On various media, the debates often anticipate the end of the corona crisis. How are we going to deal with what went wrong? What are we going to learn from the partial destruction of society and the substantial evaporation of the economy? Are we going to get our revenge from criminal cases and tribunals? And what does that solve?
Rutte/de Jonge in court
I see calls for and announcements of criminal cases against Rutte and/or de Jonge. No chance, of course; They have neatly complied with the law and listened carefully to their medical advisors about the approach to the disease (sounds logical), parliamentary review. Well, what would we want: a 'leader' who dares to ignore the advice of a scientific institute because he considers himself more intelligent?
van Dissel
Summon the RIVM or van Dissel? That is just as hopeless. No judge will enter into a scientific debate, they indicate that time and time again, again when the curfew appeal was annulled by Virus Truth vs the State. "The OMT advised it, so there was substantiation; the State has therefore acted correctly".
Asking judges for help
Getting justice through legal means will be difficult. Judges are servants of the Dutch State and the medical knowledge base of that same State is simply the RIVM, even if it is staffed by incapable quacks who make a mess of it (purely hypothetical of course 😉).
The code is further filled by the defendant himself, who is the patron of both the Court and the RIVM. That employer can quickly adjust the law the moment something is going on according to the designated doctors, who by nature do not struggle very hard. But how else? Do we expect judges to start their own investigations, know better than our national knowledge institute and to pass judgment on the basis of that? That will be an even bigger mess.
What actually protects us from policy failure?
- A parliamentary democracy
Dualism: voice and dissent, which stands for advancing insight. How is that now shaped: through a cabinet, supported by a recognized institutionalized advisory body with authority. On the other hand, there is an incapable opposition with nothing at all. Findings of non-RIVM people such as Maurice de Hond are ridiculed. Questions from Van Haga are labeled as 'dangerous' by a panicked-furious de Jonge. If asking questions is no longer allowed, then you are really swimming in dark water. - Critical investigative journalism
The quality newspapers traditionally do not investigate further than the RIVM website – unless it is in line with the views they find there. Spectators and columnists are terrified, even court jester Lubach. 'Publishing' means little anymore. To make that relevant again, you need independent and critical journalists of some scientific level.
Good quality pieces can be found with a light: very occasionally in EW, RD, FTM, HPdeTijd, just maybe the Correspondent -and otherwise you will have to make do with youtube because AD, VK, Trouw, NRC, NOS mainly miss the mark. I don't want to argue about the really controversial publications (Common Sense) here.
Scientific journals are the least suspicious, but even in those newsrooms, strange things have happened. The stakes have therefore rarely been so great, comparable to the markets for oil, tobacco, energy. Remember that our governments are still deliberately and structurally poisoning people and animals, partly thanks to those lobbies ('there is no other way'). - An independent judiciary
The judiciary also accepts the indisputable right of the OMT in all but one ruling. That exception concerned the suspension of the curfew, which was later corrected on appeal. As long as the cabinet acts in line with the OMT/rivm and manages to amend laws before the lawsuit is filed, it can do what it sees fit with the people. That too is comparable to Germany in the 1930s-40s (have you read in that piece by Jan Bonte.)
There is clearly something systemically wrong because if the RIVM is wrong, the country will go into the abyss; nowhere can there be resistance.
In retrospect, it may at most turn out that van Dissel saw it wrong or too late, or maybe something is wrong with him. Does he have to go to jail for that? The man did his best anyway and many with him will also maintain afterwards that no other point of view was possible at that time, even though the contrary has been demonstrated for some time, both in terms of combating the spread of disease and in terms of the effects of lockdowns and other measures. No judge will enter into that 'battle of scientists' in the coming years. The rascals will always insist that they may be wrong in retrospect, but absolutely not at the time – even if they acted as if they were acting in bad faith.
We have learned nothing from the previous tribunal
A tribunal is nice as a public event and it will give many people satisfaction if leaders appear in the criminal court. I don't think it makes much sense; Apparently nothing has been learned from the previous tribunal either. Now I don't like to draw parallels with WWII because that clouds any discussion, but I'll try it here anyway (I have previously referred to the heading "Review" in a piece by Jan Bonte.)
From the unmistakable parallels, it is usually concluded that our current ministers are just as evil and malicious as the greatest war criminals. I see it differently: it has become clear to me that the Nazis probably also had the best interests of the population at heart in the longer term – however difficult that may be to imagine when you look back on it a few decades later. (Another time let's think about how those in power can recognize in themselves that they are doing wrong.)
It turns out that the greatest crimes stem from wanting to be good and being convinced that they are 'on the right side'. See also this great video, beautifully told, sublimely animated.
In de volgende post (in voorbereiding) tips voor de volgende crisis a.d.h.v. een beschouwing door Stefan Noordhoek.
