He appreciated the stormy speech of the president of the Bar Association on vaccination: we do not know the real reasons for it

At the same time, the interlocutor said that such a public speech should hardly be understood as an invitation to a discussion. Rather, according to A. Katauskas, after the declaration of such opinions, the public opposition will only deepen.

The communication specialist assures that the situation could be resolved through a discussion initiated by independent moderators, otherwise “the public opposition will turn into an abyss.”

Buttercup: human rights and freedoms are being held hostage to utilitarianism

“We are witnessing an emerging new order in which the behaviors of the world’s nation-states are dictated by a conglomerate of international organizations and commercial structures: the World Health Organization has become the World Health Organization together with the global pharmaceutical industry. <...> Obviously, we are attentive to the globalization processes, which are leading to the creation of an international executive. It is different from the national one: less centralized, without a democratic electoral element. The premise of such a scenario is a special social, financial and cultural structure of the world, which has made it possible to accumulate enormous financial and economic capital, multiply human emotions, and gain power. <...> Human rights and freedoms are being held hostage to utilitarianism, and at the same time there is a risk that law and justice themselves will become a method of utilitarianism. The perceived social benefits of inexperienced costs are compared to the costs to a person’s privacy, health, or even life. <...> The rights and freedoms of the individual are overshadowed by the powers of the state. For a very simple and formal reason – “emergency” – after such words dr. I. Vėgėlė caused a real furor on social media.

In his speech, the lawyer stated in his speech that the decisions made by the authorities regarding quarantine, vaccination or illegal migrants violate the rights and freedoms of a part of society.

According to Igno Vėgėlė, the legal hierarchy of legal acts is ignored, when some restrictions are imposed on the public not by law, but by government resolutions or decisions of the chief of operations, and criticized the decision of the rulers to eliminate the legal community. .

The president of the Bar Association also pointed out that such decisions not only segregate society, oppose it, but also violate both the Constitution and the international conventions to which Lithuania is bound.

Speaking to Delfi, I. Vėgėlė stated that “the decisions taken will have legal consequences for Lithuania in the future.”

“I think it has already had many consequences. Both the social consequences that we see are expressed even in an unacceptable form of coercion, such as the legal ones. The only problem is that due to the peculiarities of the judicial procedures, the legal evaluation is always delayed” said I. Vėgėlė on the Delfi weekend.

You can see the full speech of the president of the Bar Association here:

The video of the language of I. Vėgėlė, published on the social network Facebook, received more than 660 thousand visits in two days.

Calls for the search for “true linguistic motives”

“I can’t really comment on the legal issues, but obviously there will always be radically different opinions when that language is made public. We don’t hear much about the true motives of the speech, I want to believe that it was some kind of invitation to a discussion, to a conversation. The division of society into several parts is not new, we have seen it for a long time, and even from people who hold official positions of the state. Is there something to think about? If it was an invitation to a debate, it was possible to choose a different form of language. Yes, this topic is focused, it is in everyone’s focus, it is up to date. I think the real reason and its disclosure would be the best thing the speaker could do now. Otherwise, one of the parties will he will appropriate it, as he has appropriated some of the speeches of the President of the Republic of Lithuania. We have to talk about this, but I don’t know if the speaker would be the one to start that speech now. If not there is an independent moderator, if politicians and public figures continue to divide (society – aut. Past) into good – bad, resistance will turn into an abyss, ”said A. Katauskas.

When asked who could become such moderators, the public relations specialist said he looked at “the academic world, perhaps former politicians, former heads of state.”

The spoken language has no regrets

Meanwhile, I. Vėgėlė, who was interviewed by Delfi, said he did not regret his speech.

“I only regret one thing: that some people can no longer hear and hear,” said the president of the Delphi Bar Association.

According to the lawyer, “it is becoming common to belittle a person if his opinion does not coincide with that of the appraiser.”

