Legal loyalty and the tragedy of the weak spine
The core
While the interrogation of Femke Halsema exposed the intellectual surrender to the Rule of Rescue, the interrogation of former Minister of Justice and Security Ferd Grapperhaus showed a completely different, but at least as destructive dynamic: the tragic split between deep inner remorse and an absolute, almost slavish legal loyalty to the unity of cabinet policy.
De avondklok lag al in september 2020 op tafel. Grapperhaus heeft die steeds van tafel geveegd, tot de druk op IC's en vanuit het OMT te hoog werd. Na een lange strijd van november 2020 tot januari 2021 ging hij uiteindelijk onder druk van de "orkaan van het virus" en volgens de RIVM-modellen dreigende overvolle IC's overstag, nadat OMT een voor hem "waterdichte" onderbouwing had moeten leveren zodat "juridische proportionaliteit" [wat dat ook moge betekenen….] verondersteld kon worden.
Anyone who looks purely at the emotional outbursts and the Waterlanders during his interrogation does not see an act, but a man collapsing under the pressure of his own history. Grapperhaus is guilty, and he knows it. He has remorse, and he feels it. At the same time.
The psychological reality of Grapperhaus shows parallels with the classic motif of Judas or King Creon in Antigoné: he allowed himself to be abused along the way and simply proved too weak to say 'no' to the political pressure of the council of ministers at the crucial moment. His greatest political flaw, however, is that he lacks the gift of the pathological lie; he lacks the smoothness of a Mark Rutte or the ruthless rigidity of a Hugo de Jonge to justify his actions with a straight face. Grapperhaus is too much of a lawyer for that and, paradoxically, too honest and honest at the core. He knows the constitutional framework, he sees the consequences of his statements, he is so empathetic that he also feels the damage internally and at the same time he weighs every word very rationally so as not to make permanent political enemies. It is precisely because of these inner contradictions that he is hopelessly exposed during the interrogation.
It would have been to his credit if he had put the political cards directly on the table and said out loud what everyone already knew: that policy was primarily dictated by the Rutte-De Jonge axis. The fact that he failed to do this and did not abdicate responsibility, but formally kept it to himself, in this case testifies to a perhaps misplaced, but also positively interpreted, deeply rooted professional ethic. He was the Minister of Justice; he bore constitutional responsibility for the repressive legislation, and that realization is eating him up from within. This makes his actions not only reprehensible, but also intensely tragic. Once he had crossed the line, driven by that unconditional loyalty and the doctrine of unity of government policy, he consistently pushed through the repressive decisions. What seems like an incomprehensible contradiction to the outside world is completely logical in the psychology of the loyal top lawyer: the rules of the game take precedence over personal morality.
New revelations from the interrogation: The lawyer versus the emotion
During the public interrogation by the Corona parliamentary inquiry committee, concrete facts and hard confrontations emerged that painfully exposed this inner split.
The clash with Mutluer over the police advice
Een belangrijk moment in het verhoor was de felle botsing over het politieadvies met commissielid Songül Mutluer. Toen de commissie hem confronteerde met een advies waarin de politietop stelde dat een avondklok niet nodig was en voor veel onrust zou zorgen, greep Grapperhaus direct in als een rasechte jurist. Hij verweet de commissie selectief te citeren en "een stuk over te slaan". Hij hamerde erop dat de politie had geschreven: "tenzij er een medische noodzaak is".
In doing so, he subtly but firmly shifted responsibility to the police, who themselves indicated that enforcement would be difficult, but could be done if medically necessary. The police gave nuanced advice with a conditional escape clause; Like a shrewd lawyer, Grapperhaus used precisely that clause to override the negative advice.
The Waterlanders: remorse without consequences
De werkelijke emotionele knak — de waterlanders — ontstond toen de opeenvolgende verlengingen van diezelfde avondklok aan bod kwamen. Grapperhaus schoot zichtbaar vol en had een zakdoek nodig toen hij hardop reflecteerde op de menselijke schade. Hij bekende dat hij destijds dacht aan de mensen die "gewoon vereenzamen" en noemde specifiek de daklozen die door het avondklokbeleid "verschrikkelijk de pineut waren".
Hier toonde hij zijn diepe wroeging door ruiterlijk toe te geven dat de proportionaliteit per verlenging steeds verder te zoeken was, en dat hij achteraf gezien bij de latere verlengingen had moeten zeggen: "Ja, dat doen we niet."
But...he didn't say it. Not in the first extension, not in the second, not in the third. His conscience only now functioned as an emotional outlet - the Waterlanders came now, before the committee - but at the time the council of ministers remained silent. That's not a tragedy; that is moral cowardice with deferred tears.
In the hypothetical case that he had known in January 2021 that the curfew would last more than 3 months, he would have given up his portfolio if the House of Representatives had not put the brakes on.
The House of Representatives as a silent accomplice - and Grapperhaus' fatal hope
Here comes a crucial element that was underexposed in the hearings, but that Grapperhaus himself revealed: he hoped that the House of Representatives would stop the curfew. He saw the disproportionality. He felt the injustice. But instead of drawing the line himself, he placed his moral responsibility on the parliament - and they agreed. The House gave the green light.
