twistedbronll

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

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