and SRVU.
This needs to be seen in light of the history described in chapter one. Reports and accusations had previously emerged from that same activist and political circle that later turned out to have no objective basis. There was already a pattern of unproven allegations, framing, and attempts to discredit VSP and Marlon. Against that backdrop, these statements cannot be read as neutral, objective observations.
On top of that, the statements contradict each other on important points, and the camera footage directly undercuts several claims. So the problem isn't just that the witnesses were politically involved; it's that their statements fit within a longer pattern of distortion, and the footage shows that key elements simply don't hold up.
One statement attributes certain remarks to Marlon, while another attributes the same remarks to Reinout. One witness places alleged discriminatory language before the scuffle, another during or after.
There are statements from the student involved claiming that Marlon and Reinout jumped up, grabbed him, and hit him several times. That's not what the camera footage shows. It was also claimed that Marlon started by throwing beer. The footage shows the opposite: beer was thrown over Marlon first, and he was pushed. Only then did it escalate.
No discrimination, no hate crime
Among the most serious accusations is the claim that discriminatory remarks were made. It was alleged that a racial slur was used. It was also claimed that someone said he should be deported. That did not happen.
There is no objective evidence for these claims. No camera footage. No audio. No neutral witnesses. What exists are contradictory statements from within the same political circle, which don't even consistently agree on who allegedly said what, or when. In one version, Marlon supposedly said it; in another, Reinout. In one version it was before the scuffle; in another, during or after.
That is not solid evidence of a hate crime. That is precisely how a frame gets built: after a provoked bar-room scuffle, the most serious possible accusations get piled on, turning a brief physical escalation into a political monster story.
The media frame
Ad Valvas later ran the headline: "VSP members arrested for assaulting student". Other outlets spoke of serious assault, discrimination, racist motives and severe violence. The context of three years of threats, provocation and demonisation was left out. The background of the student involved was left out. The political affiliation of the witnesses was left out. The fact that Marlon and Reinout left specifically to prevent further escalation went unmentioned. The fact that Marlon didn't start the beer-throwing, but was doused first, was misrepresented.
The Erika song
The media also seized on the "Erika" song as evidence of a far-right or Nazi motive. That framing is misleading. The song has a fraught history and became known as a German march, but it isn't a song with explicit Nazi slogans or ideology in its lyrics.
More importantly: in student and youth culture, a song like this is often used in a completely different way. Students seek out controversy as a matter of course. Songs, jokes and remarks at student nights out are frequently used ironically, provocatively or mischievously, without any genuine political or ideological conviction behind them. It's precisely in that spirit that the Erika song regularly comes up as a studenty joke, not as ideological self-affirmation, but as ironic provocation.
At the VU, too, the song has come up before as a joke, including, notably, within the circle of the "victim" himself, among others directed at a girl who shared the song's name, who also helped escalate that evening by starting the beer-throwing. It can't be ruled out that the song was sung by others at some point that evening. But Marlon and Reinout did not sing it that night.
That the song circulates in youth culture mainly as an ironic internet and student phenomenon is also clear from the fact that techno remixes of it have been made that have racked up millions of plays. Most students who know the song know it from memes, parties, remixes or joke culture, not from historical or ideological conviction.
You may find that tasteless, or feel affected by it yourself, but the fact remains that most students and young people are barely aware of that historical weight, and don't sing such songs in that context out of Nazi or racist intent.
That created the picture opponents had spent years trying to build: VSP as a danger, Marlon as the perpetrator, the activist opposition as the victim.
But anyone who knows the evening, the footage, the witnesses and the history sees something else. The incident was not a hate crime. Not serious assault. Not an attack out of nowhere. It was a brief, provoked scuffle after three years of sustained intimidation, verbal abuse, threats and provocation.
Marlon shouldn't have let himself be provoked. That still stands. But that doesn't make the media frame true.
Media frame versus reality
A point-by-point overview.
| Media frame | What the footage / available material shows |
|---|---|
| Marlon and Reinout attacked someone out of nowhere. | The footage and timeline show hours of build-up: provocation, verbal abuse, being sought out, and beer-throwing. The physical moment didn't come out of nowhere, and there was no joint attack. |
| Marlon started the beer-throwing. | The footage shows beer was thrown over Marlon first, by someone from the group of the student involved. Only after being pushed by the "victim" did Marlon throw beer back. |
| The victim was attacked without provocation. | The student involved kept seeking out, insulting and challenging Marlon and Reinout, despite repeated requests to leave them alone. |
| This was a serious assault. | The physical moment lasted about thirty seconds and consisted of pushing and pulling in a bar-room scuffle. The visible injury was a bloody nose, also confirmed by injury assessment from GGD Amsterdam. |
| "Both of them jumped up from the table, grabbed the complainant, and hit him." | This is not supported by the camera footage. The footage shows no joint attack in which Marlon and Reinout grab and hit someone. |
| "The suspect punched the complainant several times in the head." | The footage, photos and medical records don't support this. There's no injury to the side of the face where such blows would be visible, and no marks on Marlon's hands consistent with multiple punches. |
| Reinout took part in the assault. | The footage doesn't show Reinout hitting anyone. His role doesn't fit the frame of joint assault; on the contrary, he acted purely to de-escalate. |
| Marlon and Reinout worked together to beat someone up. | The footage shows a brief, chaotic scuffle with pushing and pulling from both sides, not a coordinated attack. |
| The student involved was deliberately, seriously assaulted on the ground. | The footage shows Marlon and the student involved slipping and falling to the ground together. Marlon is then briefly on top of him and pushes his face to the ground. Unwise, but not the same as serious assault involving multiple punches. |
| Marlon and Reinout fled because the police had been called. | They left almost immediately to prevent further escalation, after being filmed, challenged and provoked again. |
| The student involved was a random, neutral student. | He was an outspoken activist from the circle of VU for Palestine and ChangeVU, the same political circle that had long opposed VSP. |
| The witnesses were independent bystanders. | Several of the incriminating witnesses came from that same activist and political circle. Five of the seven were affiliated with ChangeVU, or joined the university council for ChangeVU shortly afterward. |
| There was a racist motive. | There is no objective evidence for this on video or audio. The statements about it contradict each other and come from the same political circle. |
| Discriminatory remarks were made. | The alleged remarks weren't captured on video or audio. Witnesses contradict each other about who allegedly said what, and when. |
| The media told the full story. | Crucial context was left out: three years of harassment, the beer thrown at Marlon, the repeated provocation, the activist background of the student involved, and the political affiliation of several witnesses. |
That's where the evening ended, but that's also where the next phase really began. What followed were arrests, interrogations, new statements, even more media framing, and a growing campaign in which Het Parool in particular would go on to play a major role. A brief, provoked bar-room scuffle was blown up into a case of serious assault, discrimination and political violence. Political context played a role too: Timmermans's proposed law on discriminatory motive as an aggravating factor in sentencing. After that, the Public Prosecution Service came with a demand and reasoning that lost all proportion to reality. The incident was over, but that's when the frame really started to spin.