Corona law: criticism from experts (and from protesters further on)

His colleague professor Geerten Bogaard also emphasized the importance of MPs and councilors at municipal level. “It must be clear that it is not just a press conference of the executive power,” he referred to Rutte and De Jonge who regularly perform on stage together. “The people’s representatives must take their part.”

Emergency law specialist Adriaan Wierenga later stated in the hearing that there are actually two flavors for ‘The Hague’. “The first option is to simply stop the current corona measures. But if you want to continue, then this law has to be introduced.”

He called the current construction with emergency regulations “the most undesirable in many respects”. Fundamental rights (for example, go where you want, with as many people as you want) should only be curtailed briefly with emergency regulations, says Wierenga. “And only in life-threatening situations.”

Bumped

The government also thinks that emergency regulations are not a good means. Soon after the outbreak of the corona crisis, doubts arose about legal sustainability and limited democratic control. At the end of April, two months after the first infection in the Netherlands, it was announced that an emergency law was in the works. In the meantime, there is a lot bickering about.

Wierenga and his colleague Jan Brouwer, professor of legal science, were both particularly critical of a particular article from the bill, 58 S, also known as the Safety Net Provision. “This gives carte blanche to the minister,” said Brouwer.

According to the article, the government may intervene further “if a circumstance arises for which the measures applicable under this chapter are not sufficient”. That is going too far because it has not been established which fundamental rights can be curtailed and to what extent, the two experts said.

Mandatory moon suit

The law is too broadly formulated at all, Brouwer stated. For example, the cabinet can make rules about “exercising professions” or “hygiene measures”, but the legal text is not more specific than that. “If you think that too much could be covered, such as a mandatory moon suit, then you should make that more precise,” he tipped the MPs.

–