And then something fatal happened. His democratic, constitutional nature, which had caused him to doubt until then, now became the driving force behind his surrender. Parliament had spoken. Democracy had judged. And so he put his conscience aside and not only implemented the curfew, but from that moment on he defended it with full conviction towards every critic, including the Security Council, which remained very critical.
Dit is de meest tragische wending in het hele verhoor. Dezelfde rechtsstatelijke principes die hem tot een integer jurist maakten — respect voor de democratische besluitvorming, loyaliteit aan het parlementaire proces — werden het instrument van zijn morele capitulatie. Hij gebruikte de democratie niet als schild voor de burger, maar als excuus voor zichzelf. "De Kamer heeft besloten" werd zijn "Befehl ist Befehl" — met het cruciale verschil dat hij het zelf had gevraagd, zelf had gehoopt dat ze nee zouden zeggen, en toen ze ja zeiden, zelf de consequenties trok. In de verkeerde richting.
The defaced house: victimhood as a shield
The immense pressure and tensions under which he was operating at the time became even more tangible when he showed the committee photos of his own house, which had been defaced several times during the pandemic. The tone in the parliamentary debates and in society had led to a frightening situation, which, according to him, was fueled by conspiracy theorists and serious crime.
Ook hier zit een fundamenteel probleem. Waar Halsema de polarisatie mede aan zichzelf en de bestuurlijke elite weet, draait Grapperhaus de causaliteit om: niet het disproportionele beleid veroorzaakte de woede, maar "complotdenkers" en criminelen veroorzaakten de bedreigingen. Dat is oneerlijk. Natuurlijk is bekladding van een woonhuis onacceptabel — maar het is een symptoom, niet de oorzaak. Grapperhaus weigert tot op heden te erkennen dat juist het idiote en disproportionele karakter van het beleid de voedingsbodem vormde voor de felle reacties uit de samenleving. Sommige daarvan gingen over de grens van het betamelijke, maar de onderliggende woede was niet irrationeel. Ze was een reactie op ónrecht.
It outlines the total, tragic disruption of the man who had to safeguard the rule of law and, against his deepest conscience, announced unscrupulous measures to ensure the safety of co-morbid corona patients, but who saw not only his own home but also his moral reputation tarnished as a result. The irony is crushing: he sacrificed his conscience for the rule of law and now must watch his words to avoid being condemned by the same rule of law. Or, perhaps better: he sacrificed the rule of law through emergency regulations and operating outside democratic control, purely to save lives, and therefore lost the protection of that same rule of law himself.
The parallel with Halsema: differences that matter
In essence, Grapperhaus's tragedy is similar to that of Halsema, but the differences are interesting.
Both were intellectually and morally man enough to see through the fundamental flaws, the illegality and the disproportionality of the policy. Both experienced demonstrable pain in their implementation — whether it involved enforcing an ineffective curfew, introducing discriminatory QR systems or repressively cleaning up Museum Square.
But where Halsema allowed himself to be paralyzed by the fear images of the Rule of Rescue, Grapperhaus allowed his critical thinking to be held hostage by the laws of political loyalty. Halsema's mistake was psychological: she could not substantiate the disproportionality without a weighting framework. Grapperhaus' mistake was moral: he knew it was disproportionate - he literally says so in the interrogation - and did it anyway. He saw it. He hoped that the House would stop it. The House did not stop it. And then his democratic, constitutional nature forced him to do the wrong things, and he did it with full conviction.
While Halsema is sufficiently narcissistic not to let in and express emotions too much, Grapperhaus, despite his abstract legal training, is in fact much more of a sensitive person, to whom the mistakes he made today/during the interrogation hit home hard again. But sensitivity is not a virtue if it comes as an afterthought. The crying minister is not necessarily a better minister than the cool one — especially if the tears actually underline his responsibility.
The constitutional damage: more than just the curfew
The curfew was not just a measure. It was the first time since the Second World War that such a fundamental restriction of freedom was imposed on the entire population. As Minister of Justice, he resorted to a heavy, archaic emergency law (the Wbbbg) to initially pass parliament, which led to a constitutional punishment in court by Virus Truth and a hasty emergency law. This underlines his legalistic, repressive reflex even more strongly. He set a constitutional precedent that extended beyond Corona. The emergency ordinance as an instrument to suspend fundamental rights, the security region as a vehicle to circumvent democratic control, the House that subsequently nodded yes to what had already been decided in advance - this is not just a historical anomaly. It is a blueprint for future crises. Grapperhaus was not only the implementer of the policy; he was the architect of a potentially lasting constitutional shift in the relationship between citizen and state. And he knew it.
The missing assessment framework: why Grapperhaus could not save himself and could not be saved by the House of Representatives
And here the same fatal lacuna that also paralyzed Halsema reveals itself: disproportionality without an objective assessment framework is a hollow concept. Grapperhaus felt that the curfew was disproportionate. He knew. He fervently hoped that the House would torpedo it. But he couldn't prove it — not for himself, not to the Council of Ministers, not to the House.
