The verdict
After the disproportionate demand from the Public Prosecution Service, it was time to wait for the verdict. Would the court go along with the frame that police, prosecutors, media and political opponents had spent months building? Or would it return to the core: the footage, the injuries, the context and the facts?
On 17 June, the verdict came.
The court sided with the core of the prosecution's narrative. Marlon and Reinout were convicted. Marlon received 240 hours of community service and two months' suspended prison sentence with a two-year probation period. Reinout received 180 hours of community service.
That was less than what was demanded, but still disproportionate.
For a provoked scuffle lasting about thirty seconds. For a bloody nose. For a case in which the footage shows something different from the frame that had been built around it for months.
What's most shocking about the verdict isn't just the sentence, but the way the court describes the events. The verdict draws conclusions that don't match what's visible on the camera footage. It speaks of multiple punches to the head, of forcefully pushing the head of the student involved into the ground, and of a joint attack by Marlon and Reinout. But that picture doesn't match the footage.
It's also notable how the verdict treats witness statements. It leans heavily on statements from the same political circle that had opposed Marlon, Reinout and VSP for years. Of the seven incriminating witnesses, five sat on the university council for ChangeVU, or would join the following year, including the alleged victim himself.
On top of that, some statements don't match the camera footage on multiple points, and contradict each other. That's precisely the problem: if a witness makes several claims, 90% of which are contradicted by the footage, you can't suddenly treat the one remaining claim as a reliable foundation just because that one point can't be ruled out by video or audio. Yet that's precisely what appears to happen here: demonstrably shaky statements are set aside where they don't hold up, but still used where they support the frame.
The verdict also inflates Reinout's role beyond what the footage justifies. Someone who doesn't hit anyone and doesn't actively take part in the physical scuffle is turned into an accomplice, because the verdict claims he held back a bystander. A limited, chaotic action in a scuffle is thereby blown up into deliberate cooperation in public violence.
Even leaving the scene afterward is made to look suspicious, as if Marlon and Reinout left laughing, when in fact they left because the situation threatened to escalate again.
The court also ruled that Marlon was guilty of attempted serious assault.
The prosecution and the court reasoned that serious injury could have occurred. But the fact that something could theoretically have happened doesn't mean someone actually attempted it. That's the key difference between a scuffle that got out of hand and attempted serious assault.
If Marlon had genuinely intended to seriously injure someone, the situation would have looked completely different, since he had every opportunity to do so. That didn't happen. The injury remained limited. The end result was a bloody nose.
Even more problematic is the discrimination ruling.
Nothing discriminatory was said (though it was, from the other side). There is no audio. There is no camera footage on which such words are audible. There are no neutral witnesses who confirm this objectively. What exists are statements from the same political circle that had opposed Marlon, Reinout and VSP for years, and other statements from that circle had already been contradicted by the footage.
Yet the court went along with the finding that there was a discriminatory element.
In doing so, it followed reasoning that makes this case so dangerous. During sentencing, the prosecution argued that the fact that Marlon and Reinout are two "white" men and the student involved is Egyptian was, in itself, already relevant to the assessment. Not because the footage proved a racist motive. Not because there was audio. Not because there was objective evidence. But because the student involved might have experienced it that way.
Under that reasoning, "white" Dutch people must be extra aware of possible "risk of offence" when dealing with minorities, because certain words might be experienced as hurtful by minorities. That shifted the case from evidence to perception, from facts to identity, from what demonstrably happened to what someone might have felt.
Full verdict (ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2026:6136) View the ruling on rechtspraak.nl →For discriminatory intent to exist, it is therefore sufficient to establish that it cannot be otherwise than that the defendant realised that by saying "facking neger" he necessarily expressed hatred toward or discrimination of a group — in this case Black people. In the court's judgement, this is evidently the case. It is a matter of common knowledge that the word "neger" — in this case reinforced by adding "facking" — is an insulting, demeaning and dehumanising term that is extremely hurtful to Black people. It is a term originating from the era of colonisation and slavery, in which Black people were not treated as full citizens and continue to experience the effects of this to this day.
— from the verdict
The court went on to find that the use of the n-word, described in the verdict as reinforced by adding "facking", is an insulting, demeaning and dehumanising term. According to the court, it's a term originating from the era of colonisation and slavery, in which Black people were not treated as full citizens and continue to experience the effects of this to this day.
But that's exactly where the problem lies.
