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. Hopeless of course; they have strictly adhered to the law and listened carefully to their medical advisors regarding the approach to the disease (which also sounds logical), as assessed by parliament. 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
Het rivm of van Dissel dagvaarden? Dat is al net zo kansloos. Geen rechter zal in een wetenschappelijk debat treden, dat geven ze keer op keer aan, ook weer bij het vernietiging van het avondklok-beroep door Viruswaarheid vs de Staat. "Het OMT adviseerde het dus er was onderbouwing; de Staat heeft daarom correct gehandeld".
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 opposition, which represents progressive insight. How is this now structured: through a cabinet, supported by a recognized institutionalized advisory body with authority. On the other hand, there is an incompetent opposition with absolutely nothing. Findings of non-RIVM members such as Maurice de Hond are dismissed. Questions from Van Haga are labeled as 'dangerous' by a panicky-furious De Jonge. If asking questions is no longer allowed, then you are really swimming in dark water. - Critical investigative journalism
Traditionally, quality newspapers do not investigate further than the RIVM website - unless it is in line with the views they find there. Viewers and columnists are terrified, including 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 strange things have happened even in those editorial offices. The interests have rarely been so great, comparable to the markets for oil, tobacco and energy. Remember that our governments still consciously and structurally poison people and animals, partly thanks to those lobbies ('it cannot be otherwise'). - 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.
Afterwards it may at most turn out that Van Dissel saw it wrong or too late, or perhaps there is something wrong with him. Should he go to jail for that? The man did his best and many like him will maintain afterwards that no other position was possible at that time, even though the opposite 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 join this 'battle of scientists' in the coming years. The good guys will always insist that they may be wrong in retrospect, but absolutely not at the time - even though they acted as if they were in bad faith.
We have learned nothing from the previous tribunal
Een tribunaal is fijn als publiek evenement en het zal veel mensen genoegdoening geven als daar kopstukken in het strafbankje verschijnen. Ik denk niet dat het veel zin heeft; van het vorige tribunaal is kennelijk ook niets geleerd. Nu trek ik niet graag parallellen met WOII want dat vertroebelt elke discussie maar ik probeer het hier toch even (ik heb eerder verwezen naar het kopje "Bespreking" in een piece by Jan Bonte.)
From the undeniable parallels, it is usually concluded that our current ministers are just as evil and malicious as the biggest war criminals. I see it differently: it has become clear to me that the Nazis probably had the best interests of the population in the long term - however difficult to imagine that is when you look back on it a few decades later. (Another time think about how those in power can recognize in themselves that they are doing something wrong.)
It turns out that the greatest crimes come from wanting to be good and being convinced that you 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.
