Update Feb. 6, 2022, 6:30 p.m:
This article contains a correction to the original article published below.
Gideon van Meijeren's undercover film action at the GGD was based on a law introduced on Jan. 1, 2020, by the terror cabinet Mark Rutte and Hugo de Jonge. This law had a validity date of Feb. 5, 2022. That is, the law passed its expiration date yesterday!
Whereas the FvD, through the undercover film action (whether staged or not) drew all attention to the GGD's bad practices, the FvD should have taken that law off the table precisely because of the end date, yesterday, Saturday, Feb. 5, 2022.
The undercover action is thus pure distraction toward the GGD abuses on a temporary law, while the law was actually so covertly tacitly accepted as valid and the FvD tacitly accepted the exclusion of parental decision regarding vaccination with it. If you look on the left you see nothing on the right.
Last week I wrote an article about that, but in it I forgot to show the law mentioned. Herewith(source):
In fact, the law would thus no longer be in force and would have to go through the second chamber again. By presenting the law as accepted in the undercover video and thus not mentioning the end date, the FvD has misled you not just a little, but massively.
They did that before, by the way, as evidenced by this response under my previous article:
"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it yourself," Vladimir Lenin already knew, and it looks more and more like (as much as I would like to see the opposite) that the FvD is supposed to offer you the appearance of opposition, but actually lends a hand to power through make-believe criticism that distracts you from where the real magic trick is taking place.
"Yes, but Vrijland, then surely this undercover film action by the FvD is just right to prevent the law from being passed again?", I hear you thinking. Well no, because the FvD focuses on the way the law is put into practice (wrong questions, inducement and "then you should just say you ate something wrong"), while the focus should be: such a law should never have been passed and should never be passed again.
In the video, Van Meijeren mentions the law as self-evident and accepted and does not at all point out its temporality nor the end date. In addition, this (as described by Cucciolo above) probably accelerates the consideration of a replacement law.
But above all, the FvD had long ago, and still must, renounce its allegiance to the king and point out to its followers that the king signs laws by the grace of God; by which all laws are by definition invalid, because that grace has never been proven (see this commentary and this commentary).
Update 15:18
Some readers point out that this law has supposedly been in place since 1995. I cannot confirm that, because it does not really appear conclusively anywhere on any government website. If it were true, the subversion of parental authority would have been in effect for much longer. If true, it could be concluded that the FvD's action might have been useful after all. However, I cannot find the evidence, but I could be wrong.
That does not take away, however, the fact that nothing will change through discussion in the second chamber, but only and only by signaling to the people the false authority of the crown, presented by the king (the actual signer of the laws).
Source link entries: maxius.com, laws.government.com
join and support
2 Comments
And still here too: any law is invalid when you realize that the law was signed by the king by the grace of God and that signature is invalid because the grace of God has never been proven.
Legislative information for Article 450
Summary of changes
Effective date
01-01-1995 New 29-09-1994
https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0002656/2021-01-01/0/Boek1/Titeldeel20/Artikel450/informatie#tab-wijzigingenoverzicht