Want wat is "disproportioneel" zonder getallen? Zonder Qaly's (quality adjusted life years, ofwel het aantal jaren in 100% gezondheid)? Zonder een koele, utilistische kosten-batenanalyse die de gewonnen levensjaren van een avondklok afzet tegen de verloren levensjaren door vereenzaming, uitgestelde zorg, psychische schade en economische ontwrichting?
Het blijft een gevoel. Een knagend geweten. Een vage notie van "dit klopt niet." En een gevoel — hoe diep, hoe oprecht, hoe juridisch geschoold ook — legt het altijd af tegen de harde kreet vanuit het OMT en de ziekenhuizen in het hier en nu: "de IC's liggen vol, er gaan mensen dood, er moet nú iets gebeuren."
Precies hier faalde het legalistische systeem Grapperhaus. Niet omdat hij geen ruggengraat had — al had hij die ook niet — maar omdat hij geen instrument had. De minister van Justitie, belast met de zwaarste vrijheidsbeperkende maatregelen sinds de oorlog, had geen enkel objectief kader om proportionaliteit te toetsen. Geen Maatschappelijke Kosten/Baten Analyse. Geen Qaly-afweging. Geen cijfermatige onderbouwing die hij naast de medische urgentie kon leggen en zeggen: "Kijk, hier — per saldo kost deze maatregel meer levensjaren dan hij oplevert. Dit is niet alleen onrechtvaardig, dit is ook nog eens contraproductief. We gaan het niet doen."
The irony is that this instrument did exist. EZK officials had already applied it to the lockdown at the end of March 2020: a social cost-benefit analysis that predicted that the lockdown policy would gain approximately 100,000 life years (qalys) and cost approximately 620,000. But that analysis was hidden away. Grapperhaus never saw him. And so he stood empty-handed in front of De Jonge, in front of Rutte, in front of the House of Representatives, which was caught in the same fear reflex. His only weapon was his conscience. And a conscience without figures is as defenseless in a crisis as a legal argument without a legal article.
Zijn tragiek is niet alleen dat hij tekende. Zijn tragiek is dat het systeem hem geen enkele mogelijkheid gaf om níet te tekenen zonder te klinken als een gevoelige romanticus die "iets voelt bij daklozen." Een QALY-berekening had hem gered. Niet als excuus, maar als wapen tegen disproportionaliteit. Het had van zijn vage gewetensnood een harde, onweerlegbare bestuurlijke realiteit gemaakt. Zonder dat wapen was hij overgeleverd aan de moreel verwerpelijke Rule of Rescue, vermomd als democratische plicht. En hij bezweek. Zoals iedereen bezwijkt die disproportionaliteit moet bewijzen zonder de instrumenten om het te meten.
Oh yes, an order is an order.
'deep inner remorse'
Yes, I already got that feeling from Grapperhaus. He found it really difficult at the time. It really bothered him, which doesn't surprise me.
Speaking of which: Has anyone else asked about Grapperhaus' wedding, during the lockdown period, proclaimed by Grapperhaus and the subsequent party, or did that fall outside the scope of the crocodile tears mentioned above?
1. Yes, marriage has been discussed. He apologized again for it. And it forced him to realize that it was very complicated for every citizen to adhere to the strict measures.
2. I actually don't think they are crocodile tears (feigned tears). They are real tears. It is not without reason that his distress of conscience reminded me of Judas who hanged himself after the betrayal...
When you talk about other people who you have no way of knowing other than what is presented to you in each image, it is best to interpret based on facts (what I do, or try to do, I am not flawless) and not on feelings (what you do). At least half of what you felt in Halesema and Grapperhaus must reflect back on yourself. Think of the autosuggestion (of what you say is yourself), when you present someone else's feeling and call him, for example, a Judas. I'm just giving it as a tip. Perhaps Anton should intervene here. It is his blog that suffers a lot in quality due to the absolute statements that you think you can justify here based on your feelings.
Willem, I really don't see any need to intervene. First of all, I see Jan as a guest author/columnist. Moreover, I happen to have the same impression of the interrogation.
There are two plausible versions of this interrogation, which may depend purely on your own (pre)taken position.
1) He is an evil tyrant and does cry-cry, or
2) he is a victim of the System that he has served all his life and in which he now had to turn the wheels himself. “My signature had to be underneath.”
To immediately play an auto-projection card is going too far for me - you can do that for both interpretations.
His wedding party was indeed a colossal mistake in his private life, unlike his colossal mistakes as an official. It's what power does to people, look at the air conditioning that Ursula only ran for her own departments.
It looks like a kind of schizophrenia: the citizen and the official. Daily fare for lawyers, who also defend cases that they know very well are flawed, even bordering on immoral.
“Well,” says a top lawyer.
Nevertheless, if he had been a smooth psychopath, he would have endured the interrogation with a grin. We have already seen that happen.
