There was a lot to write last week. For example, there was the course of events around the week reflection period after the emergency procedure for the appeal of Virus Truth against the lightning-fast suspension of the verdict that would immediately lift the curfew due to lack of urgency. Do we still get it? I could only write about it in crude terms, I found it extremely manipulative. If I'm so angry, I don't put it on my blog but on FB I don't always resist the temptation.
But there was also democratic voting in the House of Representatives. First things first:
Unanimously, finally the demand for proper substantiation of the fumbling! The government was able to get its act together. Or so I thought. Because if you all vote unanimously on February 18 for detailed substantiation for the continuation of measures, how can you agree to 'Emergency Curfew Act' at the same time?
The emergency bill 'The right to stay in the open air' lacks substantiation. There is an annex, but it only emphasises and reformulates the opinions. Constant reference is made to the OMT. In my opinion, a substantiation for something of this magnitude should not be without a scientific justification. Actually, I just expected that, not the constant repetition of feelings of fear and great worry in response to made-up doomsday scenarios based on obscure and apparently rickety models.
You will not find any substantiation in the appendix to the curfew proposal, unless you think that sentences with 'the assumption is', 'expected', 'probably' or 'the motto is' may serve as substantiation. There is no basis for these assumptions. So why that assumption? Why the expectation...?
And then voting to keep the curfew in place
Political interpretation
This will be a piece in the best Dutch journalistic tradition. I don't know anything about politics, although I sometimes hear bells ringing, of course. But I don't sit on top of it, I don't follow the political debate closely, I don't spell out the party programs, I don't speak to insiders with different views, I only hear about developments after the fact... actually similar to how Maarten Keulemans writes about covid, for example. So that's okay, for this time.
Christian Democratic Appeal
As a political ignoramus, I can see the outdoor ban as an urgent 'appeal', so I understand it from the CDA. Christians do not necessarily shy away from imposing restrictions on people.
ChristenUnie
As a philosophical party, CU is naturally more inward-looking, so I understand.
Democrats 66
D66 also mentions "reflection" in the party program. Of re-examining yourself". In short, go and cool off in your room. Inside.
Labour Party
The Labour Party, that goes without saying, thinks that work has to be done, so it doesn't like to 'stay' anyway. There's enough lounging going on as it is.
50-Plus
Over-50s like to sit behind geraniums, so indoors.
GreenLeft
For GroenLinks, the outdoor space is meant to be filled with baked windmills and panels for non-energy, so I can get into that too. Residents disturb breeding grounds.
Socialist Party
SP is clearly moving towards salon socialism: by definition, this is practiced indoors.
But the VVD?
The VVD is traditionally seen as a party for the rich. Of course, they have all already arrived. But how can it be that a party with "Freedom" in its name wants to lock people up... That's hard to reconcile. Incomprehensible.
And that for a disease that spreads almost exclusively indoors.
