Our prime minister just had a complete meltdown on life television complaining about it, and threatened to enforce new emergency laws in which even longer curfues will be shoved down our throat.
On the other hand, this is a huge redpill for the normies!
Well, she also said a couple of other things, that she did not wanted to touch in the suit last year.
The lynch pin is the idea that The State has leeway to make policy.
The question then becomes: when is the judicial system going to consider proportionality and subsidiarity of any policy?
Apparently, she was not yet ready to judge such a thing, and even now, she did not really wanted to touch it. However, she signaled a change in attitude.
She totally shredded to bits the support for a curfew based on emergency powers in ACUTE emergency situation.
She also noted that there are basically 3 options the State can choose from to impose a curfew and it to be quite strange the State choose the least fitting (to put it mildly)
And she noted how the State actually argued that none of the already in place measures is helping.
She also did not eat up all the bullshit the State was feeding her and it clearly shows a turning of the sentiment in The Hague. They were signalling.
To those not familiar with Dutch legal process: consider the The Hague judge something akin to the DC court.
The case concerned a fast track case to obtain injunction against an egregious wrong.
The State can appeal of course, and I hope they would and request an ultra expedited fast track appeal, because then, for the first time, we go a little further up the chain.
Then other issues pertaining to the case, as the support for the temporary measures can be challenged.