I think Willem has a bit of a point. Jan does make a fairly psychological analysis or character sketch, which may be very correct, but which we cannot simply assume based on the presentation during the interrogation. Jan will probably agree with that.
There does seem to be an underlying element of the projection that Willem suggests, in contrasting what the respondents (apparently or otherwise) knew or felt and what they should or could have done on that basis, versus what they actually did or failed to do.
There is a bit of surprise or dismay that these people acted against their better judgment.
Although Jan and many others have long since passed over this surprise and have identified the underlying system problem, which is therefore largely separate from individual psychological processes or character.
For example, in order to explain what is described by Grapperhaus and Halsema, I would like to refer to what Milgram showed, among others; that the majority of people under pressure do what they are told by authority (regardless of knowledge, intelligence or empathy). That pressure is clearly the system these people find themselves in. The 'Rule of Rescue' that Jan repeatedly mentions also contributes to this pressure.
Moreover, the system itself is organized in such a way that it selects for people who are sensitive to that pressure (if you are not sensitive to it, disobedient, you really won't get any further) (unless you are a so-called 'high-functioning psychopath' perhaps, without feeling but just coldly calculating egocentric, which also appears to get through to it).
What I want to say is that Jan's psychological analyzes are well-intentioned and perhaps even very correct, but ultimately do not matter because there is an underlying problem or phenomenon that makes these analyzes irrelevant. Not much else can be expected from these people who are being interrogated. It should not be surprising that many people have done things (under pressure) that they later found difficult.
That's just how we humans are, especially those on our boards.
What Jan points out is the need for cost/benefit analyzes and making them a firm guiding principle (as a counterbalance to Rule of Rescue thinking/feeling) is one building block for a better organization of governance. Underlying this, or perhaps better said overarching, is the recognition of elementary, structural human (psychological) weaknesses that have been proven time and time again (on various files/themes).
And the question of how we organize our society in our current society, with all this knowledge about ourselves, to deal with this better.
Plato wrote about this about 2500 years ago. The wisdom and insight has been there for a long time. The implementation is extremely sensitive and complicated.
I tend to become very resigned and fatalistic (hopeless) when seeing/reading/experiencing all this, but I am also happy to see that Jan, Anton, Herman, Maurice, Willem and others continue to feel and express their misunderstanding and dissatisfaction so passionately and fiercely!
Please keep it up!
And thanks Anton for this great site where all this is possible.
Thank you for this valuable and in-depth addition. Actually, I think you are saying that you do not agree with Willem on the content. After all, you recognize the clear added value of an analysis that showcases classic human weaknesses in the corona drama.
You definitely have a point that the system exerts enormous, almost Milgram-like pressure and selects for compliance. However, in my opinion, by only focusing on anonymous systems and abstract models, we do not solve the underlying problem. Solutions and system changes must ultimately come from flesh-and-blood people.
That is precisely why this human weakness and personal tragedy must continue to be exposed unadulterated. Only when we clearly face the painful reality of human failure under high tension will actors have the urgency and courage to take action, act and actually reform those systems.
This fits in seamlessly with what Orr and Wolff (2014) proposed with their division of moral labor. We must organize our public administration in such a way that the institutional frameworks provide active protection against our ingrained psychological pitfalls, such as the Rule of Rescue. But building such a better governance model starts by breaking through resignation. Thank you for your sharp eye and your support to keep this discussion up to standard!
Thank you for your sharp response. I think I am primarily describing phenomena that anyone who looks closely can observe. However, my reflection is not based on mere feeling or psychological projection, but on the actual reconstruction of the public interrogation. When there is a gaping gap between a witness's memory and the harsh reality of the emails sent at the time, it is a factual and observable phenomenon.
The comparisons with Judas, Creon or Macbeth are not psychological diagnoses of the person behind the driver. They are classic, cultural-historical mirrors/metaphors. They serve to provide insight into the universal mechanism of human weakness and failure and the resulting tragic decision-making under political pressure and the inevitable remorse afterwards.
After all, a parliamentary inquiry is not just about dry procedures, but precisely about how human actors relate to the rule of law under extreme tension. You see that some members of the Commission are putting a lot of pressure on some witnesses on that point. That was certainly the case with Grapperhaus. Subsequently critically filtering the answers does not reduce the quality of this platform; it provides the necessary depth that the mainstream media often neglects.
I personally think that my analyzes try to understand the witnesses' choices within the context instead of condemning them, which I see happening much more often on this platform (such as some recent reactions towards Maarten Keulemans). I honestly think that is less constructive and contributes less to the level of this platform and to the insight into the mechanisms that led to the dramatic Corona policy, than trying to paint the main characters with their personal tragedy in their context as I do...
They won't get the other cheek... I have seen, heard and experienced too much and unfortunately I still see it happen again and again. There was no crisis and/or high tension. And if people do not learn from this as they should, then I fear the worst for the future of my (grand)children. Rule of rescue has been abused. Cost/benefit didn't matter. If I may be so bold, I will use 'the varia of virusvaria' to express my concerns that we are still being messed up here. Now with climate policy, war and infringements on our freedom and self-determination.
