People have the right to know exactly and clearly what governments are doing and what they plan to do with them.
Governments and their actions must be subject to rigorous, transparent and effective scrutiny, accompanied by sustained criticism, based on reasonable questions and reasonable doubt.
Public authority is not a matter of “trust”, but of “control and criticism.”
However, this cannot be achieved without objective, independent, impartial, determined, principled, truthful, analytical and investigative journalists and the media.
(Above: a compilation of the writings and lectures of many intellectuals, great minds: Chomsky, Dahl, Held, Arendt, Haidt, Peterson, Žižek, Tribe … and many others, as well as a whole series of decisions of the highest national and international courts).
The answers to the measures restricting the constitutional rights and freedoms and parallel questions regarding the Coronavirus COVID-19, offered to the public, are not clear and concrete enough.
Too many explanations offered to the public are unreasonable, superficial, intangible and illogical.
There is simply too much nonsense.
There is just too much illogicality.
Emphasis: Even if a person feels something is senseless, unreasonable or illogical, that could still be reasonable, sensible and logical for a scientist or a medically educated person, i.e. due to lack of knowledge of medicine, it should be presented to the public as such: clear and understandable.
Why? To reconcile the public, of course. What else?!
Above all, the people, do not let yourself be intimidated.
It is the public’s right – to publicity, to be informed, Truthfully and convincingly, woth understandable facts and clear, convincing explanations. And it is the duty of the representatives of medical profession and the media: to inform, explain, justify …
There is simply too much labelling, condemnation, linguistic cruelty and “verbal beatings”, incitement, deception, manipulation, evasion and lies. Sharp attacks, “manure pouring” on everyone who asks questions, does not trust unconditionally and categorically (the daily politics and public officials), searches for information and explanations, doubts, interrogates on the issues and thinks aloud … It is simply too much to bear, it is not acceptable – in democracy, under the rule of law, in constitutional democracy.
The rules on peoples’ behaviour in public, allowed and prohibited, are not clear, they are unambiguous and do not allow for predictability of permitted and prohibited behaviour.
There are simply too many non-life claims of the politicians and public officials.
There are no clear and categorical, unambiguous and convincing answers and explanations provided by the medical community, there is an obvious lack of undisputed CONSENT… Is there a consent, publicly presented? Can we see and hear such consent? NO.
The public is primarily addressed by politicians, or almost exclusively by politicians. These speeches are too often obscene, even mocking and sneering. Humiliating for the people.
What is the general state of health of the people in the home country? How do doctors work and live? What do University Clinic Centre Ljubljana and University Clinic Centre Maribor communicate to the public? Anything? No. They remain quiet end enigmatic.
What is the opinion of a large number of representatives of the legal profession – on the situation and on events that have legal starting points or legal consequences? Why do they remain silent?
Who deals with fear? This new epidemic?
I got my hands on a study on fear among people: The results of the study show that people are more afraid today than when the official pandemic began.
What is going on with the media? Why do they work the way they do?
How can it come to anyone’s mind to offer parents to sign a consent form that the school management has the right to see the medical records of all family members? Has a control system been established? Has this stopped? Will the central actors in this astonishing folly and unconstitutionality be adequately sanctioned or at least enlightened and criticized?
How can it come to anyone’s mind to offer parents who refuse to sign such a declaration, a statement (BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO REJECT IT!), to take full responsibility for all possible and unlimited negative consequences indefinitely? Is there any control over this? Are the actors responsibly sanctioned or at least instructed and criticized?
How can it occur to someone to offer a declaration to the parents to sign that they take personal responsibility for all possible and unlimited negative consequences that can occur indefinitely for anyone because their child did not have a mask on the school corridor? Are the actors of this act sanctioned or at least instructed and criticized?
Parents, and thus also children, are already under psychological pressure in many places, in some places even under psychological violence. What will the members of the educational profession do? So far, they did nothing. To be more precise, so far they have totally subjected, decided to subordinate to the unreasonable, not well explained and over-bureaucratic and technical “directions” of the public officials, to their “not mandatory, but only advisory” directions, accepting and adopting them in practice as being “mandatory.” Why? Where did their common sense and professional integrity gone?
I receive letters of circulars to the parents, including threats, coercion, intimidation, accusations, attempts at deception …, and taking “official notes” concerning the children, their behaviour and free movement inside the school parameters without the so-called “protective mask” … Where does this lead? To madness? To segregation? To punishment of childhood, parenthood and education? Into discrimination, stigmatization and social isolation? Come on!?
Have those who invade or attempt to invade the right to the protection of personal data and privacy read the recent decree of the Government of the Republic of Slovenia? And the description of the exception in the first article of the decree? It is not mandatory – to wear a mask!! So why do teachers and deans impose this masks on pupils as mandatory obligation?
I keep the Information Commissioner informed of everything. If the judiciary would at least operate in a similar manner as the Commissioner does, our domestic society would be able to intensively establish the rule of law. At the moment it is the only institution which serves the people and protects the peoples’ right and freedoms.
What is going on?
THE PROPOSED NEW PROVISIONS OF THE INFECTIOUS DISEASES ACT ARE an example of the most obvious and intolerable unconstitutionality, when it comes to the subject of FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS of the people.
The latest, most recent proposal on compulsory vaccinations is OBVIOUSLY and UNBEARABLY constitutional. Come on, are you serious: preventing unvaccinated children to enrol into kindergartens and schools, and at the same time put harsh sanctions on their parents? In which century are we supposed to wake up?!
The legal provision according to which scientific analyses and studies of vaccines are a “trade secret” is UNBEARABLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL. And now the state would like to invoke strict legal provisions regarding the legitimate and lawful reasons to object the vaccination? Claiming this can only be done if pervasive health reasons are convincingly introduced. HOW, if they concern something which it legally defined as “secret”? People are not stupid. And they will not become “lab rats”! We won’t allow it. Only over our dead bodies.
