Should it be as a politician a requirement not to have a criminal journal to be eligible?

No.This is a political means in many countries to get rid of dissidents. How many Russians who were in the opposition have not been defused with a criminal journal? The fact that I do not want a pedophile in the government is less important in this respect than the potential power that the government can have with it.


I think that everyone, irrespective of his background, should have the right to choose and stand for election.In addition, you may want to be eligible to do so with the ‘ injustice ‘ that you have been inflicted on and you want to prevent others from coming over.

If it is good you have already been punished and you have been fascinated by your (mis) deed.

The great thing about democracy is precisely that voters can decide for themselves how much they want it to count on their choice.Ghandi and Mandela were elected in spite of their criminal journal. Hitler also, by the way.

It is perhaps good to mention that the most influential politicians in the Netherlands are not elected by the electorate at all, but are appointed by the second chamber (ministers and secretaries of State), by provincial States ( members of the first chamber, who, incidentally, by an election, and the deputies), by the City Council (councillor and in practice also the mayor) or By the Government (commissioners of the King).Up to twenty years ago, the deputies and councillor were elected representatives of the people, but this was abolished.And by our system that is voted on lists, it is theoretically possible that people without a single voice become a second-member, a member of the council or a councillor. In all these bodies there are at least members who have fewer or even fewer votes than non-elected ones.

For me, the rule of law goes before everything.I know that in a sense we are dealing with class justice in the Netherlands, too. Not so much because judges would not be independent enough and consciously would favour their own class, but by two other processes. The first is that people with money and knowledge of the system can afford a much better defense. The second is that judges are people and must take into account the personal circumstances of the accused. Whether and to what extent a person is guilty (mitigating circumstances, change) and the determination of the penalty. And if you can move better into the world of a suspect, it’s easier to understand it.

However, I wouldn’t know how to solve that problem.And that never goes at all. We need judges to settle our conflicts and punish crime and violations. And judges are people and people make mistakes. In multiple chambers, that risk is already a lot smaller, but you cannot have any offence dealt with by three judges. That is far too expensive and far too labor intensive.

In A rule of law you also need criminal law.It used to be a general premise that a punishment would not lead to additional negative measures if the judge or legislator had not expressly determined that.

In principle, the punishment is the measure imposed by society, and if you have undergone it, then you will hear that you can simply be part of society.The exclusion of passive electoral rights is a very onerous measure which I can, however, in the matter of repeated offences and repeated serious misdemeanor, but not retroactive and not without the legislator and the judge have come too recently.

Remember that some serious and disruptive social misdetions, the white collar criminality with cartel formation, tax evasion, tax avoidance, fraud, deception and corruption, are very difficult to prove and in some Cases (tax avoidance, certain forms of deception) are not even punishable.Those people go free, while someone who has been convicted of a relatively light offence could not be a people’s representative, if ‘ no criminal journal ‘ were to become a condition.

There are functions in the public administration, which, in my own case, may require stricter requirements.People responsible for enforcing regulation and public order (mayors, ministers of Justice, Security, Home affairs), for financial transactions (councillor, Deputy and ministers for Spatial planning etc. and important appointments (Ministers, Commissioners of the King) should be judged more sharply on their past and on conflicts of interest than representatives of the people. But there too, such a general rule, not a criminal journal, goes too far.


Here what leaders who would never have come to power, if they had not previously been condemned or should have been detained:

(Nelson Mandela, 1918 -2013, President of South Africa)

(Mahatma Gandhi, 1869 -1948, President of the Indian National Congress)

(Wim Schemerhorn, 1894 -1977, Prime Minister of the first Dutch cabinet since the Second World War)

No easier way to get rid of a troublesome politician, by banning it from taking part, by waving the law.

Is Gert-Jan Segers anything too troublesome?

In his bicycle shed, the police suddenly find a hemp nursery. You also irritate yourself to that grin of Sybrand of Haersma Buma?You just invent a law that you can condemn him, but you and yours do not.

It would be best not to have a criminal journal.But there is a but!
You can easily have a criminal journal for facts that were committed in the past, but which are in the meantime out of the Penal Code because morals change.
Such as:
Years back you could come to court because you were in Monokini on the beach.Now that is allowed, but you will be on a tipping point that it has not yet disappeared from your criminal journal.

And conversely, it also applies.It is not because you used to be “correct” that it is in the current context as well.
Such as:
I used to drove 90km/h on the public road.Nothing going on. Suddenly, they decide that you can only get 50 more. The situation has not changed, but from one day on the other you become a criminal at 90 on the same piece where you were allowed to 90 yesterday and now 50.
So you have to take into account that kind of situation.


Take Rosa Parks now.She was a black woman who refused to give up her seat to a white, which she had to do according to the law. She finally got a fine she refused to pay and eventually she was tried for disruption of public order.

As far as I know, Rosa Parks has never ambeed a political career myself -she did work for a politician, but the condition of not having a criminal journal would not be fulfilled, even though many people would have voted for her just because she Criminal Journal and she was civil disobedient.

A good political system recognises that the law is not infallible and therefore allows people who went against it to be politically active.

Moreover, “a criminal journal” is also very vague.Rosa Parks and Ted Bundy both have a criminal journal, but I would rather be inclined to vote for Rosa Parks than on Ted Bundy.

No.The criminal journal should be public. As a voter you need to know what kind of meat you have in the cockpit.

A criminal journal can also be a result of your political conviction.Or you can be there by your political opponents to put you so politically out Of play. People like Mahatma Ghandi and Nelson Mandela have been imprisoned for their political beliefs and activity.

In addition, in Florida, for example, a criminal record is used to deprive you even of your electoral rights.For instance, demographic and ethnic characteristics keep a part of the population (black; latino) of the ballot box.

It is the electorate who determines who is elected.And if there are voters who have no objection to a director or representative who has a criminal journal, then that is simply democratic. It may also have to do with someone who has a criminal journal. I think that a politician convicted of child abuse has little chance of being elected. A politician convicted of an opinion offence, such as Wilders, will suffer little electoral consequences.


It is especially important that a politician is honest and transparent about his past, and about who he is now. That a politician in his younger years has ever swiped a bike, or after a drink too much a bus shelter has wrecked, says Weing about who he is 20 or 30 years later. If we can see as a voter that he has learned of his mistakes, it does not have to be a problem.But if he does keep things hidden, that’s a problem. He is then Chantabel, and unreliable.

Leave a Reply