Dear Jan, you write wonderful articles. Strong psychological interpretations too. Very convincing. I hope that Femke and Fred (in this case) will also read this.
And also compliments for Willem's many fascinating responses.
Thanx. I also hope they read it, because I also provide a crucial solution: make disproportionality measurable, so that this does not happen to us again.
In a number of beautiful stories from witnesses, broad consideration and proportionality and social interests are discussed endlessly.
But they are and remain empty words if interests are not made concrete and truly mutually weighable.
And that is possible: see how the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport decides on a daily basis whether or not a medicine or therapy is included in the care package. They then calculate the costs and benefits in money and in years of life gained or lost. And those costs/benefits must meet a standard. If not, it simply won't be reimbursed. And rightly so.
This is how it should be in the case of a massive disease. I didn't make it up. Orr and Wolff already worked this out in detail in 2014.
Spread the word!
Grapperhaus believes that lonely people and homeless people in particular suffered the worst.
Lonely people did not necessarily become lonelier due to the lockdowns, because they are always in some form of lockdown. Homeless people were actually taken care of more and earlier. Socially active people/young people in particular had to adapt more.
In itself a fair comment imo. But that word “what” is quite inappropriate imo.
Okay, 'quite a bit' might describe it better.
But many young people, for example, continued to party longer during the curfew period and or continued to sleep en masse with friends (which gave them even longer time to infect each other). My children were also allowed to invite everyone to our home and they say that they experienced few (mental) problems. While they are still above-average party animals.
That homeless story remains vague. Homeless people are offered a meal on the street in the evening by the Salvation Army and can also go to shelter if necessary. Perhaps this was made impossible by measures?
'Clever' to be able to look so deeply into his soul through a screen. But really, the primary decision axis..? Haven't we known for a long time (including BomenenBos Substack) that the NCTV was soon fully in charge? It is difficult to grasp, but the DeepState really exists, also in the Netherlands. Top civil servants (ABD) are the permanent administration, so Schoof (SG)-Aalbersberg axis with entourage was/is the core. Ministers are temporary passers-by who have to sell the established long-term policy in the theater of democracy. Right?
I think you're misinterpreting that. The NCTV has certainly played a very important role. But it was really driven by Rutte, De Jonge and Grapperhaus. Really not the other way around.
The problems are therefore not mainly with the NCTV. But in the Cabinet and the House of Representatives.
Grapperhaus and NCTV said during the 'interrogations' that they regretted that critics were called wimps.
Even this is controlled by NCTV and possibly parts of the cabinet. In the previous cabinet, Minister of Health Agrma complained that she had to listen far too much to the NCTV.
I don't see the “…so controlled by NCTV”. You also express regret - and even RIGHT - for things you have done yourself.
In healthcare, we were not allowed to make (psychological) diagnoses without having seen/spoken/examined the patient... During corona times, many protocols went overboard almost worldwide... I continue to be amazed by “not seeing and hearing”... but everyone is free to share his or her thoughts.
This is not a psychological diagnosis. But a classic metaphor to explain the personal tragedy of the protagonists.
See also my other very extensive responses here to similar criticism….
I also responded to Halsema, but I also see the same parallels here.
He cries, but doesn't say bluntly, yes, we did it wrong.
This also leaves us with no way to figure out how we should have done it.
Just excuses and again to cover up the bleeding. The second chamber should have done it, the judge…..etc etc.
It's like a crowd of people standing around looking at each other while someone is drowning in the canal.
However, in this case it is very clear who the responsibility lies with.
And it is still being evaded.
Anyone who fully admits guilt here not only commits political and social suicide, but also runs the risk of getting involved in criminal cases: starting with forgery, improper administration, treason, crimes against humanity, treason, war crimes, human rights violations - that kind of beautiful thing. Because that twist is not that difficult to make.
“If you knew it was a crime against humanity, why did you let democracy take its disastrous course?”
Can you blame someone for talking about it?
The committee simply allows that, they do not dare to go there or are simply not allowed to do so.
And then we haven't even talked about the vaccinations yet. Because there has been a double push on lockdowns and curfews because they are non-medical interventions. After all, medical interventions were not allowed to keep the way clear for the all-saving vaccines. They won't say that out loud either.
And the committee will not ask about that either. Because then Ursula gets irritated.
This is exactly the tragedy of Grapperhaus. He knows and feels that it was painful, but at the same time he is still convinced that it was the right decision in that specific context.
In my opinion, that is not an act, but the deep tragedy of a person who is internally torn by remorse and at the same time thinks that he had no other way to go at the time. Try to imagine yourself in that situation.
If we only focus on the hard question of debt, we miss this underlying dynamic.
My metaphorical portrait is not intended as a casual cover-up for the bleeding, but as an attempt to understand this suffocating mechanism. Who knows, perhaps such a cultural-historical mirror will ultimately help ministers like Grapperhaus with their own insight and inner processing of this difficult period. Only by understanding these layers can we go further than mere finger-pointing.
