[ad_1]
At the general assembly of lawyers, I.Vėgėlė said that we live in a particularly rapidly changing society, the consequences of which, perhaps, none of us can adequately assess so far. According to him, we are witnessing a new emerging order in which the behavior patterns of the world’s nation-states are beginning to be dictated by a conglomerate of international organizations and business structures. He calls the World Health Organization (WHO) the “Ministry of World Health.”
“One thing is obvious, we are seeing the processes of globalization, as a result of which an international executive branch is being created. It is different from the national one, it is less centralized, without the element of democratic elections. And many other epithets could suit him, “he told a general meeting of lawyers in Birštonas on Friday.
Criticisms of the “compulsory vaccination mechanism”, the WHO and the passport of opportunities
I.Vėgėlė says in his speech that “in this governance structure, human rights and freedoms are respected to the extent that they do not violate the fundamental utilitarian principle of costs and benefits.” According to him, fear is used to influence people, which “made it possible to transfer the hitherto unremovable right of the person to life and the right to personal integrity”.
“Forcing a vaccine to create negative social, economic and financial conditions, sometimes intolerable, for a person, such as taking a test every few days on their own, when the cost of a test is sometimes as much as a seventh or a sixth part of their salary is coercive, “he said.
I.Vėgėlė is convinced that the goal is to reduce state spending. It is true that you emphasize that you do not want these sentences to be misinterpreted.
“The benefits of vaccination for many people are obvious. It is true that hundreds of times more people die from COVID than from vaccines. Vaccination is especially important at age 65. and the elderly, people at risk, is also recommended for others groups. I emphasize that it is a coercive vaccination mechanism that forces him to vaccinate against the will of a person who fears the consequences of vaccines for his health and life. Each person has to decide the intervention in his body independently And that decision must be informed, that’s what international law says, that’s what EU law says, that’s what national law says.
The coercion mechanism that restricts a person’s right to self-determination violates not only the prohibited restriction of the right to life or personal integrity of a person, not only all the achievements of European humanism, but also elemental decency ”, it is convinced the Lithuanian chief lawyer.
Photo by Vidmantas Balkūnas / 15min photo / Ignas Vėgėlė
I.Vėgėlė regrets, because, according to him, the humanistic development of Western civilization is changed by the utilitarian worldview. It is also said that a society based on individual rights and fundamental freedoms is being replaced by a lifestyle or consensus model based on costs and benefits promoted by economists. According to I. Vėgėlė, human rights and freedoms are held hostage to utilitarianism.
He also criticizes the fact that economists and doctors are not hired by lawyers in the public administration.
“In this cost-benefit analysis prepared by economists, there is no longer a model of legal regulation of society, according to which the degree of restriction of human rights and freedoms is evaluated in the context of the principles of justification of restrictions and proportionality of restrictions. We no longer seek scientific data to justify a particular restriction, we forget to weigh the legal proportionality of a particular restriction. We have even forgotten about key state legislation, “he said.
I. Vėgėlė criticizes the government for regulating many things through resolutions, not laws. According to him, a legal status, the state of emergency, grants the right to restrict a number of human rights and freedoms.
“We no longer have the basic principles of the rule of law, we are losing the law itself: national and a series of international and EU legal acts. The rights and freedoms of the individual are overshadowed by the powers of the state. For a very simple and formal reason, “an emergency,” he explained.
According to I.Vėgėlė, the passport of opportunities violates “the basic principle of non-discrimination and equality of all before the law”, and “spreads false news about the additional rights supposedly granted, which are essential and basic for all its members in a society. democratic “.
“Let us promote understanding of the benefits of vaccines through research, open statistics, the lack of which creates unfounded fears, the lack of which creates a variety of conspiracy theories. “We do not condemn a person if he is worried about his health or his life: he has to have the same fears when vaccinating and refusing to vaccinate,” he said.
15 minutes recalls that a total of 4,481 people died from COVID-19, with 9,139 deaths directly and indirectly related to COVID-19.
You can see the full post on the Facebook account of the Lithuanian Bar Association:
D. Žalimas: this is a language of a political nature
Dainius Žalimas, former president of the Constitutional Court (CC), believes that this language is unprofessional and raised the question of how it fits with the event format. He also stressed that this is a language of a political nature, but not legal, in which there are practically no legal arguments.
“It shows that, unfortunately, the professionalism of lawyers in the country is low, if those languages receive so much attention. I think the president of the bar association has decided to go into politics, but it has nothing to do with the law in his language.
Part (the language) is an anti-globalist ideology, absolutely man does not understand what the World Health Organization needs. And talking about the fact that our rights are unjustifiably restricted, there is no reason. On closer examination, both the recent decision of the French Constitutional Council and certain cases before the European Court of Human Rights show that their arguments are quite unfounded, if they can be seen there. ” 15 minutes commented.
Luke April / 15min photo / Dainius Žalimas
D.Žalimas agrees with I.Vėgėlė’s only observation that the government does not always pay due attention to lawyers.
And I myself am critical of some of the measures taken by the Government, but not so much for their content, more often for their form. That is to say, it is really always a decision of the Government, or of the Chief of Operations, or a superior act. But here are the details ”, assured the interlocutor.
At the same time, the former president of the CC emphasized that I. Vėgėlė did not present any legally significant argument in his speech about why the restrictions are unjustified.
“These (restrictions) have a clear legal purpose: the protection of public health and the actions of no one can endanger the health of others. Here is an axiom. Second, for reasons of necessity and proportionality, these are the only less restrictive measures. An alternative to all this is the total closure of the entire country. Your proposal is not to impose restrictions on anyone and leave it to natural selection? It is so ironic here, “said D. Žalimas.
The speeches of I.Vėgėlė and President Gitanas Nausėda that the Government’s tactics on COVID-19 are feverish and forced can slow down the rate of vaccination, D. Žalimas is convinced.
“It just came to our knowledge then. I can only very much regret that they themselves do not offer anything. Languages such that vaccination is forced, frankly, are already inconsistent in the first place. Previously it was said that the rate was too low. But it is the It is the impression that these are people who do not realize that it is a national problem and put their selfish personal political interests above the common good. I can only regret such actions, because none of them offers an alternative, “he said.
D. Žalimas agrees that one of the government’s actions lacks empathy. However, he believes that details can be attached everywhere and sees no reason to dispute the substance and purpose of the measures themselves.
“I myself am criticizing the details, but I do not see any reason to criticize, because I do not see an alternative to what is being done,” said the former president of the CC.
[ad_2]
