I am certainly politically oriented, but I do not try to color everything according to my own views.
You say that you are well politically oriented and you say that the government is still actively violating constitutional rules even today. When I ask for examples in which the government actively violates constitutions, the first thing you come up with is that I am not well informed and am too lazy to look for information.
Then you come up with three examples.
In the first example you already indicate that it has no direct link with violating the constitution. But you are right that the government has created quite a drama here. And if you are really as well informed as you claim, you would also know that drama was made possible by laws that Omzigt, the great champion of the rule of law, was a great supporter of.
The second example means nothing to me, even though it is in my area of interest. I know that when I call the tax telephone I first receive a tape stating that my conversation may be recorded, so that is not what it is about. An internet search has also turned up nothing, except for some news reports from 2018 that the FIOD is allowed to use telephone taps in certain situations during investigations into tax fraud. Maybe that’s what you mean, but then I don’t see a link to the constitution yet.
In your third and final example you are finally talking about constitutions. Some critics claimed that the corona measures violated the constitution, in particular the freedom of assembly and freedom of religion. Now some critics were critical of what happened during the corona. But let’s look at the constitution.
Article 9 – The right to meet
1. The right to assemble and demonstrate is recognized, subject to everyone’s responsibility under the law.
2 The law may lay down rules to protect health, in the interest of traffic and to combat or prevent disorder.
The first paragraph already indicates that the right is not absolute and that limitations can be imposed by law. The second paragraph specifically provides for the possibility of imposing restrictions to protect health.
Article 6 – Freedom of religion
1. Everyone has the right to freely manifest his religion or belief, individually or in community with others, subject to everyone’s responsibility under the law.
2. With regard to the exercise of this right outside buildings and enclosed places, the law may lay down rules to protect health, in the interest of traffic and to combat or prevent disorder.
Here too, the first paragraph indicates that the right is not absolute and that limitations can be imposed by law. There can be disputes about whether the second paragraph is an addition or a restriction to ensure that additional legal rules of the first paragraph are only valid outside buildings and enclosed places. But if I decided to revive the Inca faith and perform human sacrifices in the privacy of my religious space, I would still have a problem.
And a nice one in this one is:
Article 22
1. The government takes measures to promote public health.
(I have used the text of the constitution as it applied from 21-12-2018 to 17-08-2022.)
So the provisions of the constitution are not absolute and many provisions themselves take into account that they can be limited by laws that are based on other provisions of the constitution, among other things.
All in all, I think that the substantiation of your original statement is still very poor.
When you state something, I expect you to be able to substantiate it in your own words and, if necessary, to support it with sources.
By providing a whole series of links, without indicating to which part of your substantiation the individual links apply, you try to withdraw from the discussion. You hope that people will think you are right because you have apparently researched it well, or that people will not respond because they do not feel like reading all the information and watching all the videos.
I can’t imagine that there are many people who will carefully look at all the links in a comment. It is my experience that most links in comments resonate in some way with the idea behind the comment, but that they are mainly full of innuendo without really becoming concrete or, when multiple links become data, they even contradict each other. So I usually ignore all links unless it is made clear in the text of the response that an important point has been made there to support a given argument. I consider a whole list of links mainly as a sign that the writer of the response cannot properly express what is written/said and therefore may not understand it properly.