I really like how Jan allows the human side and emotions to be heard. For me he makes Grapperhaus more sympathetic and honest. And I really think that people have succumbed to the immense pressure in different ways. Halsema was different from Grapperhaus, but neither was given an instrument to validate their feeling that something was wrong.
And no matter how factual you are or want to be, the fact alone which facts you do and do not highlight and arrange makes history subjective. Although I understand very well that there are major differences in how you deal with facts. And how firmly you formulate things.
In any case, Anton writes differently than Jan, but I do not recognize that this would compromise the level of this site.
They could have listened better to the voices of scientists, doctors and critics from society instead of just pursuing their own beliefs. See the result here. It is indeed so sad to cry, but not for Grapperhaus but for the many victims who have had to suffer under this dictatorship. And I'm not just talking about the homeless because that was just a nice tearjerker. Yuck, yuck.
Well, we wouldn't want it from (most) scientists either...
No, that's right Jan, I also mean the critical scientists who opposed the measures.
The Hamburg curfew study cited by Grapperhaus is quite nice in this context.
If I understand correctly, it was specifically determined in advance to focus on results and to cancel it if results were achieved.
(Van Dissel acknowledged his shortcoming in this regard. He didn't have a leg to stand on when the curfew lasted and lasted and eventually 'had' to be stopped supposedly because of the opening of the school (while he had never advocated closure on good grounds). In line with the well-known slice of cheese reasoning: one slice at a time??? You get the slice of school, we keep the slice of curfew. Strange deal, by the way)
This also involved a short curfew in Hamburg.
We followed more the French model where I think he was arrested for a year (France also had to deal with many rebellious yellow vests)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168851023000295
It is remarkable that the function of the curfew appeared to be the function of the curfew in the conclusions of the study: to prevent understaffing of police and hospital staff due to illness. In itself correct. The vulnerable potential hospital customers did not go to the club in the evening/night until the wee hours anyway ;-).
If you leave staff at home in the event of a positive PCR test (even without complaints), you are shooting yourself in the fingers.
Also suffering more from sickening side effects, including Covid, after vaccination does not contribute positively, especially when healthcare personnel are first injected en masse, it seems to me to have perverse effects.
Are there no other options to reduce disease mortality?
Lack of creativity promoted by Dissel's hierarchy model: First, above all, the drops are so 1.5 m is sacred. Ventilation is secondary.
Matters that probably remain undiscussed in the PEC conclusions. But we'll see.
I hope that it will not end in the conclusion that experts must be spared at all costs, the measures were adequate and the experts should therefore not be criticized critically, especially not in the public space.
Thanks for your comment.
For me it is not so much about sympathy, but about understanding what and how people act.
It is idk. extremely interesting how differently people deal with that split. And how some have not experienced any inner splits until now.
I do have compassion for people who do experience that split, despite their wrong decisions. They are fundamentally less narcissistic and more humane (like Grapperhaus). I experienced that much less with Halsema and Kalverboer. And not at all with Hanneke Schippers. He still sees no problem with the entire policy...
Kalverboer, for example, was very aggressive, but then said that the policy was essentially OK. Strange...
Almost completely agree, except when I used the word 'strange' you were less friendly but made no bones about it. My 'life's work' was about trying to understand how people act and I always assumed the good... The true nature of many only really became clear to me in 2020. Globally, the key players are still in powerful positions... While in other countries the PECs are clearly taking a harder line, here we are stuck with far too many kid gloves.
... and here Grapperhaus appears less sympathetic, less honest and sincere, like Jan's positive assessment. And actually it may not even be about sympathetic and honest or not. It is mainly about the system (Brussels, NCTV/Aalbersberg, Rutte) that rules everything and directs everything in the desired direction and that it was (or is?) almost impossible to make a decision other than the desired one in that system. Here's a link, but you're probably all reading this already.
https://bomenenbos.substack.com/p/ferd-grapperhaus-onder-ede-het-selectieve?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1107082&post_id=204669135&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ebg29&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Well seen. But Cees Bos did not watch/listen to the interrogation properly. Correct me if I'm wrong….
Almost everything has been described factually correctly by Cees Bos. Yet this report contains 2 fundamental inaccuracies.
1. It is suggested that Grapperhaus wanted this himself and is therefore guilty. Grapperhaus made it plainly clear during the interrogation that he did not want this. Only when the OMT came up with a compelling necessity that he found convincing, which Mr. Hanneke Schippers would be validated, he could agree to it. And even then he only wanted to sign if the House of Representatives also agreed; and even hoped that he would shoot it! So that disappointed him. The will was present in advance with De Jonge and probably also with Rutte; we don't know that yet. Not at Grapperhaus.
2. It is suggested that Grapperhaus is evading responsibility. That is also really incorrect. During the interrogation he actually indicated that he had signed the crucial signature. He didn't want to run away from that. And don't pass the "blame" on to Rutte/De Jonge. That's why he didn't want to mention their names. He had signed himself. And he couldn't have signed. That shows a great sense of responsibility.
