Predictive tools as instruments for understanding and responding to risky behaviour as early as possible are increasingly becoming a normal feature in local and state agencies. A risk that arises from the implementation of these predictive tools is the problem of dirty data. The input of incorrect or illegally obtained information (‘dirty data’) can influence the quality of the predictions used by local and state agencies, such as the police. The article focuses on the risks of dirty data in predictive policing by the Dutch Police. It describes the possibilities to prevent dirty data from being used in predictive policing tools, such as the Criminality Anticipation System (CAS). It concludes by emphasizing the importance of transparency for any serious solution looking to eliminate the use of dirty data in predictive policing.

Compared to regular contracts, infrastructure development and management through Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) is expected to lead to better cost and time performance. However, the evidence for this performance advantage of PPPs is lacking. This article analyzes the performance differences of projects with a Design-Build-Finance-Maintain (DBFM) contract (a type of PPP) and a Design-and-Construct (D&C) contract. Project performance data were collected (N = 65) from the Project Database of Rijkswaterstaat and analyzed using non-parametric tests. Rijkswaterstaat is the executive agency of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management. The results show that DBFM-projects have a significantly higher cost performance than D&C-projects. In particular, DBFM-projects have less additional costs related to technical necessities in the implementation phase. Regarding time performance, DBFM-projects seem to perform better although the difference with D&C-projects is not statistically significant. The article discusses explanations for the performance advantage of PPPs, rooted in principal-agent theory. From this discussion, an agenda is presented for further research into the performance advantage of Public-Private Partnerships.

The General Equal Treatment Law – adopted in 1994 – is a landmark in the history of homosexual emancipation in the Netherlands. It took two decades before the first proposals for a legal ban of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation would be transformed into law. Background of this controversy is the clash between the equalityprinciple and the freedom of education. The compromise reached – the so-called single fact-construction – however sent a double message: being gay was not a justified reason for unequal treatment, but some forms of behaviour were incorporated as a legal exception. It took another twenty years before this flaw in the law would be changed.
This article analyses the political debates behind these legal developments. What was the problem that the various drafts for this new legislation were supposed to solve? Which definitions of discrimination on the basis of homosexuality were used and how did they change over time? The adoption of the law and its ‘reparation’ twenty years later are mainly a question of symbolic politics. They reflect the development of the growing acceptance of homosexuality in Dutch society and have stimulated its further growth. Their actual legal effects seem far less important.

Reflection and debate initiates academically inspired discussions on issues that are on the current policy agenda.

Two petitions on the internet strive to include ‘animal rights’ in the Dutch Constitution. Jeremy Bentham stipulated that animals should not be denied the right to happiness, because they suffer. The Dutch philosopher Eskens made a plea to grant animals the same fundamental rights as humans. Theoretically, this leads to special, bizarre and sometimes paradoxical situations. This indicates that the logic in this theory is missing.
In the past fifty years, ethological science made enormous progress and we have learned much more about the emotions and the behaviour of animals. Animals travel consciously through ‘time’ and hurt their brains in the search for knowledge and experiences. But this does not yet make humans and animals equal. Within the legal discourse there is no place for universal rights for animals because these must always be asserted through human intervention. The energy to maintain the bureaucracy Eskens proposes should be used to formulate animal protection as a human obligation.

Animals Rights are sometimes seen as unpractical. Some critics expect they will result in an overwhelming bureaucracy. Furthermore, critics point out, it is impossible to make legal arrangements that are coherent and non-contradictory. Most of these concerns are exaggerated. We do not have to devise a whole new legal system. We just need a couple of court cases to get legal clarity and many laws originally meant for humans are easily applicable to other living beings. Keeping animals out of our legal systems meanwhile goes against the constitution. In most democratic countries the constitution states that we may not discriminate on irrelevant factors as race, gender, birth, ‘or on any other ground’. This implies, in my view, that discrimination based on species is not allowed. Equal interests simply should be weighed equal, regardless of the bearer of these interests.

The idea of animal rights is sympathetic with regards to animal suffering. Including these rights in the constitution has enormous symbolic value: it underlines the important moral position of other creatures. Nevertheless, in this contribution it is stated that the attribution of rights to other than human animals in a legal system that is developed for and run by human animals, is in a sense speciesistic: other than human animals cannot fence for themselves within our legal arena. The law as we know it, is an important tool in addressing human behaviour towards other species.

In this feature authors review recently published books on subjects of interest to readers of Beleid en Maatschappij.

The most relevant part of a discussion is not what is discussed but what cannot be spoken of. The real taboos are those for which it is taboo to call them taboos. The status quo defines itself as non-ideological while denouncing any challenge to itself as radical.
Therefore the column ‘De blinde vlek’ frames the framers, politicizes the status quo and articulates what is not heard of.