dorps wrote:
Let me define an obligation from the Oxford dictionary - “an act to which a person is morally or legally bound”. I mean I know your English is not great, but this really is embarrassing.
"An act to which a person is morally
OR legally bound.". Thus it can be one (morally bound)
OR the other (legally bound) (or possible both), thus an obligation is not necessarily legally binding.
The Dutch government also say that "everyone aged 13 or over
should wear a face mask in indoor public spaces", but we know there is currently no legal requirement for the use of masks. So the Dutch government themselves have already set precedent that use of the word "should" is not legally binding with their statement on masks.
dorps wrote:
if the whole thing is optional as you say, why would the government bother to highlight the 2 specific circumstances under which people are exempt from the requirement to self quarantine? It seems a waste of space, and defies all logic. I mean if it’s optional for everyone why highlight 2 circumstances under which people are exempt from a requirement?
Because they want to mislead people into believing it's a requirement, so more people will follow the recommendation. It's really not that complicated.
