Yes, the title does indeed say "constitutional discrimination", as this is what the European Commission thinks of the practice in our country.
Recently, the European Commissioner of Social Affairs Vladimir Spidla has sent the Dutch government a letter concerning the treatment of homosexuals, and the more strict compliance to a European regulation stemming from the year 2000.

This guidance is prohibiting discrimination on religion or conviction, age, handicap, sexe, or sexual preferences. Our country will be tried before the European Court of Justice in two months if we do not comply.
This is where Spidla is hitting a nerve, as our ‘Algemene wet Gelijke Behandeling’ does not allow confessional institutions to refuse homosexuals a job solely on the basis of their sexual preferences. It does allow for the refusal of the person, if his or her acting or behavior is in contradiction with the principles the employer tries to carry out. This nuance in our law is for example used by Christian schools to refuse gay employees, where the cohabitation of the person is important to the foundation of the rejection.
The hurt is directly dependent on our constitution, for it houses a contradiction which has remained unsolved ever since the conceiving of the constitution. Article 1 says discrimination is prohibited, but according to article 6 anyone can believe and confess to their own belief(s), individually or in communion with others, while article 23 regulates the freedom of education, ánd the freedom to employ teachers.

With the letter from Spidla, Holland is faced with a diabolical dilemma.
Do we disavow centuries of history and our very own constitution for Europe? Or do we declare constitutional discrimination to be inalienable to our nation?

Bad, bad American banks. Giving mortgages to people who have a high risk of not being able to pay the monthlee fees, and reselling the packaged mortgages to other institutions.
Oh well, it has happened, and we cannot do anything about it.

With the prices of housing stagnating, and the dollar decreasing in value, a crisis of unknown propotions seems inevitable. With many mortgages turning out to be non-collectable, decreasing prices of homes and a worsening competitive position, the American economy is up for something. Standard&Poor has calculated banks and financial instututions affected by the imminent happening already have written off about 146 billion dollar, and another 265 billion is to follow.

These dazzeling numbers, perhaps a bit overestimated, have to be concerning for all those involved, yet our government stays relatively cool under it.
Balkenende en our minister of Finance Bos have both claimed we are in quite a good position, and are only sideways affected by any bad mishaps, if they occur.
This relative lack of interest is awkward, and not appripriate for the current times.

With our country and its economy relying on the financial sector (ING, ABN AMRO, Rabobank) any bad developments among one of these banks is disproportionally affecting our day-to-day life. A risk our leaders will have to be aware of, yet they do not show it.
Proclaiming positive messages when not appropriate is giving false hope to the citizens, and can thus be claimed to be lying.
This is not what they intended, now is it?

Januari 29th, 2008 will reach the history books as the day crime legally does pay.
A hindustan drugdealer from The Hague has been allowed to keep his ‘bijstand’, a fact undeniably righteous.
Until you know the circumstances.

The man (42 years of age) is a known and convicted drugdealer, has been sent to prison for it some 5 years ago. He behaved well during his detention and has been granted a test leave. He did not return to prison.
Over the following 5 years, the man has remained a fugitive from the law, and had to get his bread and butter somewhere. So her presumably took up the drugdealing again, and applied for bijstand at his municipality.
This might seem stupid, but has proven not to be. His application was granted, and he received about €46.000 in monthly payments from the state.

Somehow, someone found out, and put the man back in jail (where he belonged in the first place). Also, the state has tried to get back the 46 thousand euro’s, unrightfully paid to a man running from the law.
The 29th, the judge has ruled the man does not have to pay back the money, as "withdrawal of detention is not a legal ground to refuse ‘bijstand’".
Say what?
Escaping from jail does not nullify your right to receive social income, even while it is suspected the person is obtaining sidemoney through illegal activities?
Moreover: how is it possible that this man goes undetected as an escapee, even while he applied for ‘bijstand’ with his real name and real address?

I’ll probably never understand our legal system, considering the fact purchasing dope can be deducted from taxes. (Dutch link)