This juxtaposition exactly explains that he had maneuvered himself into an impossible position. And he struggles with that to this day. Hence the waterlanders….
It is an excellent analysis, but there is a discrepancy. You write: "Once he got over the line, he, driven by unconditional loyalty and the doctrine of unity of cabinet policy, consistently pushed through the repressive decisions. What seems like an incomprehensible contradiction to the outside world, is completely logical in the psychology of the loyal top lawyer: the rules of the game take precedence over personal morality.
How could it be that someone who characterizes you in this way "forgets" what rules apply to a wedding party? It has been interpreted as "what applies to the plebs does not apply to the rulers", but if this man really was as honest as you describe, the only explanation is memory loss, right? and thus the qualification "not competent for a ministerial post? But it goes even further. Did the visitors to the party also all suffer from amnesia? That is so unlikely that the first option, which applies to the plebs, does not apply to the ruling class. This discrepancy sheds a different light on your formulation: "rule of law principles that made him an honest lawyer - respect for democratic decision-making, loyalty to the parliamentary process - became the instrument of his moral capitulation". He capitulated in everyday life. life is all too easy.
Astute observation, Michael.
Yet I see no contradiction in this, but the ultimate paradox and tragedy of this man. Obviously I cannot look into his head, but based on the interrogations the picture emerges of a total psychological split.
As a private individual and lawyer, he knew that the actual risks (such as the lower IFR and the specific risk groups) did not actually justify the onerous, generic measures. At his own wedding, the “human Grapperhaus” briefly acted on that down-to-earth reality.
But as a minister he was completely trapped by the official system, the Rule of Rescue, the doctrine of the OMT advice and the cabinet policy based on it and finally the cabinet unity. He fervently hoped that the House of Representatives would stop the disproportionate measures; but when the House blindly agreed, his misplaced constitutional loyalty forced him to implement the law anyway.
So it is indeed a form of hypocrisy, but not from elitist disdain for the 'plebs'. It is the tragic hypocrisy of an honest person who, in office, allows his own moral compass to be completely held hostage by the rules of the political game; but if he imagines himself unobserved, he simply “lives” his private views. Once caught, he immediately crawled back into that restrictive official role to dig deep. So very tragic... It makes sense that you will get wetlands if you have to explain this in public to a strict committee.
Applying the corona rules under pressure reminds me of the Milgram experiments, in which test subjects had to administer electric shocks to others under pressure from an authority. Most didn't feel comfortable with that, but eventually went ahead anyway, because orders are orders.
What is also bad are people who seem to enjoy following the rules and feel “nicely important” in doing so. Or people who measure up to others because they obediently follow all the rules themselves. That reminds me of NSB behavior. I think that comparison covers it pretty well.
It was (is) often even worse because they did not follow the rules themselves and yet they measured others. The mayor in my hometown was also regularly guilty of this. I've seen very few really anxious people. Losing sight of costs/benefits is never about their own wallet because then it suddenly becomes a problem with big crocodile tears and self-pity.
I'm very surprised that you draw that conclusion after reading the article...
The message of the article definitely did not land.
Why not Jan? I do understand Lars.
There are certainly types in high positions who enjoy -finally- exercising real, demonstrable, concrete power. Or who enjoyed the entire period at all. “I wouldn't have missed it for anything.” “Super crazy”.
In a Rule of Rescue dynamic, all kinds of things play a role. The trade smells profits. Institutes are raising their ceilings or joining forces (including supervisors and those audited). Psychopaths bounce back. Opportunists seize their opportunity. Deugers are going to betray. Media sees threat, danger and therefore spectacle!
Every change in situation, every phenomenon can be abused, this too.
Aha, I certainly wouldn't rule that out for types like De Jonge. I can't imagine much about Rutte either. But at Grapperhaus? No. Then he would express himself completely differently in the interrogation. And that is what this article is about. Hence my answer to Lars. And not with Halsema either.
And certainly the pharmaceutical companies are smoking big profits. They're about corpses. While they sell health. That is common knowledge.
For a project leader like Jaap van Delden it was also a very educational and challenging and therefore interesting time. You can't blame him for that. He did not interfere at all with the content of his work. He is simply a professional as a logistics/organization manager.
The first paragraph by Lars (Milgram) is certainly applicable. Especially when you consider who gave the three the mission to convince “the rest”.
Regarding the second paragraph, I agree with you: I don't taste that with Grapperhaus either. He has now experienced for himself how you can find yourself in a position where you commit misdeeds; something he has deeply reproached others for in the past. The fact that he does not get over this easily is a good thing for him. He should have left much earlier - but then someone else would have signed it. It doesn't matter who the person is. The position of minister is the only thing that matters.
Who then gave the trio their assignments/mission?
On reflection, I do agree with the applicability of the Milgram theory: carrying out assignments from an anonymous game leader against one's own conscience. And in this case even more understandable: orders from a higher-ranking democratically elected body: Cabinet or House of Representatives + Senate.
At the same time, I also see the problem of not obeying democratically made decisions: that becomes chaos.
