Comments
PityUpvote t1_j4s909p wrote
It was already illegal, but it's now in the constitution. On one hand it's a mostly symbolic gesture, on the other hand this should theoretically be more difficult to undo for future legislators.
censuur12 t1_j4tsds2 wrote
> on the other hand this should theoretically be more difficult to undo for future legislators.
Nope. Not in the slightest. This is an entirely symbolic gesture that changes absolutely nothing but some of the wording, and arguably weakens the overall constitutional ban on discrimination by being specific about certain subjects.
While it might still be nice as a purely symbolic gesture, there really is no practical change to speak of.
Leaping-Butterfly t1_j4ul1pg wrote
How to say you don’t understand Dutch constitutional law without saying you don’t understand Dutch constitutional law.
Multiple judges have already said this will help them in certain legal cases as the specification allows them to point at certain edge cases regarding disability and sexuality discrimination (but ESPECIALLY disability discrimination) and tilt them in favour of the disabled party.
There are a lot of examples of for example students that were hard of hearing failing a hearing part of a language exam and not being allowed a sign language or writing alternative and such. And judges have said those students would be better aided with this change to our constitution.
This passed the house and senate in two rounds of voting and in case of the house even hit the mandatory threshold of 2/3rd of parliament. This type of stuff isn’t just “symbolic” these things have ramifications. Just because •you• can’t phantom them doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
But please. Keep posting your hunches while lacking a law degree or anything of the kind for the whole world to read. It’s not like the past decades have made the dangers of people bluffing their way through life and not knowing when to shut up abundantly clear.
wozzpozz t1_j4uvy3x wrote
Fuck, I loved your last paragraph.
Leaping-Butterfly t1_j4uyzfw wrote
Feel free to repeat it where ever you find it fitting.
Let’s make sure that those who bluff are aware that they can’t count on our silence to give their performance-art-piece space.
JackfruitComplex8856 t1_j4upo6q wrote
mic drop
[deleted] t1_j4vkvbn wrote
[deleted]
censuur12 t1_j4vfjn0 wrote
It's funny how you've done the exact same thing I have, yet somehow you're entirely right by virtue of... well nothing, really. You're just so right!
So allow me to retort; But please. Keep posting your hunches while lacking a law degree or anything of the kind for the whole world to read. It’s not like the past decades have made the dangers of people bluffing their way through life and not knowing when to shut up abundantly clear.
ipel4 t1_j4vgvkf wrote
So giving examples is the same as not doing so?
censuur12 t1_j4vh89d wrote
"Giving examples"? I see a bunch of claims made with nothing behind them. But sure mate, it's way different.
It's rather galling to see someone like you just enter a conversation and start spewing bile instead of treating it with a bit of respect, as though the other person being wrong somehow is something to ridicule rather than, you know, talk about? What on earth is with your attitude?
ipel4 t1_j4whlts wrote
> "Giving examples"? I see a bunch of claims made with nothing behind them.
I said giving examples, not providing sources. You didn't need to explain to me what goving an example is.
You claimed it would provide no difference because you didn't see one even tho clearly at minimum it would make it harder for future governments to remove it which is already a massive accomplishment.
That is completely different from what the person that responded to you did. They had the choice to either verify or not do so. They then gave concrete examples. You had the same choice yet you choose to ignore their examples and make snarky remarks while accusing then of doing the same as you even tho they clearly tried to look for what people actually dealing with the law have to say about this and inform others while you choose to do the opposite.
> It's rather galling to see someone like you just enter a conversation and start spewing bile
That's what a forum is. A place where multiple people exchange thoughts. Not to mnetion it was you who had responded to them with bile in response to their snarkines, yet you somehow try to pin it in me, laughable.
> instead of treating it with a bit of respect, as though the other person being wrong somehow is something to ridicule rather than, you know, talk about?
Respect? You did not show an ounce of respect in the comment I responded to which is exactly what prompted me to reply in the first place.
How ironic that you choose to lecture me about "you know, talk about" things yet like I had stated the reason I wrote my remarks were because you choose to do just the opposite and not acknowledge their reply to you.
And talking about being wrong is stil talking about it. Had you acknowledged it instead of trying to deflect then I would not need to bring up the differences in your replies.
> What on earth is with your attitude?
Simply responding to you to the direction you decided to take the conversation. What's wrong with your attitude? Instead of holding a construcrive conversation you immediately started deflecting and accing of everyonr of what you're doing and then have the gall to accuse everyone else of it.
censuur12 t1_j4wkng0 wrote
> I said giving examples, not providing sources.
And I commented on that. I said "nothing behind them" not "unsourced" or anything of the sort. If you believe a claim is synonymous with an example you should probably go check out the definitions.
> it would make it harder for future governments to remove it which is already a massive accomplishment.
How? Another government could just as easily change the constitution back if they wanted to. It also changes nothing even if it wasn't ever removed, it affects nothing. Actual laws changing make a difference here, and while you may argue that doing so is now easier... in reality it doesn't really make it any easier at all, it's still going to be up to the same people casting votes in the chamber. There is no constitutional court in the Netherlands.
> They then gave concrete examples.
Really? You actually believe the things provided amounted to "examples"? 'judges said x' is, at best, an anecdotal claim. An example would be something like "case x or y would be different with this constitutional change" but no such case exists, there are no examples to provide because objectively, this changes nothing. I'd be someone personally affected by any real changes to the rules on this matter, I'm not just talking from other people's perspectives and benefits. This affects me, or it would if it actually changed anything.
> How ironic that you choose to lecture me about "you know, talk about" things yet like I had stated the reason I wrote my remarks were because you choose to do just the opposite and not acknowledge their reply to you.
All you ended up doing was take a cheap, fallacious jab. Come on mate, don't even try this now.
> Simply responding to you to the direction you decided to take the conversation.
See? What's this? Another cheap jab. You didn't even try to have a conversation here, you offered no real argument or case of your own, just a trite accusation of 'you did x' instead of offering much of meaning. And you expected not to be chastised for it? What DID you expect when you wrote that reply? Or was it mere a thought of "haha I sure got him!"?
ipel4 t1_j4wwqar wrote
> If you believe a claim is synonymous with an example you should probably go check out the definitions.
"a thing characteristic of its kind or illustrating a general rule." - ala google
Which perfectly matches how understood it, ie general. If you believe an example is synonymous with evidence you should probably go check out the definitions.
To prove him wrong you could at any time find evidence to counter him.
> How? Another government could just as easily change the constitution back if they wanted to.
Except it's a super majority vote which they either have to get or collaborate with other parties which us much harder than the simple majority they needed before hand. I'm confident getting 65% of people to afree on something is harder than 50%.
> All you ended up doing was take a cheap, fallacious jab. Come on mate, don't even try this now.
That wasn't a jab but pointing out your hypocrisy in lecturing in me doing what you did even tho the reason I did it was to show you why you shouldn't do it.
> See? What's this? Another cheap jab. You didn't even try to have a conversation here, you offered no real argument or case of your own, just a trite accusation of 'you did x' instead of offering much of meaning. And you expected not to be chastised for it? What DID you expect when you wrote that reply? Or was it mere a thought of "haha I sure got him!"?
I literally very verbosely explained to you the difference between both your responses in order to argument my initial take. How else do you expect me to defend my stance of disagreeing with you on your comparison between you two. That's literally whete this entite conversation started from.
censuur12 t1_j4wzhpw wrote
> If you believe an example is synonymous with evidence you should probably go check out the definitions. Also To prove him wrong you could at any time find evidence to counter him.
So someone makes a claim without evidence, and I'm obligated to go find some evidence to prove them wrong? Are you OK buddy?
> Except it's a super majority vote which they either have to get or collaborate with other parties which us much harder than the simple majority they needed before hand.
That's not at all relevant to the subject. The difficulty of changing the constitution doesn't change based on what's in the constitution, this change doesn't make it more difficult to change things down the line. In fact, one of the major critiques of this change is that it could actually make it easier to discriminate. If you're specific in one area but not others then that difference can be used as an argument. "It specifies group x here but not in this other rule so this other rule wouldn't apply to group x" is an argument that makes itself, and is damaging to these groups.
> That wasn't a jab but a jab
My guy. Think about what you're actually saying for a second before you write it down.
> I literally very verbosely explained to you the difference between both your responses
I cannot believe you genuinely think so. Are you just pretending to be a fool for a laugh here, or are you genuinely oblivious as to the nature of your own vapid argumentation?
Mission_Nectarine_99 t1_j4uskp5 wrote
Easy bro... relaaaaaaax.
Ayzmo t1_j4v3bem wrote
Yeah. You're the kind of person who would have voted the law making equal marriage legal at the federal level because "its already settled."
censuur12 t1_j4vf7uq wrote
It's amazing how you somehow divined such intimate knowledge about me from just that. No really it's amazing and not entirely ridiculous...
Get your head out of your ass mate, you're so full of yourself it's disgusting. Not only are you entirely wrong your wild guesses are completely baseless and pointless.
[deleted] t1_j4u39jn wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_j4untmk wrote
[deleted]
FridgeParade t1_j4s981m wrote
Kinda, but important to make it explicit.
We discriminate all the time, for example between being human or a cow (we can farm one and not the other) to name a random one. Making this explicit ensures we actually protect what we want to protect instead of just implying it and allowing for an argument that gay people are nothing more than cows.
beamenacein t1_j4tfu5q wrote
We farm cows too
eyvduijwfvf t1_j4unv69 wrote
Happy cake day!
aklosk t1_j4u80yi wrote
What did the tired cow say?
twistedbronll t1_j4ua4uy wrote
Meh?
aklosk t1_j4uf9nw wrote
Moe 🐄
twistedbronll t1_j4ufc6b wrote
Fuck you and have an upvote xD
eyvduijwfvf t1_j4unvud wrote
r/angryupvote
Superliminal_MyAss t1_j4szprj wrote
Making it constitutional means it’s harder for the laws against discrimination to be taken away. Big win for queer and disabled people!
censuur12 t1_j4tsjw7 wrote
Nope. Sadly it does not. At all. A 'Constritution' is not a universal concept. De Nederlandse Grondwet is in no way the same type of thing as say the US constitution. One big practical difference is that Judges do not test laws based on the constitution at all (they're not even allowed to) so this makes no difference for the laws either.
twistedbronll t1_j4uace2 wrote
This will for sure help if you sue for discrimination though. Also Laws are tested vs the constitution in the 1st chamber of parlement. And often used in debates in the 2nd chamber
RemcoProgrammer t1_j4uh2o2 wrote
There is nothing in law that says that the 1st chamber does that though.
censuur12 t1_j4ui4kx wrote
> This will for sure help if you sue for discrimination though.
No. Not in the slightest. The Judge literally cannot even take this into consideration. Only specific laws can be tested, not the constitution.
> Also Laws are tested vs the constitution in the 1st chamber of parlement. And often used in debates in the 2nd chamber
Correct. But this change in wording in no way changes the actual constitution or the laws derived from it. These matters were already as protected as they are going to get in that regard. Changing the wording here means nothing.
twistedbronll t1_j4uj3i9 wrote
>Changing the wording here means nothing.
Nah. Going from the 'others' category to being named specifically absolutely means something, Though largely symbolic.
>The Judge literally cannot even take this into consideration.
Technically true but a wrong interpretation imho.
The route for any law is 2nd chamber > 1st chamber > law > judge > jurisprudence.
The laws that the judge must use are very much influenced by the constitution as both 2nd and 1st chamber have an obligation to check laws vs the constitution. A power the 1st chamber used recently to force changes to unacceptably vague emergency corona laws.
Tl;Dr Dutch Constitutional change has a real effect but it has to be specified in laws first.
censuur12 t1_j4vfx2h wrote
And the point was, from the very start, that this was already set in our constitution. Re-wording the constitution like this changes nothing until actual laws are changed, which might happen based on this change, but those legal changes could have happened just as much without this amending of the constitution.
twistedbronll t1_j4vg66n wrote
Saying 'this changes nothing' is simply wrong
censuur12 t1_j4vgej5 wrote
But it's not. It might influence change later down the line, but by itself it's not going to affect much. Though if you know something I don't feel free to point out some specific change this is going to have by itself, I'd love to know.
twistedbronll t1_j4vi3te wrote
Given your poor imagination on how this matters makes me believe it does not matter what i tell you either way.
Especially gender issues, as of late, have been debated and discriminated on. Discussions and rulings possible because of the ambiguous wording of anti discrimination laws. Now there is precedent to (in a legal sense) fight existing laws.
Less room foor interpretation > more breathing room for gender changed people.
Laws that have previously been found to not infringe on the constitution might now be looked at again. People discriminated by companies may feel invited to speak out.
And lastly just telling these people that their plight matters.
censuur12 t1_j4vibvz wrote
> Given your poor imagination on how this matters makes me believe it does not matter what i tell you either way.
Yea wow, "I imagine having a normal conversation is pointless so I won't even try"? Why even post at all if you actually believe that? Spare me your pathetic excuses and stop wasting my time then.
________________me t1_j4s7pus wrote
The first sentence states 'in gelijke gevallen' (in similar cases). The second sentence specifies which categories cannot be used to distinct dissimilarities. The extensions are made to endorse and affirm that these groups belong.
MindlessVegetation t1_j4ui5qu wrote
> levensovertuiging,
Philosophy of Life, says Google.I would not have deciphered that otherwise.Also 'godsdienst' -> Gottesdienst, for Faith is amusingly old fashioned in wording.
Dutch is a trip to read.
dunker_- t1_j4u3yxw wrote
Absolutely. Just virtue signalling and actually weakening the whole point. It should just read 'on any ground', period.
RemcoProgrammer t1_j4uh0ya wrote
But that'd be meaningless too. Government can't do its thing without discriminating between people, or we'd all pay the exact same amount of tax and receive the exact same benefits, et cetera.
dunker_- t1_j4vhell wrote
Well, as you can read, that is what it says already now: "op welke andere grond dan ook."
RemcoProgrammer t1_j4vhzmm wrote
Yes. Which people consider a bit useless I think (because it's obviously not how it works), so they want to spell out the important things explicitly?
dunker_- t1_j4virl1 wrote
Either all, or nothing - that is what I meant. 0 or 1 :)
But to be honest, I think it already works, and there is no real need to change it. People only point at it to get attention for their specific cause and agenda, and that's not a good thing in my opinion.
AubyvsCDNU t1_j4r2nrp wrote
I'm thinking of moving to the netherlands
Edwinus t1_j4rd4bh wrote
We don't have any houses fam
AubyvsCDNU t1_j4rd5xn wrote
fuck
ItchySnitch t1_j4teyvf wrote
How old are you? You coming off as pretty naive and immature in this thread
AubyvsCDNU t1_j4tldli wrote
18....and I'm. Gullible as fuck.
KingofReddit12345 t1_j4u4ahr wrote
Don't be discouraged, where there's a will there's a way. It's not like we've stopped all immigration entirely.
It's extremely difficult at the moment as even people living in the Netherlands can't find a new place to live within any reasonable timeframe, but it's not impossible either.
You're 18? Maybe by the time you're a bit older and actually decide to move to another country it'll be somewhat easier too. Bit optimistic maybe but again, it's not like nobody is getting in anymore. Why not you aswell?
PM_Me_British_Stuff t1_j4rh9wp wrote
like the entirety of Europe right now it seems aha
(except Italy?)
LilysTheorbo t1_j4rmf50 wrote
The entirety of the western industrialized world, at least anywhere where people want to live. It's almost like treating housing as an investment instead of as a necessity is bad...
AubyvsCDNU t1_j4rtkt0 wrote
triple fuck!
[deleted] t1_j4s5irw wrote
[deleted]
hastur777 t1_j4sqjeg wrote
Plenty of US states don’t have insane housing prices.
LilysTheorbo t1_j4sy652 wrote
People move there when none of the higher ranking states are available.
Mister_Lich t1_j4szuye wrote
So in other words "the more desirable places to live are more expensive because demand is huge."
Shocker.
Anyway, just build more housing. There is a direct and obvious connection between NIMBYism and expensive housing prices.
-CrestiaBell t1_j4u1uhc wrote
There's not really a scarcity of houses in America so much as there is an artificial scarcity created by companies that exist solely to buy up houses en masse and hike up their prices.
Mister_Lich t1_j4vn8yh wrote
This is literally just not true. Most houses are not corporate owned. Not even close. It's a few more percent than it was a few years ago.
​
You know what can cause this to drop? Building so much housing that you crash the market. Nobody wants to build tons of housing because all the homeowners vote against it because it tanks their equity values. You think that corporations are the big baddy, they aren't, it's HOA's and the fucks in the suburbs and shit that vote against every possible expansion or densification of anything because their primary concern is their equity, not your chances of homeownership. Vote YIMBY's into your local government. That is your only savior.
DeadAssociate t1_j4u6160 wrote
the netherlands has been in the top of most denselypopulated countries for 70 years or so. you cant just build more houses when every square cm is planned for.
RemcoProgrammer t1_j4uh8xg wrote
Except that we have plenty of space. Think of the Netherlands not as a densely populated country, but as a sparsely populated city.
twistedbronll t1_j4uakb9 wrote
We have space. They just build wicked expensive flats there.
Mister_Lich t1_j4vnjse wrote
You can build denser. Build more high-rises.
Yeah, when you run up against literal physical limitations, sometimes you have to choose between either having nice traditional-ish single family homes (or town-houses), or having more apartment/condo complexes - alternatively you cope with sky-high housing prices and a lack of ability for successive generations to have solid housing situations.
Most countries in the world don't have this problem though. The USA reeeeally doesn't.
DeadAssociate t1_j4wu722 wrote
sure we can. but we are a democracy, home ownership is over 60%, and no one is going to vote in any way to let the state take their home.
Mister_Lich t1_j4wzrfj wrote
Who said the state has to do this? Haven't you ever heard of like, selling houses?
Just allow developers to actually buy up land where 500 year old townhouses are and build highrise apartment complexes there. They'll buy out the owners of the land/houses that are willing to sell, and your city expands. This is literally how urbanization works.
You can't just indefinitely preserve all the ancient crap in a city just because it's pretty and then expect the city to never have issues with growth and modernization. Just literally allow people to bulldoze some of this stuff and invest in your city.
DeadAssociate t1_j4x84k4 wrote
to allow this the law needs to change, and this needs a vote. and the majority will vote no out of their best interest.
Mister_Lich t1_j4x8ypw wrote
Right, so it's entirely a self-inflicted issue of simply not being willing to build more housing. That's basically my whole point. Housing crises in the developed world are almost all because people just refuse to allow enough housing to be built, because the existing homeowners don't want to see their equity drop, or even just "stop going up as much," or worse yet, they'll claim it's to preserve historically relevant plots of dirt and bricks, and starve everyone else out.
Japan is a notable exception to this occurrence. They build more housing per capita than most developed countries, and the idea of housing being an investment rather than a commodity is not nearly as common there. As a result their real estate markets have been way flatter than most other developed countries. Also related is their national zoning laws which are amazing and every country should replicate them 1-to-1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfm2xCKOCNk
DeadAssociate t1_j4y63k5 wrote
well self inflicted upon the people that cant afford homes by the people that can.
RemcoProgrammer t1_j4uh5f3 wrote
It's not really NIMBYism that we don't build enough, it's (extremely necessary) environmental laws and not having enough builders and building materials. Foreign builders could help if they had a place to sleep between shifts...
Mister_Lich t1_j4vnq1u wrote
This is completely untrue for the USA (this comment chain is talking about the USA - that's mostly what I'm talking about), look up anything to do with the Bay Area and San Francisco when it comes to the legendary NIMBYism in that area. They do things like preserve "historic" laundromats and parking lots to avoid building multi-hundred unit apartment complexes (and of course, a good 20% or more of those would always be relegated for affordable housing - this would do nothing but help the city and its residents.)
No idea about the Netherlands' specific issues, to be fair.
RemcoProgrammer t1_j4vopsq wrote
Ah OK, I was talking about the Netherlands in particular, sorry for the confusion.
Mister_Lich t1_j4vovzm wrote
Np! I realized that this post was actually about the Netherlands so I probably am getting some people in this thread confused lol
s4b3r6 t1_j4u1srx wrote
> Anyway, just build more housing. There is a direct and obvious connection between NIMBYism and expensive housing prices.
One third of houses in my country are empty. In cities, too. The expensive housing doesn't have a lot to do with how many there are.
Mister_Lich t1_j4vmt97 wrote
>One third of houses in my country are empty
Source needed
Some vacancy is required in a healthy market, no vacancies means no supply, but 1/3rd being completely empty and unused sounds pretty unlikely, I'd like to see the source for that number.
s4b3r6 t1_j4voho4 wrote
Mister_Lich t1_j4vr6ky wrote
There are over 2mil dwellings in the Sydney area, this is not 1/3rd, it's like 8%-9%.
Build some more hotels and houses, this is literally Australia's megacity, it's their New York, of course there's huge demand for both permanent and temporary/tourist housing. People will eventually migrate to other areas if the city doesn't figure out how to build enough, and that's fine, too. Migration to and from cities is normal and healthy. New York City hasn't had population growth in like 60 years or some shit because it can't expand much more and isn't a very economically desirable place to live for a lot of people as a result, to say nothing of the midwest cities that have all been seeing their populations drop since the mid 20th century.
If a city has enormous demand, build more supply. That's literally your only solution. Rent controls don't work, it's been tried and tried and tried again. Your one and only solution is to build more. It will take time and people will have to leave the city if they can't afford to stay there. That is normal and that is just what happens. Sydney will learn to cope. Cities don't infinitely grow, sometimes they shrink or stagnate while they figure themselves out.
Moranic t1_j4uic0m wrote
Actually the Netherlands is massively in favor of building more houses, but our industry (notably agriculture) is emitting too much ammonia which is damaging the Natura2000 areas too much. So in many places we legally cannot build anything as it would raise the already too high ammonia levels even higher.
This lockup has caused investors to buy tons of properties because they know demand will rise without supply increasing with it.
[deleted] t1_j4t5t7x wrote
[removed]
reddit_user13 t1_j4tpbc3 wrote
“Anywhere people want to live”
Test19s t1_j4s315t wrote
Even Vienna is getting expensive lately from what I hear. Hopefully there is a fix beyond either a market collapse, Communism, or mass forced suburbanization.
Assassin739 t1_j4stmd4 wrote
(There's not)
McLarenMP4-26 t1_j4vop8k wrote
What's going on in Italy?
PM_Me_British_Stuff t1_j4vpyz9 wrote
Immigration is decreasing and emmigration is increasing - an aging population plus an economy which is struggling, I think they've got the higheat debt to GDP ratio in Europe except for Greece. Uni students move upon graduating and don't really get replaced so they've got a bit of a brain drain too.
I'm by no means am expert but that's my basic understanding of the situation.
McLarenMP4-26 t1_j4vvp54 wrote
Fair enough. Thanks.
Villad_rock t1_j4ro55j wrote
and mountains
[deleted] t1_j4s6btz wrote
[removed]
reddit_user13 t1_j4tp7qi wrote
NP, I’ll live in a windmill. Or houseboat. Or a big wooden shoe.
somdude04 t1_j4tn0fi wrote
What if I'm willing to live in a windmill?
DeadAssociate t1_j4u65fg wrote
lol. you need to get a windmillers degree. the waiting list is loooong
massive_cock t1_j4uzvd9 wrote
Ya, moved here to live with Dutch girlfriend in 2021 and while I don't regret it at all, I'm increasingly bothered by the fact that we'll probably be stuck in this old, smallish, and outdated apartment for many years. It does a fine job, but there's no hope of upward movement.
ggtsu_00 t1_j4tnboe wrote
There's plenty of houses, but like the rest of the world experiencing a housing crisis, the homes are being quickly bought up by commercial real estate investment firms which are collectively working together to inflate prices.
RemcoProgrammer t1_j4uhcj5 wrote
Not really, there are also just by far not enough houses.
Dutch_Rayan t1_j4vnxao wrote
Last year the Dutch population grew 115.257 that is a medium city. We can't build a city like that every year.
Test19s t1_j4s3526 wrote
Anyone who got into Northern Europe before 2010 is as close to set for life as it gets, outside of the independently wealthy.
Structuurtuur t1_j4rsfre wrote
You are in for a rude awakening
AubyvsCDNU t1_j4rtj1u wrote
Double fuck
diMario t1_j4tz4dg wrote
You might want to look into the Dutch American Friendship Treaty. Basically, you can relocate to the Netherlands as an American citizen if you are prepared to jump through some hoops. You will also need about € 6000, 4500 of which are to remain in your possession in a business bank account.
Official Dutch IND (government immigation service) website.
Lawyers if you prefer them. They cost extra money, of course.
Rannasha t1_j4uwwus wrote
Immigrating to the Netherlands through DAFT isn't that trivial. The program is intended for people starting (or moving) a business or being otherwise self-employed. Not only do you need a businessplan and some money in your pockets to apply, but you can only derive income from your business / self-employment while you're in the NL with DAFT, so you can't just transition to regular employment a year down the road or so.
twistedbronll t1_j4uap42 wrote
Only downside is that you have to learn dutch....
diMario t1_j4uhjjk wrote
In the short term, you can get by with only English. In the long term, if you want to become a Dutch citizen, you'll have to pass a test which among other things also grades you on having a rudimentary grasp of Dutch.
Rest assured though that most asylum seekers who come here from a vastly different culture (Middle East, many Ukrainians, a smattering of African nations and yes, even some from China) manage to pass the test after taking a course so it is doable.
[deleted] t1_j4u3ktv wrote
[deleted]
WackyNephews t1_j4tq6wx wrote
Check out Utrecht. University town. Fantastic downtown. Great food. Canals are beautiful. Good hockey team.
Dutch_Rayan t1_j4vods1 wrote
Waiting list for affordable housing is around 11 years, in Utrecht
WackyNephews t1_j4y2ykd wrote
Looked at a couple places while I was there. Wasn’t that bad.
motherlover_1 t1_j4rw0d9 wrote
It was already banned before this change. It only creates more labels to put on people.
AubyvsCDNU t1_j4rwo8p wrote
Even better must've created more protections now I even more wanna move there.
motherlover_1 t1_j4ry446 wrote
Nope, doesn’t change anything at all. Purely symbolic. More than welcome to come here but this shouldn’t be the reason.
[deleted] t1_j4s32uh wrote
[deleted]
AubyvsCDNU t1_j4ry6b0 wrote
than what's the point of the bill.......
CompassionateCedar t1_j4s431i wrote
It was not in the constitution, now it is. It was however in national laws and pretty sure it’s a requirement by Europe.
The only change is that other laws that might lead to discrimination like this can be blocked on constitutional grounds if anyone tries to pass them.
[deleted] t1_j4sl0pq wrote
The Dutch constitution specifies in article 120 that courts cannot test for constitutionality of laws. Whether a bill aligns with the constitution is very much a political decision made by the Dutch Senate itself. Instead, courts can test whether laws align with international treaties we signed, such as EU law.
The motivation of this constitutional change is also symbolic. The constitution always specified that any discrimination was illegal, but there was support for changing the constitution because parties felt that if it was named explicitly in the constitution, this would be seen as a signal to the relevant communities that they are validated and the parliament values them.
CompassionateCedar t1_j4sptk1 wrote
Wait what? Then what is the point of a constitution if constitutionality of laws doesn’t apply
[deleted] t1_j4sxag3 wrote
The Dutch constitution still provides the legal basis for the monarchy, how the democracy is set up, how the Supreme Courts (we have like 4) are selected, and alike. As mentioned, one can’t invoke it in court, but the provisions of the Dutch constitution with respect to how the national institutions functions is followed.
Moreover, many articles in the Dutch constitution also go like “freedom of privacy must be maintained, unless otherwise specified in the law”. It is a constitution that provides a general framework for the national governance and much of Dutch legislation derives from it. For example, article 1 of the Constitution (which is now changed per this article) bans discrimination, which is then transposed into the General Law on Equal Treatment passed by parliament and the Senate.
Theoretically of course, with enough political will the constitution can be ignored, but there is no political will for that whatsoever.
AubyvsCDNU t1_j4t0rqi wrote
Wait so its. Now. In the Constitution now my disappointment is gone yay
[deleted] t1_j4t28bp wrote
Technically it was already in the Dutch constitution under “or any other form of discrimination”. Now they wrote it slightly more explicitly to basically signal to disabled people and LGBT folk they are important.
Practically, it doesn’t really change anything, but that was also never the goal
AubyvsCDNU t1_j4ry7av wrote
My disapointment
Elanapoeia t1_j4tysk6 wrote
Man, people are really bending themselves over backwards to find reasons to say being anti-discrimination based on sexuality or disability is bad
"Wow so you're now you have to let blind people drive busses?!"
"Wow so pedophilia and bestiality is legal now?!"
Everyone here, including yourselves, knows you're being dishonest. You're just virtue-signalling to bigots that you hate gay and disabled people and everyone can tell.
autotldr t1_j4sb7r7 wrote
This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 84%. (I'm a bot)
> Article 1 of the Constitution of the Kingdom of the Netherlands will be expanded to prohibit discrimination against someone because of a disability or sexual orientation.
> The proposal to expand the first article of the Constitution, which succinctly deals with equality, has received enough support in a vote in the Eerste Kamer, the Dutch Senate.
> The Dutch Constitution does already state that discrimination "On any other grounds whatsoever shall not be permitted." However, the explicit mention of sexual orientation is an important moment for the rights of people who identify with diverse genders and sexualities, said COC Nederland.
Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: vote^#1 Constitution^#2 Senate^#3 Article^#4 discrimination^#5
Plantemanden t1_j4sjrej wrote
> .... ban discrimination based on [...] disability.
Mr. Magoo just got his drivers license renewed.
vandemonianish t1_j4uffcw wrote
Yeah, good luck running a military while you’re at it.
tedderksen t1_j4u5ovq wrote
As a dutch person, this whole ordeal changes practically nothing and is just another waste of resources in a time of massive crises. The current government is dealing with massive trust issues and is so completely focussing on the wrong issues. The only reason this got trough is because coming March there are new elections and the current sitting parties are going to get decimated.
Inquerion t1_j4ud05i wrote
You mean 2023 provincial elections? They are more important than general elections in 2025? Interesting voting system you have.
So which party do you expect to win next election? Far right? Far left? Centre?
Any chance that a nazi/fascist party like German NDAP can win or get significant amount of votes?
Is democracy in the Netherlands threatened?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Democratic_Party_of_Germany
It seems that right wing party (Forum of Democracy) already won provincial elections in 2019. So nothing has changed because they were too weak to change the system or they are not really "right wing populist party "(like Wikipedia is saying)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Dutch_provincial_elections
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Dutch_provincial_elections
RemcoProgrammer t1_j4uhmqg wrote
The provincial elections are also indirect elections for the 1st chamber of Dutch parliament, which also votes on laws. So it's important.
Forum did well in the previous ones and then fell apart, like all parties that grow big too quickly they attracted too many nutters. In Forum's case doubly so because its core are complete conspiracy / neonazi nutters already.
This time "BBB" will win big, they are a conservative populist farmers interest protest party. The same thing will then happen to them.
These parties won't get actual power but the completely splintered parliament of ~20 parties makes the country almost ungovernable.
Dynious t1_j4ue9dm wrote
The current parties may lose a significant amount of seats but it'll not cause a complete change in the way the country is ran. In the Dutch system there are many smaller parties (no party ever has an outright majority) and the extremist parties are still unlikely to have enough combined seats. Being the biggest party really doesn't mean much if no one want to form a coalition with you.
Inquerion t1_j4ueqgg wrote
But what if all these minor nazi/populist/eurosceptic parties form a coalition like in Italy? I see that you have at least few of these parties.
RemcoProgrammer t1_j4uhpfp wrote
They'd fall apart within days, populists are only against things and don't have any actual practical policies they will agree on and continue to agree on.
Inquerion t1_j4uklts wrote
In Italy they won in September and still rule together. Their government seems quite stable...
They are far right, but not extreme far right though.
