Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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?

134

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.

201

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.

2

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.

54

wozzpozz t1_j4uvy3x wrote

Fuck, I loved your last paragraph.

17

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.

6

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.

−4

ipel4 t1_j4vgvkf wrote

So giving examples is the same as not doing so?

3

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?

−4

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.

2

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!"?

1

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.

1

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?

1

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."

2

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.

−3

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.

32

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!

14

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.

−4

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

8

RemcoProgrammer t1_j4uh2o2 wrote

There is nothing in law that says that the 1st chamber does that though.

1

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.

−5

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.

6

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.

0

twistedbronll t1_j4vg66n wrote

Saying 'this changes nothing' is simply wrong

5

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.

0

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.

2

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.

1

________________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.

9

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.

1

dunker_- t1_j4u3yxw wrote

Absolutely. Just virtue signalling and actually weakening the whole point. It should just read 'on any ground', period.

−3

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.

6

dunker_- t1_j4vhell wrote

Well, as you can read, that is what it says already now: "op welke andere grond dan ook."

1

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?

2

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.

0