I will repeat. The proposal to prohibit enrolment and admission to kindergartens and schools, including faculties, for unvaccinated children and adolescents, while proposing severe penalties for parents of unvaccinated children, is UNBEARABLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL. It leads to blatant discrimination, stigmatization and social isolation with gross and serious violations of basic human and constitutional rights to privacy, moral integrity, dignity and security. It also means the announcement of a gross violation of other fundamental human and constitutional rights and freedoms.
Even apparently unconstitutional legal solutions regarding the legalization of gross interference with family intimacy and the privacy of the home, and property, under the umbrella of the so-called “control and protection of public health,” are even announced. Constitution clearly prohibits such legal solutions.
Who can, who dares to write such constitutionally intolerable legal provisions?
All this is in clear contradiction with the most important international legal documents on human rights and freedoms.
Is the Constitutional Court ready for the initiatives and constitutional complaints under this title that will follow when these intolerable proposals are put forward in the National Assembly’? I guess not. Not likely, since this court is not able to decide even on the measures imposed by the government decree during the official 2020 pandemic which restricted certain constitutional right and freedoms. Let us be honest: we don’t have the Constitutional Courts anymore for the last four years. What we have is not a Constitutional Court worth of its name and function, authority. I will self-restrict myself in description what we have instead of the Constitutional Court and constitutional judges.
And it is intolerable that the ECHR is still not deciding on the issue of compulsory vaccination and vaccines legal policies, delaying the final decision in a case Vavrička and Others vs. The Czech Republic.
The silence is also intolerable: of the WHO, European Commission, Council of Europe, UN, Venice Commission… All of these supranational institutions answered to my letter “we are not competent.” So you say, right.
But this problem, these problems are not being solved on the street. Street protests will not save them. The more likely it is that the opposite will happen.
False news, exaggerations, deceptions, shouting, nor silence will not solve this problem either.
The happening is becoming uncontrollable. There is no effective control of this daily political agenda.
Why do all new proposals and measures and restrictions happen so quickly, why are they so obviously introduced “by force”, with swings and hectic? The answer is already included in the question, I claim.
Legal solutions and regulations must be reasonable, intelligent, vital, legally clear and irreproachable, constitutionally acceptable, supported by unshakable and convincingly proven facts, in accordance with international law, legitimized with the consent of the medical profession and science, which must communicate with the public on a daily basis. Decent attitude towards people is a matter of MUST, without threats, without intimidation, without pressure, without reproach, taking into account the psychological effects of actions, conditions and events on people, with comprehensive treatment of the person and his or her organism, as a whole, without discrimination, without stigmatization, without social isolation, without PENALIZATION.
And such solutions are affordable, feasible, achievable.
The latter Government Decree (regarding the obligation of wearing “masks” in closed public spaces”) is – to put it mildly – written as if it had been written by a legal illiterate. And as it is written, as it is written, legally untenable and cannot and should not be the basis for the imposition of penalties / fines. The substance is not clear, the allowed exceptions are not clear and understandable to the public and an ordinary citizen, the prediction of allowed and prohibited behaviour is not possible, the provisions contradict to one another… It is clearly unconstitutional.
First of all, the first article of this decree addresses two exceptions. Then the second article of this decree, which initially contains the same message as the first article, does not mention the exceptions contained in the first article. I have been confirmed: the inspectors are referring to the second article of the decree. Illegal and unconstitutional arbitrariness.
Legally untenable and intolerable. The person who drafted the decree is either making fun of people or doing a job he is not up to.
And what exactly does “closed public space” mean (a colleague reminded me that there is an expert definition of these three words, these sentences)? And what exactly does an exemption “if a distance of 2 meters cannot be maintained” mean? And what exactly does the exception for schools mean? And what exactly does the difference between the first and second articles of the decree mean?
Legally unsustainable act, legally unsustainable content. Very poorly executed legislative work. Either ignorant and sloppy or teasing and degrading to the people.
What will the judicial branch of power do when it is inundated with lawsuits and complaints?
More and more people write to me saying that they no longer dare sneeze, cough, mention headaches, say they have a sore throat, that they have a fever – to friends, acquaintances, co-workers, even family. And even doctors.
With this anxiety, many feel an increased temperature. The fear of certain sensations causes the occurrence of these sensations in the body, or at least the feeling that they have occurred. It can even cause illness. Like it is caused by constant stress, by constant thinking about it, by fear.
Someone wrote to me that because of a slightly elevated temperature, with the excuse that he wanted to go to the sea a little bit but was just tired from work, he went to a holiday apartment for three days and returned after three days when he no longer had a fever – because he was afraid to say that he was not feeling well. He remained healthy.
Fear as a new epidemic.
Where does this fear lead to? Does it worry us? Who cares? Do those who should worry the most care about this? We should be very worried.
I am not disputing anything that medicine says, explains, recommends, warns… Or the representatives of medicine and science. I don’t not have this knowledge Therefore, I emphasize that I should not be misunderstood: I am only asking publicly and politely the medical community to clarify these questions, these answers, these dilemmas, in a way that the public will understand and be reassured. Every day. Not politics, but science and medical profession! Just that, nothing else.
And above all, do not frighten the children.
We must not lose our reason, our “head”, the sobriety of thought.
We must act in good faith and with the best intentions. And without any provocation from anyone.
It must not be allowed to pass the point of entering the state of “police state”
We must not lose our dignity. The freedom to ask questions, to doubt and demand clear answers. The reason.
And there must be no violence: not systemic, not linguistic, not psychological, not physical. No violence.