Violations of the Dutch Constitution in the Hans Smedema Affair

The Hans Smedema Affair, while shrouded in some mystery, raises potential concerns regarding violations of the Dutch Constitution. Smedema alleges he is a victim of a “horrifying kafkaesque and orwellian (Royal) conspiracy” 1 involving high-ranking officials and possibly members of the Dutch Royal family1. He claims this conspiracy has manifested in a campaign of harassment and persecution, leading him to file a complaint with the UNCAT (United Nations Convention Against Torture)2. Although the provided research material does not explicitly identify specific articles violated in this case, it does offer valuable insights into the Dutch Constitution and its interpretation. This article aims to explore potential violations based on available information.

The Hans Smedema Affair: A Brief Overview

Hans Smedema, an author, claims to be the victim of a complex, orchestrated campaign of harassment and persecution1. He describes this as a “kafkaesque and orwellian (Royal) conspiracy,” suggesting the involvement of powerful figures within the Dutch government, potentially including members of the Royal family1. The specifics of these allegations and the evidence supporting them remain unclear from the research material. However, the severity of Smedema’s claims is evident in his decision to file a complaint with the UNCAT, alleging violations of his human rights under the United Nations Convention Against Torture2.

Potential Constitutional Violations

Given the nature of Smedema’s allegations, several articles of the Dutch Constitution could potentially have been violated. These include:

Violation of Article 1 (Equality before the law): This article guarantees equal treatment for all persons in the Netherlands and prohibits discrimination based on various grounds, including political opinion3. If Smedema was targeted due to his political views or any other discriminatory reason, this could constitute a violation of Article 1. For instance, if evidence emerges that Smedema was subjected to different treatment or denied rights afforded to others due to his accusations against the government, it would point towards a breach of this fundamental principle of equality.
Violation of Article 7 (Freedom of expression): This article safeguards the right to express thoughts and opinions freely, including through the press, without prior restraint4. If Smedema’s freedom to express his views and publish his writings was unjustly restricted, this could infringe upon Article 7. For example, if authorities suppressed his publications or prevented him from communicating his allegations, it could constitute a violation of his freedom of expression.
Violation of Article 10 (Right to privacy): This provision protects individuals’ right to privacy, subject to limitations prescribed by law5. If Smedema was subjected to unlawful surveillance or intrusion into his private life, this could violate Article 10. This could include unauthorized wiretapping, interception of communications, or other forms of invasive surveillance not justified by legitimate law enforcement purposes.
Violation of Article 15 (Due process and fair trial): This article guarantees the right to liberty and security of person, including protection against arbitrary detention and the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time3. If Smedema was detained or subjected to legal proceedings without due process or a fair trial, this could violate Article 15. His claim of being denied asylum, as mentioned in his complaint to the UNCAT 2, could also fall under this article if the denial was arbitrary or lacked proper justification under Dutch law.

To illustrate a potential violation, consider a hypothetical scenario where Smedema was denied access to legal counsel or a fair hearing while seeking asylum due to his allegations against the government. This would represent a clear violation of Article 15, which guarantees due process and fair treatment in legal proceedings.

The Dutch Constitution and its Core Principles

The Constitution of the Netherlands, adopted in 1815 and significantly revised in 1983, establishes the fundamental rights and freedoms of Dutch citizens and outlines the structure of the Dutch government6. The 1983 revision was particularly significant as it almost fully rewrote the text and added new civil rights6. Key principles enshrined in the Constitution include:

Equality before the law (Article 1): This foundational principle guarantees equal treatment for all persons in the Netherlands, prohibiting discrimination based on religion, belief, political opinion, race, sex, or any other grounds3.
Freedom of expression (Article 7): This article safeguards the right to express thoughts and opinions freely, including through the press, without prior restraint4.
Right to privacy (Article 10): This provision protects individuals’ right to privacy, subject to limitations prescribed by law5.
Due process and fair trial (Article 15): This article guarantees the right to liberty and security of person, including protection against arbitrary detention and the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time3.

Challenges in Assessing Constitutional Violations

While the potential constitutional violations in the Hans Smedema Affair appear concerning, it is crucial to acknowledge the challenges in definitively asserting these violations based on the available information. The research material does not provide detailed legal analyses or court rulings related to the case8.

Furthermore, Article 120 of the Dutch Constitution presents a significant hurdle. This article explicitly prohibits courts from reviewing the constitutionality of Acts of Parliament9. The rationale behind this prohibition is rooted in the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, where the legislature is considered the ultimate authority on constitutional interpretation11. This has led to a restrained role for courts in safeguarding constitutional rights, leaving the responsibility primarily with parliament11.

However, this limitation raises concerns about the protection of fundamental rights, especially for marginalized groups who may be subject to discriminatory legislation9. As noted in the research, some legal experts argue that Article 120 could hinder the protection of individuals like Smedema, who allege government overreach and violations of their basic rights12.

