Vote on controversial transgender proposal postponed due to non-attendance of National Security Council representatives – Job

A vote on the controversial proposal, in which the National Security Council attempts to torpedo the rights of transgender people, has been postponed for a week. The party itself requested a postponement because all twenty members of the faction were not present. To pass the proposal with the support of the far right, the National Security Council needs at least all the votes from its faction. It is not clear how many members are absent and why. Tuesday is the regular meeting day of the House of Representatives.

The remarkable request also raises the question of whether there is factional discipline in the National Security Council and whether representatives are forced to vote in favor of the dissenting motion. Staying away is sometimes a clever way for politicians to escape the pressures of choosing among roll-call votes.

The proposal by Nicoline van Vroonhoven aims to sabotage the introduction of a change in the law that would, among other things, make changing their gender in civil status records less offensive for transgender people. The National Security Council wants to deprive them of this facility. Change took years, and there was a majority in favor of it until the last election. It is unclear whether this majority still exists.

It is highly unusual for any change in the law to be torpedoed by a motion at this stage. According to critics, it also contravenes the due diligence rules of good governance, which the National Security Council prides itself on.

The CDA will vote against the NSC proposal. “The Community Development Authority has significant concerns and questions about the transgender law in its current form, as we also expressed during the previous discussion of the law. At the same time, we believe that we must pass the bills, whether you are for or against this,” they must be handled properly, especially when These are sensitive topics, and this does justice to society and our democracy,” says CDA member Dirk Boswick.

The VVD also rejects Van Vroonhoven's proposal. “This proposal frustrates careful legislative processing in which all points can be discussed in depth. As it should be in the House of Representatives,” MP Ulysse Eliane told RTL News.

The progressive parties in the Council also do not agree with Van Vroonhoven's action because it conflicts with a precise legislative process.