Curfew remains for a while, via any legal ‘route’

A far-reaching infringement of the right to freedom of movement and privacy. With these words, the court in The Hague put a line on Tuesday to the surprise of many people through the legal justification on which the demissionary cabinet introduced the curfew. The Cabinet quickly took action and filed an appeal, which will serve tomorrow.

But whatever judgment the court will make, the curfew will remain in force for the time being. This was evident today in the House of Representatives, where a majority – albeit with reservations – supported a new emergency law which could also serve as a legal basis for curfew.

That didnt work without a punch or punch. MPs from opposition to coalition left no ambiguity about it: for the course of business, the cabinet certainly does not receive the beauty price. The Chamber denounted the way it all went. Why would the Cabinet have done so now? Why not previously filed such a law and taken this turn?

Route

There was criticism in the Chamber from left to right. โ€œBroddelwerkโ€, said the PVV. โ€œAs if we were cleaning up the shrapnel of the cabinet here,โ€ said the SP. Think-MP Kuzu went very far. He called Rutte the โ€œdictator of the Low Countriesโ€: according to him, the speed with which everything is going is in stark contrast to the difficulty faced by victims of the payment affair in achieving justice. The word โ€œdictatorโ€ came to him in a reprimand of both President Arib and MPs of CDA and VVD. Kuzu didnt take his words back.

After that, PVV leader Wilders and demissionary Prime Minister Rutte entered into a collision. Wilders also considers that the cabinets emergency appeal against the decision of the court is not in line with the years of waiting time for victims of the payment affair or the Groningen gas file. โ€œYou are the dishonesty of the Netherlands,โ€ Wilders said to Rutte. โ€œDo you still think of the ordinary Dutch?โ€

According to Rutte, he certainly does the latter, and the pandemic and gas and payment affair are incomparable. He said that he agrees with Wilders that things have not gone well in โ€œthose terrible affairsโ€ โ€œBut here we have to protect the public health of the Netherlands. We must avoid a third wave.โ€ Rutte also reiterated that the curfew is โ€œnot for Mark Rutteโ€. โ€œIts not like I have some kind of hobby here.โ€

And most MPs dont have that hobby: no one is a fan of curfew. However, most of the parties are now supporting the Cabinet on the new route, because of the not fast enough declining number of infections and the ambiguities about mutants. โ€œIn all the legal squabbles, we must not forget that we are dealing with a serious pandemic,โ€ said 50Plus-MP Van Otterloo.

Wide support

Apart from the government parties VVD, CDA, D66 and ChristenUnie in any case SP, GroenLinks, PvdA and 50Plus support the approach with the new emergency law. These parties also form a majority in the First Chamber, which will talk about the repair law tomorrow.

In addition, the parties call on the Cabinet โ€œnot to let it go so wrong againโ€. โ€œIts painful that we have to talk about curfew for three days,โ€ said Pvda MP Kuiken. โ€œWhat is before us must stand, we must not go wet againโ€.

SP MP Hijink: โ€œFor all caregivers, for all young people, for everyone, we support measures to contain the virus. For these people, we will again support a proposal to get the virus out of the country. But dont let the Cabinet take that support as appreciation for the way in which this cabinet has put the legal justification for curfew into the soup so unbelievably.โ€

Look here the various videos of the curfew debate: