[ad_1]
An opinion whose essence is only “I (still) believe it” and which does not respond to the opponent’s arguments to the contrary is not an opinion, but an expression of unreasonable stubbornness and ambition, an unreasonably high self-esteem.
In the case of professionals in a particular field, the expression of such “opinions” that are not based on their arguments may be considered unprofessional and pre-compromised. Of course, the opinion expressed by the phrase “I (still) believe it” may be offered by a person who has no special knowledge or experience in the relevant field, but such an “opinion” cannot be considered equivalent to a professional opinion.
Thus, pluralist democracy is inseparable from the education of the people, the so-called knowledge society. In addition, personal leadership is needed to address complex issues in the life of the state or society, that is, the responsibility and determination of the leaders of society, which is incompatible with appeasing the pseudo opinions expressed in the statement “I ( still) I think so. “
Such adulation can even erode the foundations of the State, since it equates every fool with knowledge and at the same time demotivates those members of civil society who not only want to, but can also contribute to the strengthening of the State with their knowledge and experience. . . Especially since stupidity can reside not only in provincial ignorance, but also in the incitement of the outside. So tolerance for stupidity must have limits.
Tolerance for stupidity must have limits
All of this is more relevant than ever as our country faces two unprecedented challenges to its security and prosperity. The first, of course, is the never-ending COVID-19 pandemic. The second is the migration crisis caused by the regime in the neighboring country.
Negative responses to vaccination and migrants are hampering a more successful response to these challenges. It is no coincidence that the instigators, organizers and supporters of the protests against the so-called compulsory vaccination and the protests against the state’s efforts to install migrant detention centers in specific places are the same people, who do not hide their sympathy for the Belarusian dictator .
It is unfortunate to see another coincidence: in both cases, there is a lack of personal leadership from politicians, especially from the head of state. After all, a public and open call from the head of state for vaccination could radically change the situation. Like, incidentally, a public appeal to the public to understand the plight of the state, which it finds itself in due to the organized mass influx of migrants. However, there are no calls and appeals that bring down (dare I say anti-state) the protests of the organizers under their feet. On the contrary, there seems to be a flattery of stupidity that is slowly becoming a real threat to national security.
The law has the answers on how to deal with both crises, provided, of course, there is political leadership to do so. The constitution does not allow a state to do foolish things, especially other states, by blocking the response to challenges and threats to national security. On the contrary, the Constitution obliges the State to eliminate such threats by all effective means.
Opposition to vaccination can be boldly called stupidity, and support for those who do not intentionally vaccinate can be called stupidity.
In particular, it is clear that another national quarantine could turn into an economic catastrophe, destroying the health, social security and education systems. Such a threat to national security is posed by the low level of vaccination of the country’s population. Meanwhile, there are no arguments against vaccines other than someone’s personal experiences or no research-based considerations on the harm of vaccines, and it just can’t be. It is impossible to contrast anything with the achievements of modern science.
That is why the anti-vaccination attitude can be called boldly stupid, and support for those who do not intentionally vaccinate can be called joking, if not undermining national security. Although according to the Constitution everyone has the right to be foolish, in this case refusing to be vaccinated, that choice can also have the corresponding constitutional consequences.
Arno Strumila / 15min photo / Mobile vaccination center in New Vilnius
It appears that due to the growing number of newly infected people, the state will soon have no choice but to introduce the so-called quarantine of unvaccinated people, which would restrict the rights of those who have access to vaccination but do not knowingly use it.
Ongoing tests, by the way, should not be considered as an alternative to vaccination (except for people who could not be vaccinated for health reasons, as well as for children), as it does not provide immunity. It would be entirely logical to restrict the access of non-vaccinators to public life (prohibit public events and public places, work in contact), that is, to restrict, in particular, their rights to privacy, movement and freedom. movement. Of course, such restrictions apply specifically to those who have the opportunity but do not want to be vaccinated, and not to those who cannot be vaccinated due to their health or age.
Such restrictions imposed by law (preferably not just by governmental acts) would have a solid constitutional basis.
