1. What is the obligation people have regarding freedom of speech that you are referring too? Is that freedom different between the regular public and members of a legislative body? I think it's stricter in Europe. In France for example, laws prevent Muslim women from wearing a hijab. That is unconstitutional in America as it denies expression and is a form of free speech. Again in France, you cannot say good things about the Nazis or support a denial position of the Holocaust. I believe you have similar rules against hate speech in the Netherlands. Those rules would be unconstitutional in America as well. The Constitution in America and the Supreme Court have consistently rules in favor of as free speech as possible other than things like yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire and causing a panic or an immediate incitement to riot.
Hi Alan,
While it would take the thread too far off topic to fully explain, it is founded in our multi-cultural society, and in our Constitution, Article 7, sections 1, 2, and 3. which basically say the same thing (just made explicit for different types of media):
For expression of thoughts and feelings, nobody needs prior permission for its content, except for everybody's personal responsibilities according to the law. Advertisements are not covered by this article.
It means that citizens can express themselves freely, without prior required permission, but not e.g. incite violence, or discrimination, etc., or cause others to violate the laws. If people do cross the line, then there is a possibility to have a legal court pass judgment and sentence violators. Although politicians have more freedom in parliament, they can be held accountable (including sentencing in court) for what's said in public, because the law also applies to politicians.
Besides the Dutch constitution (and jurisprudence), free speech is protected by European law (human rights and fundamental freedoms act, article 10, section 1.). That act is seen as ’
standards to which a State must conform if it is to deserve the name of democracy’. Note the word 'deserve', it requires an active maintenance and safeguards. Freedom of speech/expression:
’Holds a prominent place in a democratic society. Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential functions of a democratic society and one of the basic conditions for its progress and for the development of every man and woman’ .
Excesses, which are certainly not the norm in my country, like bans on wearing a hijab, niqab or burka, are not a big issue in my country, but they can lead to refusal for entry and police asking for identification (for which a sound reason must be provided, in order to prevent harassment, discrimination, or ethnic profiling) for security reasons. Personnel in Government institutions who come into contact with the general public are not allowed to visibly wear such (e.g. religious) artifacts or extreme clothing, because the government is neutral, and must remain accessible without generating hesitation or obstruction.
2. Appointments are not made on the basis of political beliefs but rather constitutional beliefs which may or may not reflect the candidates particular party. They may not be in a party anyway. Of course, selection is often wrong because the justices turn out to change their minds. How do the Dutch assure selection is not effected by what a person believes? It seems like you're asking too much from politicians.
Judges are not politicians. All Judges are elected for life (to prevent the possibility of getting fired to affect their judgment). They are elected by a commitee that's made up mostly from a broad selection of politicians (across the spectrum). And even the politicians that form the Parliament, must swear or declare that they will execute their task without any outside 'influence'. Members of parliament are installed as representatives of the people (!), all of them, not only the constituents who voted for them. Obviously, representatives have personal beliefs and preferences, so it takes more to safeguard against favoritism and personal services. There is a number of things that are done to promote that impartiality. Donations to political parties are limited, they get a budget for running campaigns, so everyone gets a fair chance. There are more than two parties (to make sure that a bi-partisan situation like in the USA is prevented). In fact, after the recent elections, there are
13 parties (with different political ideologies) that raised enough votes for one or more seats in parliament. We are currently in the process of creating a coalition government, which (given this term's results) requires at least 4 of the largest parties to agree on the agenda with priorities for the next 4 years, which automatically means a wide spectrum of views that will result in new laws that have support from a larger part of electorate.
3. Congress has decided in law that immigration should not be based on national origin. But I don't think that limits the Presidents right to block certain immigrants in case of emergency.
Trump, not by winning the majority of support by debate in Congress and the Senate, tries to force Executive orders down the throat of the legal system. This will result in Legal scrutiny taking place (which delays implementation, and provides opposition with time and tools to object), with existing law as their guidelines.
Trump himself, Tweeted that he was targeting specific countries, and the courts included that in their verdict. He also failed to show the relevance for singling out these specific countries, also given that Countries/governments with a proven terrorism track record were not included.
The Tweeting, and unjustified selection of countries, were yet again stupid moves with which he shot himself in the foot, so the appeals failed to resurrect the watered down version of his initial Muslim ban. He'll now have to go to the Supreme court to plead his case. But discrimination, by religion, or country of birth, is not allowed, so he doesn't have much chance especially because the 90 days have passed.
The only upside for Trump is that he now has ammunition to blame others (never himself but always others), so-called judges, the media, for not being able and deliver on his warped promises.
For example, you wouldn't expect German or Japanese Nationals to be allowed to enter or immigrate to the US during WWII. As one Supreme Court Justice once stated, "The US Constitution isn't a suicide pact." We have a right to protect ourselves.
Nobody objects to proper vetting, but discrimination is something totally different. You have Steve Bannon to thank for that flawed attempt to ban Muslims, and Trump's actions only made matters worse, as usual.
Cheers,
Bart