That is of course the core of the problem, and this was once again firmly confirmed in De Jonge's interrogation: the dictatorship of the Rule of Rescue indiscriminately destroyed all other interests. And with fear propaganda, the people who still had some common sense were for the most part also taken into that dictatorship.
Of course, it is not documented anywhere who gave the trio their mission. You tell me... Do you think they made up their mission themselves, just like that? Why then?
In any case, their goal was not to arrive at responsible policy in consultation with the cabinet and House of Representatives. Rutte could not have said it more clearly: “the three of us against the rest”.
The first approach 'Herd Immunity' (van Dissel, Rutte) was quickly abandoned. Rutte suddenly denied flatly that he had ever said such a thing. Every fire now had to be stamped out immediately, quickly and ruthlessly. Clearly different rules had been accepted in April 2020. What was left?
1) the virus was very, very serious (and the interventions continued accordingly, even when it turned out that it was not even A-Class worthy)
2) the virus was a zoonosis of the wet market
3) we knew nothing at all about this 'novel virus' called SARS-CoV-2 (but we did know that it spread via droplets - so there were emphatically no aerosols involved)
5) there was also no (peer reviewed) medication or treatment against this virus – only non-medical interventions were allowed
6) in fact: primary care had to be sidelined as much as possible
7) there would be a vaccine soon that would solve all the problems. Ursula von der Leyen had already placed the order for the EU countries. Sales were guaranteed, so willingness to vaccinate had to be high.
8) Early medication was not only unproven and possibly dangerous, but also counter-productive compared to the vaccines already ordered under emergency conditions. If they were not taken, they would still have to be paid.
Of course, almost no one knows to what extent the geopolitical issues surrounding the secret Chinese-American GoF research were known to government leaders. Rutte, as a confidant of NATO, may have known more than others – I have no idea.
That put a lot of pressure on the trio, enough to initiate Rule of Rescue behavior and force everyone to participate. And once that path is taken, path dependency follows.
It is also surprising that they have managed to convince almost all other NATO countries of their approach. (Except for Sweden, which was not yet a NATO member).
I see that a little differently. Especially since you cannot define that “they”. So I have a simpler explanation, with one piece of the puzzle still unsolved. Unfortunately, I also rely on a “completion theory” there. But the rest of the idiotic policies and lies can, in my opinion, be explained completely logically without (international) conspiracies.
1. RIVM initially acted naively and therefore logically. When you have the flu, you aim for herd immunity. So why not at Corona? That is what van Dissel and the RIVM thought.
2. Rutte simply took over.
3. When a lot of people were dying in Brabant and Limburg and the ICUs were filling up, the RoR had to come into effect. Then you can no longer let things fester and wait for herd immunity.
4. So it now became “controlled circulation and management based on IC capacity”.
5. This was also initially done rationally (see EZK memorandum with cost/benefit analysis, that would take a very long time...). If you always sit at the peak of the IC capacity, you will get rid of it the fastest.
6. But then you pretend that you are letting as many people as possible get Corona as quickly as possible and then some of them die and get Long-Covid. So things had to be different then.
7. And to this day, Rutte and De Jonge argue wholeheartedly that it was (always!) policy
a. protect the vulnerable
b. maintain healthcare capacity
c. keep society as open as possible
d. [later, but always implicit: minimize impact of measures]
8. And then of course you cannot say that you are aiming for an overflow of the ICs. So now they say they always protected the vulnerable as much as possible.
And with that, the “strategy” has changed twice. And because they do not want to admit to both changes (because that resulted in more deaths), they cheerfully lie. By Rutte, Van Dissel and De Jonge. I believe that all measures taken subsequently are 100% consistent with this.
What is not consistent with this is the fanaticism with which Elens and the other 15? doctors have been prosecuted. I can only explain this because internationally (because this happened everywhere in the EU, US, Australia + Canada) some kind of agreement was made (under pressure/lobby from Pfizer or Janssen or Moderna) to fiercely combat early-treatment, so that there remained a legal basis for introducing vaccines without a proper testing process. I'm still waiting for the first WOO request that brings this to light. I just really don't understand this behavior...
That will be the subtitle of De Jonge's interrogation:
The dictatorship of the Rule of Rescue indiscriminately destroyed all other interests.
In my second paragraph I was not referring specifically to Grapperhaus (he clearly had difficulty with it), but rather to people who take pleasure in carrying out assignments meticulously. The fact that the rules are demonstrably incorrect and therefore cause a lot of harm to others seems to be of secondary importance.
I sometimes have the urge to punch people who shout “rules are rules”. Not because I am aggressive, but because I would like them to be given a good wake-up call. Think before you implement some stupid rule! Dare to disobey, even if there are consequences.
Mahatma Gandhi seems to have once said (or maybe not, but it's true): “The true character of a man is revealed when he is given power.” Well, we have seen that during the corona period. In my opinion, Mr H. de Jonge is a good example of this.
As for Grapperhaus, I think he should have resigned from his position immediately. He could always have become a bus driver.