There was a storm over the language of Vėgėlė: different legal evaluations: if such a reaction to politics is possible

Sinkevičius: In the speech, I saw a superficial and superficial understanding of the Constitution.

Professor Vytautas Sinkevičius assured us on the Delfi television program “Daily Interview” that we had not heard anything new in that speech.

And what did we hear in that speech? We don’t hear anything new. What was said in that speech, we heard it in the family march. The words of Gražulis, Kepenis, cellophane and other characters were repeated: people are raped, society is abused, the Constitution is completely violated, the government does not read with the people and things like that. We can look at the Constitution, which contains a balance of values. On the one hand, there are the rights and freedoms of the individual, on the other hand, there is the public interest. In this case, the person has the right to privacy, on the other hand, there is a public right to a healthy environment, not to be infected. Each of us has the right not to be infected.

Let’s look at article fifty-third of the Constitution: the state takes care of people’s health, which means that the state must act effectively. It must provide measures to prevent the spread of communicable and particularly dangerous diseases. So the question is, should the state act effectively? Clearly it has to. This is a common good of society. Thus, in this case, it is not possible to construct the rights that a person and a society have. In that speech, I missed the coordination of interests and I saw a superficial, superficial understanding of the Constitution ”, says the interlocutor.

The lawyer Gintautas Bartkus, when asked if the languages ​​had been harmonized before, assured that they had not.

“The languages ​​have never been harmonized, but the introductory speeches at the lawyers’ meetings are usually about advocacy issues, about problems. Of course, other important issues for society were also discussed, but this language was exceptional and certainly not coordinated. It was not even discussed in the Bar Association or in the community in general ”, says G. Bartkus.

See elements of violence

The lawyer Justas Sakavičius has a very different opinion than the other interlocutors in the program. The lawyer sees elements of coercion in the current systems of opportunity passports and vaccination.

“I understand violence more broadly. Coercion can be not only direct but also indirect. We now have some kind of regulation that, in my opinion, let’s say, implicitly, does it mandate or encourage vaccination. Measures like restriction of services In this case, it was abandoned after a great upheaval, although it was planned to include it in the Government Resolution, measures that are now being discussed in the Seimas, such as the right to work, are applied to certain workers.

It adds to the fact that if a person does not have a certain state of health, they cannot exercise certain rights. I would also like to emphasize that coercion occurs when important human rights are restricted, such as the right to work, the family’s right to food, the right to medical care. In the rest of the cases, we can say that it is a human right, but given the need to choose between what is vital for you or something else, it seems that this gives rise to the concept of coercion ”, assures the lawyer.

Is it the time and place?

When Bartkus asked if the word “coercion” was used instead, the interlocutor assured that using words out loud can sometimes cause many painful consequences.

“Clearly, we know very well that sometimes a comma that is not placed there can change a lot, so in this language, when we learn that new orders are being born, from a conglomerate between government and business, these are words that are very sharp. The same can be said of the term coercion. Still, as Professor Sinkevičius said, it is better to talk about duties, the balance of rights and responsibilities. It is clear that we will all agree that there should be the least possible coercion, there is probably no doubt about it, but we will probably all see a certain balance between rights and responsibilities. It is the use of such strong words that can have very painful consequences. These are meant to cause unfounded illusions and the like. For this reason, many colleagues also mention that everyone has the right to have an opinion, everyone can say it, but on the other hand, it is necessary to find a place for that personal opinion. In my opinion, it was not a place or a moment, ”says G. Bartkus.

According to V. Sinkevičius, the most important thing about that speech was the content.

“A person chooses when and in what way to express that opinion, to which audience it is intended, etc. I, I believe that in this case, it was not appropriate, and not even the time and place here mattered, its content is the most important for me. This content is not intended to cultivate the good of society. I dare say that it is a business interest: contact lawyers and we will help you, although lawyers will not be able to help much in this case, “says V. Sinkevičius.

The professor assures that in this speech one side was completely absolute and the other side was completely invisible.

“I don’t like the word coercion, there is no coercion here. Man, whenever we balance law and freedom, that freedom must change in favor of another right and freedom. In this case, the public interest must be changed to guarantee the constitutionally significant interest; To guarantee public health, one cannot elevate personal interest from constitutionally significant and socially significant interest. In this speech, one side was completely absolute and the other side was completely invisible. This is how the Constitution cannot be interpreted.

At the crossroads of values ​​and individual freedoms, rational solutions must be found. No right can be denied or destroyed because man is a social being, he lives in society. Society is the space where it works. Can a person behave in such a way as to bring society to collapse, the health system to collapse, ”says V. Sinkevičius. “We are undermining the authority of lawyers in those languages. The authority of a lawyer as a profession. Due to legal knowledge or his own concept, the authority can be completely abused. I agree with Gintaras Bartkas that it was not stated in the act, not in time. “

Sakavičius: Vėgėlė’s language was a reaction to the implemented policy

Lawyer J. Sakavičius reacted to the words of V. Sinkevičius on the program.

“I want to immediately reply to the professor’s statements. In the first place, I. Vėgėlė’s speech was a reaction to the policy followed, which is also inevitably related to the law, because the policy is implemented by legal means. At this point, that policy is based on intimidation, intimidation, and coercion, although I don’t want to use that word.

In Sweden, for example, everything is based on public awareness and cooperation with the government, trust. Today we know which were the polls for the work of our Government, the lowest during the Independence period, and the bar has been raised. The model chosen in Sweden is based on clarity, a clearly communicated message ”.