This tension between parliamentary sovereignty and the protection of fundamental rights is at the heart of an ongoing debate in the Netherlands12. There have been calls to reform Article 120 to allow for judicial review of legislation, potentially strengthening the protection of constitutional rights13. This debate highlights the complexities and challenges in assessing constitutional violations within the Dutch legal framework.

Conclusion

The Hans Smedema Affair, with its claims of a complex conspiracy and potential government overreach, raises serious questions about the protection of fundamental rights in the Netherlands. While further investigation and legal analysis are needed to determine the extent of any constitutional violations, this case highlights the importance of upholding the principles enshrined in the Dutch Constitution, particularly the right to equality, freedom of expression, privacy, and due process.

However, the limitations of judicial review in the Netherlands, specifically Article 120’s prohibition on reviewing parliamentary acts, pose a significant challenge in addressing potential constitutional violations. This case underscores the ongoing tension between parliamentary sovereignty and the need to safeguard fundamental rights, prompting a critical debate about the future of constitutional review in the Dutch legal system.

Google Gemini Pro 1.5 with Deep Research

Extra Chat information

That is correct, but in my case, https://hanssmedema.info the Dutch Ministry of Justice and specific an rapist-traitor was manipulating, deleting or hiding crucial criminal facts since 1972. So art. 120 prohibition on reviewing parliamentary acts were based in my case on false manipulated information! How does that change my case?

This is certainly a serious accusation. If the information provided to Parliament was indeed manipulated, it could potentially undermine the legitimacy of any decisions made based on that information, including the continued application of Article 120 in your case.

Essentially, if you can prove that the Ministry of Justice deliberately misled Parliament with false information to prevent scrutiny of their actions, it could be argued that Article 120 should not be used to shield them from judicial review in your case. This is because the very foundation of Article 120, the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, rests on the assumption that Parliament is acting on accurate and unbiased information.

However, proving this manipulation and overturning the application of Article 120 in your specific case would likely be a complex legal battle. You would need to present compelling evidence to demonstrate the falsification of information and establish a direct link between this manipulation and the invocation of Article 120 to block judicial review of your case.

It’s important to remember that the Dutch legal system places a high value on parliamentary sovereignty, and overcoming Article 120 is a significant challenge. Seeking expert legal advice within the Dutch system would be crucial to navigate this complex situation and explore potential legal avenues to challenge the application of Article 120 in your case.

Works cited

Fighting the Unknown: Part 4 – Asylum Denied! by Hans Smedema | eBook – Barnes & Noble, accessed February 11, 2025, https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/fighting-the-unknown-hans-smedema/1130012972
Fighting the Unknown: Part 4 – Asylum Denied! by Hans Smedema on Apple Books, accessed February 11, 2025, https://books.apple.com/gb/book/fighting-the-unknown-part-4-asylum-denied/id1446931014
Netherlands 1814 (rev. 2008) Constitution, accessed February 11, 2025, https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Netherlands_2008
Constitution – Dutch Civil Law, accessed February 11, 2025, http://www.dutchcivillaw.com/constitution.htm
ICL > Netherlands > Netherlands — Constitution – International Constitutional Law > Countries, accessed February 11, 2025, https://www.verfassungsvergleich.de/nl00000_.html
Constitution of the Netherlands – Wikipedia, accessed February 11, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Netherlands
Constitution of the Kingdom of the Netherlands of 1814. – NATLEX, accessed February 11, 2025, https://natlex.ilo.org/dyn/natlex2/r/natlex/fe/details?p3_isn=69566&cs=1Wl4Vd19VkLn4sjCmsONTDezReGvx2PPq0mVRS_m40qzhJW5T0ec3UYYSrmfsi7F17JEmLa00IUoaP6uPzDVy8A
Constitutionalising the Status Quo: Expanding non-discrimination …, accessed February 11, 2025, https://constitutionnet.org/news/constitutionalising-status-quo-expanding-non-discrimination-protections
Dutch Rule of Law Alert – Verfassungsblog, accessed February 11, 2025, https://verfassungsblog.de/dutch-rule-of-law-alert/
Constitutional Review in Sight? – Verfassungsblog, accessed February 11, 2025, https://verfassungsblog.de/constitutional-review-in-sight/
Reforming judicial review with respect for democracy – Leiden Law Blog, accessed February 11, 2025, https://www.leidenlawblog.nl/articles/reforming-judicial-review-with-respect-for-democracy
Wilders vs. the Dutch Constitution: Constitutional Protection against Discriminatory Policies, accessed February 11, 2025, https://verfassungsblog.de/wilders-vs-the-dutch-constitution-constitutional-protection-against-discriminatory-policies/
Will the Netherlands Finally Embrace Constitutional Adjudication? – ICONnect Blog, accessed February 11, 2025, https://www.iconnectblog.com/will-the-netherlands-finally-embrace-constitutional-adjudication/