The media portrayed the student involved as a defenceless victim: an innocent student who was supposedly attacked out of nowhere, seriously assaulted, and afterward too afraid to come to campus.
That picture is incomplete and misleading.
As explained in chapter two, this was not a random attack out of nowhere. It was an evening full of provocation, verbal abuse, incitement and alcohol. Marlon and Reinout were sought out, challenged and insulted for hours. The student involved was not a passive bystander in this. He sought out the confrontation himself, kept coming back, by his own account gave the first push, and played an active role in letting the situation escalate.
That doesn't make everything right. Marlon acknowledges that he shouldn't have lost his self-control. But it does matter for the story. A provoked scuffle is something different from an attack on a defenceless victim.
No name, but context
The name of the student involved is deliberately not mentioned here. Not because his role isn't relevant, but because personal attention directed at him would only feed the victim narrative that he himself, with the media's help, has built. This chapter isn't about harassing a person. This chapter is about the context the media left out.
That context is essential.
The student involved was not an apolitical student who happened to be standing in a bar. He was an active political player within precisely the activist circle that had opposed VSP for years. He was actively involved with VU for Palestine, an organisation that branded Marlon and VSP as far-right on social media, and which was part of the wider activist environment around demonstrations, occupations and confrontations at the university.
That's not a detail. That's the background this evening grew out of.
The background that was left out
Coverage emphasised that this was an Egyptian international student. That detail was used to place the incident within a racial and discriminatory frame.
But what was barely mentioned anywhere was that this same student was also an active activist and organiser: an international student who is a guest in the Netherlands and makes use of the university's facilities, while at the same time actively involved in a movement that wasn't limited to calm debate. This was an environment of hard-line actions, occupations, provocations and confrontations.
His personal presence at actions is relevant too. There is footage of him present at activist confrontations, where police are filmed and challenged. That doesn't fit the picture of a fearful, defenceless student with no connection to political struggle. It fits someone who knew how activist pressure, framing and confrontation work.
The context around VU for Palestine was left out too. Before the incident with Marlon, there had already been a serious incident involving VU board member Marcel Nollen. He was chased, cornered and assaulted by VU for Palestine activists, sustained injuries, and suffered tinnitus from a megaphone right next to his ear. That incident, then, took place before the incident with Marlon. It shows the atmosphere in which this activist movement operated at the VU.
Against that background, the events at Bar Boele need to be understood too. This wasn't just some drunk student who happened to get into an argument. This was an active political opponent from a circle that had long seen Marlon and VSP as the enemy.
The victim role afterward
After the incident, the student involved got ample room in the media. First in the coverage directly after Bar Boele, and again in July, when Ad Valvas published a lengthy interview under the headline: "Victim of VSP assault feels let down: 'The VU was of no help at all'."
There, he was once again given ample room to tell his side of the story at length. About stress. About messages he received online. About the VU allegedly not having helped him enough. About the discomfort of Marlon returning to campus. About how hard it had all supposedly been for him.
But anyone who is genuinely familiar with this record sees, above all, what was left out once again.
Left out was the fact that this student was himself an active political player. Left out was his role within VU for Palestine. Left out was the three hours of provocation that evening itself. Left out was that he kept seeking out Marlon and Reinout despite repeated requests to leave them alone. Left out was that he himself gave the first push. Also left out was that after the incident he simply campaigned, got elected, stayed active, and didn't come across on campus as someone who had been completely driven away by fear.
The story about online threats deserves context too. It's true that after the incident he received some messages that he himself flagged as threatening in his police complaint. Some of those messages were, according to the complaint, juvenile or tasteless in tone, something we neither excuse nor encourage. But they bear no proportion whatsoever to what Marlon and VSP have faced for years.
Marlon didn't get a few unpleasant messages. He received months of death threats, threats against his job, his future and his physical safety. Messages were sent about bullets, about destroying his life, about never being able to work again, about physical harm, and threats involving broken bones and even death.
No major victim interviews were ever published about that. No widespread outrage. No empathetic profiles. No media asking what it does to someone to be threatened, mocked, smeared and socially excluded for three years straight.
The selectivity speaks volumes.
The student involved was, once again, given the platform to present himself as the victim. Marlon was, once again, cast as the perpetrator, the extremist, the danger. The messages directed at one side were amplified. The far more serious threats directed at the other side all but disappeared from view.
That's precisely the problem with this coverage: not that he wasn't allowed to speak, but that he was, once again, allowed to confirm the victim frame without any critical context.
Afraid, yet running a campaign
What happened after the incident is even more striking.
While the media painted a picture of someone who was afraid and didn't dare come to university, the student involved put himself forward as a candidate for the university council during that very same period. He ran a campaign, appeared in videos, was physically present, celebrated campaign milestones, and was ultimately elected.
So he didn't withdraw from public life at the university. Quite the opposite: he used precisely that period to keep pursuing his politics.
He also remained active in the circle around VU for Palestine and the wider activist movement. Demonstrations, actions, occupations and confrontations continued. That fits poorly with the picture of someone who had been completely driven off campus by fear. He also kept organising occupations and demonstrations with VU for Palestine, in which VU police and security staff were provoked and ignored.
When Marlon later ran into him on campus, there was, moreover, no visible sign of someone keeping a fearful distance. On the contrary: he smiled when he saw Marlon, as if he knew the frame was working and was enjoying what the defamatory articles had caused.
The provocation continued even after the hearing. The student involved and his allies found it necessary to laugh at and provoke family members and others present all over again. Even when family members were visibly emotional over the disproportionate demand from the prosecution, the confrontation was sought out once more.
That is not the behaviour of someone who was simply afraid. That is the behaviour of someone who knew the frame was working.
Why this matters
This chapter is necessary because the media left out a crucial part of the story.
The student involved was an active opponent. He came from the very same activist circle that had opposed Marlon and VSP for years. He sought out the confrontation himself that evening. He kept going despite repeated requests to leave Marlon and Reinout alone. He played an active role in the media narrative afterward. And he simply continued his political activities after that.
That doesn't mean everything that happened to him was justified. It doesn't mean people are allowed to threaten or harass him. It doesn't mean Marlon didn't make a mistake.
But it does mean that the dominant media frame was untrue and incomplete.
Anyone who sees only the image of a defenceless student understands nothing of this case. Anyone who takes into account the political background, the activist role, the three hours of provocation, the earlier confrontations around VU for Palestine, and the behaviour afterward, sees a different story.
Not a simple story of an innocent victim and two perpetrators. But a story about political struggle, provocation, framing, and an activist opposition that knew exactly how to turn a provoked incident into a weapon against VSP.