On Monday, a lawsuit was filed in the court of Amsterdam regarding the mandatory mouth caps in the capital. According to the plaintiffs, it should be withdrawn because of violations of the Constitution. According to the lawyers of the security region, if there is a breach of the Constitution, it is only limited.
The lawyers of the Amsterdam-Amstelland Safety Region also point out that the introduction of the mouth masking obligation fits in seamlessly with the measures that have already been taken against the fight against the corona virus on the basis of an emergency regulation.
In parts of the city, a mouth cap is mandatory in Amsterdam. In busy places such as the Kalverstraat, Albert Cuypmarkt and the Red Light District, people have to wear face masks. The obligation also applies in parts of Rotterdam.
The initiator of the summary proceedings, Ab Gietelink, resident and cultural entrepreneur in the Amsterdam Red Light District and supported by the Virus Waarheid foundation, counter the need for a face mask. And according to them, that necessity is necessary if you want to limit fundamental rights.
The latter feel supported by law experts who previously said to NU.nl, among others, that the duty to mask the mouth is in violation of Article 10 of the Constitution, the right to respect for privacy.
Lawyer Jeroen Pols of Virus Truth said in court on Monday that “hospitals and morgues are empty” to substantiate that there is no question of any necessity. In addition, the effectiveness of mouth masks has not been demonstrated, according to him.
Duty of masks must lead to change
Lawyer Jessey Liauw-A-Joe countered this on behalf of the safety region that the duty to mask masks is partly a reason to bring about a change in behavior in people. The results of this research are expected at the end of August.
Liauw-A-Joe added that the government has said that there is an understanding that there is a local need to be able to experiment with measures such as a duty to mask. Especially in places where sufficient distance cannot be kept from each other.
“In this very exceptional situation, which is accompanied by many questions, there is a suspicion that a mandatory mask will lead to a change in behavior,” said the lawyer. “That is not certain, but what they (Municipality of Amsterdam, ed.) Do know is that other measures do not lead to behavioral change.”
In view of the emergency situation, which, according to the security region, is still there, a masking obligation on the basis of an emergency ordinance could therefore be introduced.
The court will rule on Wednesday afternoon.
–
