In this contribution, I focus on the shifting assemblages of evidencing that become visible during the public court cases and in the verdicts of Dutch women returnees from Syria. Evidencing emerged as a particularly salient problem, since in the large majority of cases there was not even a suspicion that these women had participated in violent acts. What soon appeared was what I call, following one of the lawyers, the doctrine of the common household. Engaging in housework and childcare for men who were IS-fighters became a ground for conviction for participation in a terrorist organization and/or for involvement in preparatory acts enabling terrorism. These men were, as it were, tried in absentia.As the doctrine of the common household was a new legal invention, judges were often inconsistent in how they considered such “evidence.” What, then, was running a common household evidence of, and what counted as evidence of running a common household? How did this focus of attention emerge and develop, and what was left outside the frame? How did the courts deal with IS doctrine on housework and childcare, and with women’s own accounts as evidence? How did these positions intersect with particular turns in public opinion?These various issues also raise questions of temporality, not only in terms of how sequencing is taken to imply causality, but also in terms of how a particular historical moment matters, with judges developing, and in appeal cases often rejecting, such new interpretations.
Annelies Moors (Sun,) studied this question.