Precisely on this crucial point, objective evidence is missing. No audio. No camera footage. No neutral witnesses. What exists are statements from a politically hostile circle that had spent months on framing, anonymous accusations and media pressure.
So first, disputed words are accepted as fact. Then a discriminatory element is attached to them. And then a brief, provoked scuffle is elevated into a case about racism, group hatred and discrimination.
What wasn't sufficiently weighed in the verdict is the full context. That the student involved and his circle actively sought confrontation that evening. That Marlon and Reinout repeatedly tried to create distance. That Marlon was doused in beer first. That witness statements don't match the footage on important points. That Reinout played no active role in the physical scuffle. That Marlon and Reinout themselves were repeatedly called "nazi", "fascist" and "fucking nazis" that evening.
That, too, is not innocent. Calling someone a nazi or a fascist these days isn't just an insult. It's meant to place someone outside normal society: to no longer see them as someone to talk to, but as a danger.
Marlon, Reinout and VSP were treated this way for years. Because they are conservative. Because they are right-wing. Because they resisted the dominant ideology at the university. Because they didn't go along with the political line of the activist majority.
But that form of demonisation barely factored in. The alleged victim's hurt feelings were placed at the centre. The years-long dehumanisation of Marlon, Reinout and VSP faded into the background.
That, too, shows how selectively concepts like safety, discrimination and offence were applied.
Appeal
An appeal will follow regardless.
Exactly when that appeal will take place isn't yet known. It could take months. But this case isn't over.
On appeal, the footage, the statements, the injuries, the context, and the question of whether there really was attempted serious assault must all be examined again. Reinout's role must be reconsidered too, along with whether a discrimination ruling can stand on the basis of disputed statements from a politically coloured circle of sources.
If this verdict stands, it doesn't just affect Marlon and Reinout. It sets a dangerous precedent: a provoked incident, anonymous statements and a media campaign could then be enough to destroy someone legally and socially.
That's why an appeal is necessary, not just to correct this case, but to make clear that a frame is not evidence. That anonymous political statements are not objective truth. And that a provoked scuffle must not be blown up into a case about group hatred and racism when the evidence for it is missing.
The consequences
Even if the appeal ultimately corrects what went wrong here, the damage is already enormous.
Marlon lost his job. Job applications were cut short. Opportunities he had worked toward for three years vanished in an instant. Everything he had put time, energy and conviction into was damaged by a frame that was already online before a court had even looked at the substance of the case.
Reinout, too, was dragged into a criminal case and media storm that affected his studies, reputation and future.
The articles are still online. The search results remain. The accusations keep resurfacing. Any future employer, institution, or stranger who looks up their names finds the frame first, and the facts only much later.
That will follow them for the rest of their lives, not because the frame is true, but because they will have to keep explaining what actually happened, over and over.
The damage isn't only financial. It's personal, too. Due to ongoing threats, VSP was unable to take part in the elections at the VU.
People who should have stood beside us chose themselves instead. Some grew afraid for their own image. Others distanced themselves once things got difficult. For many, loyalty turned out to exist only as long as nothing was at stake.
That didn't just damage a case; it damaged a movement that had been built up over years.
For three years, Marlon worked on VSP, without significant income and without a safety net. With time, energy and conviction. For open debate. For academic freedom. For the right for right-wing, conservative students to have a place at university too.
And that is precisely what was punished.
This, therefore, isn't just about Marlon and Reinout. Nor is it just about VSP. It's about what happens when a right-wing, conservative voice isn't welcome at a university. First it's made to look suspicious. Then it's isolated. Then it's framed. And once it's been publicly damaged, people say: see, there must have been something wrong after all.
Now it's happening to VSP. Next, it will happen to others.
Support us
The consequences of this case are enormous. Legal costs have already been incurred, and the appeal will again demand a great deal of time, money and energy, but the damage goes far beyond the courtroom. Because of the smear campaign, income has been lost, jobs have gone, job applications have been cut short, and future opportunities have been damaged. The withdrawal or loss of a certificate of good conduct can also mean that work someone has spent years building toward suddenly becomes out of reach.
Your support doesn't just help us take legal action; it also helps us carry the wider financial and personal consequences of this smear campaign. Think of lost income, reputational damage, broken opportunities, legal assistance, the appeal, and spreading this story to a wider audience.
We're therefore not just asking you to contribute to a court case. We're asking you to stand with us in a fight against framing, media witch-hunts, cancel culture and political exclusion. And for free speech, academic freedom, and the right to deviate from the prevailing ideology.
Support us.
Support the case →