>

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.
"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? >

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. >


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. >

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. >

Fuck, I loved your last paragraph. >

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. >

I'm thinking of moving to the netherlands >

We don't have any houses fam >

like the entirety of Europe right now it seems aha
(except Italy?) >

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... >

Plenty of US states don’t have insane housing prices. >

People move there when none of the higher ranking states are available. >

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. >

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... >

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. >

Ah OK, I was talking about the Netherlands in particular, sorry for the confusion. >

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 >


.... ban discrimination based on [...] disability.     

Mr. Magoo just got his drivers license renewed. >

Yeah, good luck running a military while you’re at it. >

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. >

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. >

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. >

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. >

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. >

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. >

Yo nice nice. I'm suddenly more inclined to visit lol >

Love wins over haters >

I'd watch out, they might come in handy in the future. >

FUCK YEAH! >

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. >

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. >

The Dutch constitution already disallows any form of discrimination. This is a another pointless amendment to mask the utter failure of the current government to solve any of the many crises the country is having. >

That would make sense if the current government was behind this, but the bill was submitted in 2010 by PvdA, GL, and D66. >

The ruling parties have voted against it for 10 years, and they only changed their tune when trust in the government was falling. It can be celebrated as their win now, but nothing actually changed. >

A constitutional change requires a majority in two parliaments and two senates, with the second majority being 2/3rd. By definition, the ruling parties have had to approve this for years now, or this change would have never happened. >

Could you discriminate against someone who was guilty of incest, pedophilia or beastiality?

who you fall in love with, should never be a reason to be excluded, >

If they do something illegal that is up to a judge, not up to an employer. >

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. >

Not the doorway but the width of the house.
Can look Amsterdam up on wheelmap.org shows how wheelchair friendly places are >

Probably makes for some super narrow hallways, though. Right? >

Haven't really been a lot in Amsterdam. Especially not in old Amsterdam. I live further south. >

that moment when darwin's laws take a dive into the unknown >

I'm sure certain people will be mad at this. >

Awfully late, but ok. >

It was covered since the inception of the Dutch constitution. It was simply not explicitely stated until now. >

That’s good. >

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? >

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. >

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. >

I kinda wanna go to my ancestral land now >

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.