In response to statements from opponents and even condemners, as well as those who claim that a well-known and influential member of the legal community is simply using the “current topic”, perhaps for additional communication benefits, I. Vėgėlė said that “such arguments, I suppose, are those who do not want to hear and see the reality of today. Come and hear only what they want to see and hear. “

“I have expressed what a large number of lawyers think, but they do not dare to say it or they are silenced when they say it. The same happened with a statement sent to the country’s top leaders last spring by the Lithuanian Bar Association, in which colleagues expressed concern about compliance with government decisions and restrictions with both national and national legislation. European Union. Did anyone hear how those who were approached responded? No, because there was no reaction. The Lithuanian Bar Association, whose members and even the governing bodies are members of the Seimas such as Stasys Šedbaras or Julius Sabatauskas – the warnings of this community on the fundamental question of state democracy – human rights and freedoms – went unheard , and the lawyers themselves were written off, “said I. Vėgėlė.

He was accused of speaking the antiviral narrative.

However, even some of the lawyers themselves do not agree with this opinion of the Bar Association. One of them is dr. Algimantas Šindeikis affirms that “human rights in managing a pandemic do not overshadow the power of the state, as the state has a duty to ensure that the pandemic does not spread and that the number of illnesses and deaths is as low as possible. If the pandemic spreads without measures to stop it. “

“I do not agree that anti-pandemic measures in Lithuania lack legitimacy, as they are introduced on the basis of the aforementioned constitutional principle of proportionality, in accordance with laws and other legal acts adopted by democratically elected authorities. The pandemic in Lithuania it is not managed or regulated by any international act or decision of unelected authorities ”, A. Šindeikis is convinced.
He also had the support of another lawyer, the former president of the Constitutional Court Dainius Žalimas, who accused the head of the Bar Association of politicking in a comment on the 15min.lt portal.

“It shows that, unfortunately, the professionalism of lawyers in the country is low, if those languages ​​receive so much attention. I believe that the president of the Bar Association has decided to get involved in politics, but it has nothing to do with the law in his language, ”said D. Žalimas to said portal.

The well-known journalist Andrius Tapinas in his comment on Facebook I. Vėgėlė was accused of speaking about the narrative of the antivaksaks.

“It would be strange to deny that the speech by Ignas Vėgėlė, president of the Bar Association, had no echo. Already, 500,000 views, 20,000 shares and the universal support of Bookbinder, Experts EU, Hot Commentary, Family Movement, Širinskienė and more. Lawyers with the Nation – announce the discontent of those who have discovered a truly strong new standard-bearer.

It is very interesting what the legal community and the flag itself have thought, and Mr. P. Brema. Lawyers Algimantas Šindeikis and Dainius Žalimas have already responded with arguments. After a more careful analysis of the language and its balances, I have many questions about objectives, form, chosen moment and audience ”, wrote A. Tapinas in the social network.

A. Katauskas, a public relations expert, partially agreed with this.

“In my opinion, the speech that has been delivered raises issues that have been discussed at various events or meetings for some time. Yes, there are many things in it that are going to cause and have caused a lot of noise, even some of the speeches can be treated as radical, encouraging one side or the other to interpret it in another way. We already see such things among people who refuse to be vaccinated or similar, ”said Delfi.

Tomas Vytautas Raskevičius, chairman of the Seimas Human Rights Committee and representative of the Freedom Party, also publicly expressed his disagreement with the criticisms expressed by I. Vėgėlė.

Opponents response: after more than a day

It is true that all these arguments appeared in public only more than a day after the scandalous speech was made public.

Commenting on this, public relations and communication expert A. Katauskas says such temporary silence from public representatives is understandable.

“I think it really took time to understand it, to draw conclusions. For me, too, what I heard was unexpected. We can already see that from this speech other themes are being used and other questions are being raised. I have been saying for a long time that it is wrong to divide into two equal parts. Smart and stupid. There are many more questions here, “says A. Katauskas.