Under the Constitution, human rights can be restricted in order to achieve a constitutionally important and justifiable objective. In this case, such an objective would be to protect public health and guarantee national security in order to avoid the catastrophic consequences for the country of the third world national quarantine.
According to the Constitution, restrictions on human rights must be necessary and proportionate to the objective pursued. In this case, it would be difficult to argue that it is necessary to restrict the aforementioned rights of non-vaccinators to prevent the spread of the virus. Similarly, restricting the participation of non-vaccinators in public life alone would be the least restrictive of all possible measures to guarantee public health; it would also allow sufficient individualization of applicable human rights restrictions, since a person does not get vaccinated without a rational reason to do so.
Opponents could say that we have had no such restrictions, in fact amounting to mandatory vaccination or even discrimination against non-vaccinators, and this will lead to many legal disputes. However, we have not experienced pandemics of this magnitude and nature either, so unprecedented measures do not in themselves deny their necessity and proportionality.
Finally, according to the Constitution, everyone not only has rights, but also duties to society, including the duty to respect the rights of others, including the duty not to endanger their health. We can also draw some arguments in favor of restrictive measures against non-vaccinators from the European Court of Human Rights, which has justified the mandatory vaccination of children. The most important thing, however, is not to delay the quarantine of those who have not been vaccinated, as well as whether we really have the necessary legal basis for it. Therefore, instead of considering the urgently necessary and even unconstitutional reforms to the law on the status of migrants, it was necessary to pay more attention to possible reforms to the laws that regulate the control of communicable diseases, the quarantine regime and the labor Relations.
Meanwhile, in tackling the second crisis, that of migrants, it is clear that the decisive role here will not be played by amendments to the law on the legal status of foreigners, which speed up asylum procedures, but by the practical return of immigrants. unsatisfied asylum. search engines.
The solution to the crisis is not facilitated by actions that appear outwardly chaotic and spontaneous, such as strange communication, with advance notice of places of detention for migrants, allowing them to prepare for protests blocking those places. There also seems to be a lack of political leadership to explain that the demands for the immediate return of migrants are simply unrealistic, so there is nothing but ordinary stupidity.
Therefore, it is logical that it is necessary to accept migrants as an inevitable reality that will last until the State finds effective ways to return them to their countries of origin and learn to live in that reality. Of course, he would not stop at all to explain that neither the Lithuanian state nor any of its authorities can be blamed for the migration crisis, as Lithuania simply had no choice but to support Belarusian civil society without acknowledging the rigged presidential elections and democratize it. . How can one not obstruct the explanation that such Lithuanian efforts may not be immediately successful?
Photo by Vidmantas Balkūnas / 15 min photo / Migrants in the old school of Vydeniai
However, it is precisely this interpretation for the public that could be an effective counterweight to the misinformation that is precisely lacking in the public official responsible for dealing with key foreign policy issues. Little has been heard about the problem at EU level, with the exception of aid for border protection.
By the way, there is a lack of leadership on the subject of additional strategy. We should already think about what we will do if (it probably will be) the number of migrants crossing the Lithuanian border continues to grow, at the same time increasing tensions caused by society over the choice of places to detain migrants. The situation may reach a level where the state cannot accept a greater number of migrants and tensions within the state will threaten the seriousness of society or even the constitutional order.
The constitution has an answer to that: in at least one part of the country (on the border with Belarus, in certain border municipalities) a state of emergency can be imposed to allow detention in certain places and restrict gatherings (and therefore protests against crisis management). This would probably also be the only legitimate way to close the state border with Belarus in principle by not allowing potential asylum seekers to cross the border. It may not be the best, but nevertheless, it seems that the Constitution presupposes a state response to an unprecedented threat to national security.
By the way, it would not even allow to violate the rights of people in Lithuania related to their dignity and judicial protection of their rights. Of course, preparing for a potential state response also takes time, beginning with an assessment of the need for amendments to the Emergency Law. However, this is already an issue worthy of separate consideration.
[ad_2]