Elections are also coming in countries like Spain, where far right Vox is gaining power or Belgium where Vlaams Belang is leading in polls.
tedderksen t1_j4ukhpu wrote
No general elections are more important, however, all changes in the law will need to pass "De Eerste Kamer" which is elected in March. With the current projections, the sitting parties are going to lose a lot of votes here. Which will make passing laws much harder and set up the potential early collapse of the sitting government. According to the projections, it will be a significant win for center right-wing parties. "Forum of Democracy" is also one of the big losers in the coming elections the party has collapsed after its great success in 2019.
Inquerion t1_j4unvet wrote
Thank you for your in-depth explanations. I wish you good day.
hehehehuejje67 t1_j4ufo5r wrote
Love wins over haters
Far_Pianist2707 t1_j4sxjva wrote
Yo nice nice. I'm suddenly more inclined to visit lol
HaruhiSuzumiya69 t1_j4rgv8d wrote
I'd watch out, they might come in handy in the future.
[deleted] t1_j4riseh wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_j4rsfnr wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j4tcz7l wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j4tjsnc wrote
[removed]
Gommel_Nox t1_j4vlay3 wrote
I remember reading that many doorways in the Netherlands, specifically, Amsterdam, are deliberately as narrow as possible. Something to do with a really old law that determined property tax based on doorway size or something like that. I actually canceled my trip there, because I’m in a wheelchair and if I can’t get into the buildings, there’s no point dealing with air travel as a disabled person.
Have things changed in the Netherlands? Have they made more of an effort to make Amsterdam wheelchair accessible? I’d go, if so.
Dutch_Rayan t1_j4vp9ya wrote
Not the doorway but the width of the house.
Can look Amsterdam up on wheelmap.org shows how wheelchair friendly places are
Gommel_Nox t1_j4vpe5g wrote
Probably makes for some super narrow hallways, though. Right?
Dutch_Rayan t1_j4vutve wrote
Haven't really been a lot in Amsterdam. Especially not in old Amsterdam. I live further south.
veni_vidi_futereee t1_j4xfxu8 wrote
that moment when darwin's laws take a dive into the unknown
[deleted] t1_j4ycb70 wrote
[deleted]
WeezerMike t1_j4u4nx3 wrote
FUCK YEAH!
Mission_Nectarine_99 t1_j4usg7l wrote
Curious about the balance between banning discrimination on grounds of sexualising or disability whilst protecting religious freedom. Curious because my country is currently attempting to thread the needle on this to prevent discrimination but protecting religious expression. Seems almost impossible.
[deleted] t1_j4t4c88 wrote
[deleted]
ELDYLO t1_j4twmgv wrote
I kinda wanna go to my ancestral land now
tedderksen t1_j4u74ye wrote
If you're college educated and presumably living in America you're far better off than here. Low-paying jobs compared to cost of living, super high taxes. The Netherlands is only good if you have either no work or are higher class everything in between is fucked.
twistedbronll t1_j4ub002 wrote
Thats soo not true. If anything skilled workers are by far the most needed. Builders, welders, electricians, metalworkers. These 'uneducated' workers earn double my pay.
Inquerion t1_j4ufesi wrote
Not only in Netherlands. In most of Europe.
Higher education is not profitable nowadays. Except for few professions in Medicine, IT etc.
Skilled, "simple" workers are a lot more attractive to employers. They work a lot and rarely complain and are good at their specific job.
asphias t1_j4v33r3 wrote
Those higher taxes and general attitude pay for:
- public healthcare
- great infrastructure, public transport, cycling infrastructure, and even car based transport aint too bad
- livable neighborhoods everywhere, shops within walking/biking distance, nearby parks
- relatively little homelessness
- safe to go everywhere with relatively little risk of robbery, muggings, etc.
- low violence, even lower gun violence
- great cultural activities, museums, theater, music, etc. And cheap subscriptions to go there regularly
- cheap groceries of good quality and a diverse selection.
Please, you dont know how good you have it here
tedderksen t1_j4vhdpq wrote
As I stated above it's good for people who don't have a job aka you won't have to sleep on the street. Regarding all the other things these are getting rapidly more expensive every year. We currently have 900.000 adults between 20-35 living with their parents because houses are too expensive. That's more than 30% of people in that age group, so as a working college-educated adult it's significantly harder to get some basic necessities. Overall your points are valid if you compare it to the Netherlands 10 years ago. But due to rapid population aging the current wellfare state is going to be unsustainable in the near future.
ELDYLO t1_j4u79i8 wrote
Not American and I didn’t mean to stay. Just to visit my relatives that are still there. But thanks for the advice.
[deleted] t1_j4vissv wrote
[deleted]
tedderksen t1_j4zlz6m wrote
I've lived here all my life you have no idea how quickly things are turning to shit. 17% inflation in 1 year is no joke (highest in Europe), record high immigration combined with dumb co2 laws which stop construction on houses. All issues you point out are irrelevant racism is everywhere. And as I said before if you're at the bottom of the barrel without a job the Netherlands is 1000x better for sure as it's a socialist country. But if you work hard there are way more opportunities for high-paying jobs in America. At the end of the day, I'd rather pay my own bills than someone else their bills. It won't be long before the government here will have a say if you put a piece of meat on your plate or how much you drive with your car. You can feel the shift towards CCP-style control in everyone's life.
[deleted] t1_j4ud9jm wrote
ga wakker, ga failliet
/s
LOUDNOISES11 t1_j4sphon wrote
I'm curious about the disability part.
What if a blind man wants to be a bus driver? Where is the line here?
I'm sure the Dutch know what they're doing, I'm just curious about the wording and stuff.
