[ad_1]
Lawyer Paulo Emilio de Moraes García decided to go to court to avoid being forced to wear a mask and avoid being fined in Florianópolis, where he lives. The request was not accepted in the first degree, so he decided to appeal in the second instance. But he ended up scolding the judge of the TJ-SC (Court of Justice of Santa Catarina) Hélio do Valle Pereira, who did not respond to the request either. OR Twitter try to contact the lawyer
“In the simple use of a mask, there is no undue or unreasonable invasion of individual freedom,” the judge noted.
“Bodily integrity is not offended, no inescapable prerogative is sacrificed, only the right to travel modestly with sanitary restrictions,” he added.
The magistrate also criticized the denial of the effects of the disease. “(It) is a kind of counter-enlightenment, which disdains formal culture, undermines constitutionalism, despises the press, is bored with differences; but shouts conspiracies, gets excited about WhatsApp science, gets excited about violence, revolts cooperation “.
Process started in June
The lawyer filed the lawsuit on June 24 of last year, two days after the Florianópolis city council imposed a fine of R $ 1,250.00 for those who did not comply with health regulations, including the use of a mask .
García argued that the municipal executive “did not indicate the scientific evidence that induces the effectiveness of” facial protection “in open places or commercial establishments,” which already have measures to restrict the number of visitors.
The Florianópolis neighbor said that there are “innumerable scientific studies that argue that the masks are indicated only for patients in Covid-19 and health professionals in the first line, for obvious reasons.”
The day after the process was registered, Judge Rafael Sandi analyzed the request and pointed out that “there was no demonstration of direct, individual and concrete damage to the sphere of rights” by the lawyer. “In such a way, there is no evidence of any violation of their network and certain rights,” he added.
The magistrate pointed out that, in his decision, he was not ignoring the Federal Constitution that guarantees the right to freedom. “However, no right is absolute and the concept of freedom does not correspond to the lack or absence of coercion (pressuring someone to force him to perform an act against his will).”
At that time, Sandy was concerned about the progress of the disease. In addition, the risk of reverse damage is present here, represented by the threat of the advance of the pandemic, especially in relation to people who are part of the so-called risk groups, with the lack of sanitary and epidemiological control that can lead to failure of public and private systems. deprived of health. “He then denied the request and asked that the case be closed.
Dissatisfied, the lawyer appealed the decision and, therefore, the request went on to be analyzed in the second instance, by the TJ-SC. Garcia’s lawsuit was reviewed by three court judges on October 26 of last year. And again, denied.
Last Wednesday (12), the prosecutor’s requests were again analyzed, this time only by judge Hélio do Valle Pereira, who also denied the requests.
[ad_2]
