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 bungling! The cabinet was able to take action. I thought. Because if you all vote unanimously on February 18 for detailed substantiation for the continuation of measures, how can you at the same time agree to the 'Emergency Curfew Act'?
The emergency bill 'The authority to spend time in the open air' lacks substantiation. There is an appendix, but it only emphasizes and reformulates the advice. The OMT is constantly referred to. In my opinion, scientific justification should not be missing for something of this magnitude. Actually, I just expected that, not the continued repetition of feelings of fear and great worry as a result of invented doomsday scenarios based on obscure and apparently rickety models.
You will not find any substantiation in the appendix to the curfew proposal, unless you believe that sentences with 'the assumption is', 'expected', 'probable' or 'the motto is' may serve as substantiation. The basis for those assumptions is lacking. Why then that assumption? Why that 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 hear bells ringing every now and then, of course. But I am not on top of it, I do not follow the political debate closely, I do not spell out the party programmes, I do not speak to insiders with different views, I only hear about developments afterwards... actually comparable to how Maarten Keulemans writes about Covid, for example. So that's allowed, for this time.
Christian Democratic Appeal
As a political ignoramus, I can see the outdoor ban as an urgent 'appeal', so I understand 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
Ook D66 rept in het partijprogramma "van bezinning. Van opnieuw bij jezelf te rade gaan". Kortom ga maar eens afkoelen op je kamer. Binnen.
Labour Party
The Labor Party, that goes without saying, believes that work has to be done, so it does not like to 'stay around' anyway. There's enough messing around already.
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?
De VVD wordt traditioneel gezien als partij voor de rijken. Die zijn natuurlijk allemaal al binnen. Maar hoe het kan bestaan dat een partij met "Vrijheid" in haar naam mensen wil opsluiten... dat is moeilijk te rijmen. Onbegrijpelijk.
And that for a disease that spreads almost exclusively indoors.