VictorVogel t1_j4sv805 wrote
Anyone "shall be treated equally in equal circumstance". Discrimitating on the basis of not being able to obtain a license is perfectly fine.
Dante-Grimm t1_j4u2qg5 wrote
Discrimination is generally baseless mistreatment or denial of opportunities due to gender, race, ethnicity, etc. Having valid reasons to decline a job application due to the above (choosing not to hire a male model for Victoria's Secret, for example) is not discrimination. So a blind Dutchman would likely find it just as difficult to obtain a driver's license there as in the U.S.
[deleted] t1_j4tkaqg wrote
[deleted]
WoollyMittens t1_j4tr9qe wrote
If they do something illegal that is up to a judge, not up to an employer.
[deleted] t1_j4v90d1 wrote
[removed]
bewarethetreebadger t1_j4r8i3u wrote
Awfully late, but ok.
GenericUsername2056 t1_j4rkumn wrote
It was covered since the inception of the Dutch constitution. It was simply not explicitely stated until now.
bewarethetreebadger t1_j4rla5z wrote
That’s good.
[deleted] t1_j4rkt8w wrote
The Dutch constitution banned this type of discrimination for a long time now under the clause “discrimination because of (…) any reason is not allowed”. They just wrote it more explicitly to refer to disabilities and such, but it practically changes nothing
bewarethetreebadger t1_j4rl96z wrote
Sometimes you gotta be specific.
[deleted] t1_j4rlryf wrote
I guess, sure. That said, it changes nothing practically because it was always impossible to even cite the Dutch constitution in case in the first place. After all, the Dutch constitution forbids judges from ruling on the basis of the Dutch constitution.
persianbrothel t1_j4umzqb wrote
it avoids potential future shenanigans
[deleted] t1_j4une28 wrote
Again, not really. It was always implicitly in the Dutch constitution. Moreover, judges cannot test legislation for constitutionality anyway. Whether legislation aligns with the Dutch constitution is mostly a political decision.
The reason given for this change is to give more explicit support as a symbol lto LGBT and disabled people. From the beginning, it was meant to be a symbolic change.
persianbrothel t1_j4uo2xq wrote
>It was always implicitly in the Dutch constitution
>Whether legislation aligns with the Dutch constitution is mostly a political decision
so explicit wording eliminates any room for bad faith interpretations in the future - no matter how slim that possibility may be.
it's a more symbolic decision than a practical one - but it does eliminate interpretation.
[deleted] t1_j4uoyxl wrote
> so explicit wording eliminates any room for bad faith interpretations in the future - no matter how slim that possibility may be.
Again, no. The Dutch constitution literally specifies “discrimination under any ground is not allowed”. Unless disability or sexual orientation does not fall under “any ground”, it does nothing to change anything.
And again, the Dutch constitution is literally designed to ensure that constitutionality of legislation cannot be tested in court. With enough political will, the senate and parliament can contradict the constitution. By design, politicians decide whether legislation aligns with the constitution. And if it doesn’t, legislation cannot be thrown out by courts.
If that political will exists, they can obviously just change the constitution again (and the constitution gets changed frequently).
And anyway, international treaties signed take precedence over the Dutch constitution - again, by design.
PreachTheWordOfGeoff t1_j4rj23v wrote
Now if they could just get the EU to unban the use of electric personal mobility devices that many handicapped people need to get around town. I guess right now they just fly through the air magically?
FabulouslyFrantic t1_j4rvazt wrote
We need context for this - because I am quite incredulous of the EU unanimously banning monility scooters when they can't even agree on major issues like border control, marriage rights and pricing standards.
And I'm an EU citizen and have seen people on mobility aides.
[deleted] t1_j5y49m0 wrote
[removed]
StationOost t1_j4uzm97 wrote
It's not banned. Apart from that, the EU doesn't need unanimity on everything. Apart from that, they do agree on major issues like border control, marriage rights and pricing standards. No, not everyone, but that is not necessary for policy.
FFX13NL t1_j4rkega wrote
What?
greentoiletpaper t1_j4rz31e wrote
https://swov.nl/en/fact-sheet/light-electric-vehicles-levs
https://www.rdw.nl/over-rdw/actueel/dossiers/bijzondere-bromfietsen
> See Table 2 for an overview of the vehicles that are presently allowed on Dutch roads [2]. Hoverboards, electric skateboards or monowheels are examples of vehicles not allowed on public roads or pavements.
justbecauseyoumademe t1_j4rse1i wrote
You want to provode some context
ImDoeTho t1_j4s1lux wrote
Why do you jump from issue to issue, outraged over something else the second something gets fixed.
A whiney little bitch is what you are.
Dutch_Rayan t1_j4vq603 wrote
You can get a scootmobiel, special bike, wheelchair or car. Some type of electrical scooters are already legal, but most companies don't want to go through the procedure to get their products approved, so not government fault but companies.
[deleted] t1_j4r6qf6 wrote
[deleted]
johnbarnshack t1_j4rgvew wrote
That would make sense if the current government was behind this, but the bill was submitted in 2010 by PvdA, GL, and D66.
EagleSzz t1_j4rjv4i wrote
you don't really understand how our parliamentary system works, do you?
ImDoeTho t1_j4s1er3 wrote
Wtf are you even on about
arthoer t1_j4t7ul4 wrote
Drama queen
ikzeidegek t1_j4s4wz1 wrote
"Discriminatie op basis van godsdienst, levensovertuiging, politieke gezindheid, ras, geslacht, of op welke andere grond dan ook, is verboden."
It kind of is there already no?