Settle an argument?

jh79

Could anyone on here settle an argument about what constitutes something being banned in the legal sense?

There is a discussion in the Conspiracy Theory forum about whether fluoridation is banned in Holland.

Based on the following would you see it as banned?

"Fluoridation in the Netherlands was proceeding under a 1961 Water Supply Act. Opponents of fluoridation challenged the right of the Minister to authorize fluoridation under the Act, and in 1973 the High Court ruled that fluoridation was not covered by this specific Act.

Subsequently, the Public Health Minister prepared a national fluoridation bill to be presented to Parliament. The Minister was unsuccessful in his attempt to secure the passage of the bill in 1976."

Thanks, jh79

hullaballoo

You would have to ask a Dutch lawyer what it means. "Banned" isn't a legal term in that lawyers would never refer to something as being banned. That's a media term.

We refer to things being illegal or unlawful. It seems that fluoridation might be unlawful but not necessarily illegal in the Netherlands.

Peregrinus

It also depends on what you mean by "fluoridation". It seems that the Netherlands courts have ruled that the state lacks legal authority to add fluoride to the public water supply. If you want to use the term "banned", you could say that the courts have banned the state from adding fluoride to the water supply. But even that's a bit of a stretch. Deciding that somebody lacks the capacity to do something is not generally spoken of as "banning".

But, even if you allow that, I don't think you can say that fluoride or fluoridation has been banned. The Minister can't fluoridate the water, but fluoride and fluoridated products are perfectly legally and can be readily obtained. And there's nothing to stop you fluoridating your own water, if so inclined.

weisses

hullaballoo wrote: »

You would have to ask a Dutch lawyer what it means. "Banned" isn't a legal term in that lawyers would never refer to something as being banned. That's a media term.

We refer to things being illegal or unlawful. It seems that fluoridation might be unlawful but not necessarily illegal in the Netherlands.

Thanks Hullaballoo

Its this letter that keeps the discussion going

http://www.fluoridation.com/c-netherlands.htm

My stance is

Was fluoridation implemented ? ..yes ... Can you fluoridate the water supply in The Netherlands now ? No ... Why not ?.. It was found that there was No legal basis for its use ... Are the various water suppliers banned from implementing fluoridation? ... Yes

Peregrinus

What the letter seems to say is that the courts ruled that the government had no legal authority to add fluoride to the water supply.

That's probably a more accurate way of putting it than saying that "fluoridation was banned". There's nothing there to suggest that you can't add fluoride to your own water.

weisses

Peregrinus wrote: »

What the letter seems to say is that the courts ruled that the government had no legal authority to add fluoride to the water supply.

That's probably a more accurate way of putting it than saying that "fluoridation was banned". There's nothing there to suggest that you can't add fluoride to your own water.

Thanks Pereginus

The issue is that, Can you say that the government is banned from adding it to the water supply due to the lack of a legal basis for it ?

With this ruling the authorities to this date have no legal basis to add fluoride into the public water supply ... To me it means they are banned from using/adding it

What people do at home is not the issue ... Products containing fluoride are readily available.

Peregrinus

It seems to me that using the "banned" language here is a bit polemical.

If the government had been adding fluoride to the water and Parliament has passed a law saying "stop doing that", then I think you could say that the practice had been banned.

All we can really say here is that the practice was never authorised and, when the government thought about seeking authorisation, they decided there probably wasn't sufficient support, and therefore in the end they didn't seek it. Speaking of that a "ban" strikes me as an attempt to "talk up" the Dutch situation for political or campaigning reasons.

ohnonotgmail

Peregrinus wrote: »

It seems to me that using the "banned" language here is a bit polemical.

If the government had been adding fluoride to the water and Parliament has passed a law saying "stop doing that", then I think you could say that the practice had been banned.

All we can really say here is that the practice was never authorised and, when the government thought about seeking authorisation, they decided there probably wasn't sufficient support, and therefore in the end they didn't seek it. Speaking of that a "ban" strikes me as an attempt to "talk up" the Dutch situation for political or campaigning reasons.

Given that the discussion originated in the Conspiracy Theories forum polemical is probably the right word to use.

weisses

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Given that the discussion originated in the Conspiracy Theories forum polemical is probably the right word to use.

Well it was authorized at some level because fluoridation was implemented in several parts of the Country

So should we just say Fluoridation is officially or legally prohibited in the Netherlands ?

I'm not gonna reply to the rest ... Its kinda below me

Peregrinus

weisses wrote: »

Well it was authorized at some level because fluoridation was implemented in several parts of the Country

It was done, but that doesn't mean that it was authorised to be done. In fact the court held that there was no authority for the practice.

weisses wrote: »

So should we just say Fluoridation is officially or legally prohibited in the Netherlands ?

No. As pointed out several times, it's not prohibited. People are free to fluoridate their water if they wish.

What we should say is that the Netherlands government doesn't have the legal authority to fluoridate the public water supply. They did fluoridate it for a time, in the belief that they had the authority to do so, but when the courts rules that they did not, they stopped.

weisses

Peregrinus wrote: »

It was done, but that doesn't mean that it was authorised to be done. In fact the court held that there was no authority for the practice.

Correct ..There was no legal basis to continue the scheme ... article 11 of the constitution was amended to reflect this

Everyone shall have the right to inviolability of his person, without prejudice to restrictions laid down by or pursuant to Act of Parliament.

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. As pointed out several times, it's not prohibited. People are free to fluoridate their water if they wish.

Which is not the issue as I already said in my direct reply to you

Are the Authorities legally prohibited from adding fluoride to the drinking water ? That is the issue .. What people do in their own home is up to them

Peregrinus wrote: »

What we should say is that the Netherlands government doesn't have the legal authority to fluoridate the public water supply. They did fluoridate it for a time, in the belief that they had the authority to do so, but when the courts rules that they did not, they stopped.

How does that differ from being Legally prohibited ?

Peregrinus

The question posed in the OP is whether water fluoridation is banned in the Netherlands. The answer is not, it's not banned. People can fluoridate their water if they wish.

The government isn't authorised to fluoridate the water. Would it be fair to say that the government is banned from fluoridating the water? Well, arguably, but I still think that's putting it more strongly than is warranted. There's a distinction between (a) parliament not granting authority because the government decided not to ask for it and (b) Parliament passing a law saying that the government may not add fluoride to the water. The word "ban" suggests the latter, but in fact only the former has happened, so I still think talk of a "ban" in the Netherlands is not the best way of putting matters, and could mislead.

Art. 11 of the Constitution was introduced in 1983, as part of a major constitutional revision which involved inserting a wider Bill of Rights, incliding social rights. I'm open to correction, but I don't think the mention of a right to bodily integrity was seen at the time a reflection of the fluoridation case, which by then was more than 10 years old; the commentaries treat it as addressing things like torture, corporal punishment and compulsory organ donation, though it would undoubtedly also cover water fluoridation. It can be limited by an Act of Parliament, so it doesn't prevent the Netherlands Parliament from legislating water fluoridation, if it was ever minded to.