Curfew in the Netherlands

[ThePastel]

A group has invited the self entitled government of the Netherlands to discuss the curfew in a courtroom subordinated to the self entitled government itself, in The Hague.

It came as a great surprise that a judge, subordinated to the self entitled government, disagreed to their supervisor, and declared the curfew not to comply with the "laws" of the self entitled government themselves -- the self entitled government used a "law" meant for speed cases when the parliament cannot debate with the ministers, which was not the case.

Of course, in the same day, the self entitled government emitted an order (what they call "appeal") in order to their courtrooms to comply with the subjective "laws" of the self-entitled government by "suspending the preliminary decision until a final decision is given", which was promptly admitted by their subordinates at courtroom, because "it is important to suspend it". The subordinates at the courtroom used as their "legal" argument that it is illegal to have "an yo-yo effect, where a decision may be scrapped and re-insert at any time" -- ie, the courtroom declared that what they have done is illegal.

The success of the story resides that, even if a big majority of Dutch citizens think that the activist group is formed by "wappies" (derogatory for something like "lunatic"), they are is a large share that is completely unhappy with the arbitrage of the self-entitled government (what they call "State of Law"), and subordination of the courtrooms to the elected-government. At least a big political damage in the core of the so-called "State of Law" is done.

[Freeman Stephen]

Keep us up to date

[ThePastel]

So, yesterday there was a new hearing.

On the 17th february, the self-entitled "government" issued a speedy order to the court to suspend the preliminary injunction until a definitive decision. The group of activists Viruswaarheid complained at hearing that they needed more time to prepare for the new arguments of the self-entitled government, but the judges did not hear. The activists tried, then, to impugn them, still without success.

So, now, in the hearing of 19th, when the definitive decision was to be given, the (same) judges came up with .... that the case is too complex and they need one week to give a decision (!!).

Although some may be happy with the curfew, by watching the press, blogs and social media, nobody seems to be coming up with a juridical argument for it. Supporters just say "because it is needed". It has become clear to everyone that the self-entitled government failed with their own rules and that they subordinates at courtrooms are just trying to win time for a new "law" to be voted in the parliament -- what is already being done. So, it is likely that the curfew will be declared "illegal", but will be kept, and what those of the so-called "State of Law" do not realize is that this is self-harming.

So, for now in NL: 1 - There is a "preliminary injunction" which is suspended until a "definitive decision" (well, what is the meaning of "preliminary injunction" then?). 2 - A resigned government who is still ruling until the next elections (so, what is the meaning of "resignation"?). Time for fun and more mess until there.

[Freeman Stephen]

Judges who find the terms of the unambiguous terms of the Nuremberg Code complex are at best cowards. Note them for trials. If they show any courage, well, I see their real friends have instituted euthanasia facilities. How convenient. This is war wrapped up in diplomacy. Fakebook is down, twitter is down, youtube is down and the search engines are worthless. Alternatives have rose to meet the needs where civilised systems have FAILED. There are some obvious free speech platforms which have arisen in response we expect to be attacked next. When they go down ... eurotet! Google vietnam! War is unavoidable.