It is argued in this paper that topicalization of non-extraposed complements in Dutch is compatible with (what I will call) Higgins's Generalization for Dutch, despite the fact that sentences containing this construction appear to constitute prima facie counter examples to this generalization. It is argued that the relevant sentences do not involve topicalization of the whole non-finite complement, but only of the VP contained in it. This, together with a particular assumption about the properties of so-called D-pronouns in Dutch accounts for all relevant facts in a manner which is compatible with Higgin's Generalization. Since the validity of Higgins's Generalization for other sentential complements has been established already, it is concluded that it is fully valid for Dutch. It is argued that this generalization can be derived from an analysis of topicalization of sentences as a special case of contrastive dislocation but not from (two varieties of) a topicalization analysis. A further consequence is that infinitival complements in Dutch cannot be analyzed as subjectless VPs but contain further structure above the VP, and the analysis imposes specific requirements on the nature of certain rules for interpreting pronouns.