– underwent vaccination against Covid-19;
– can certify that the Sars-CoV-2 infection has been cured for no more than six months;
– have received a negative result from a molecular or rapid antigen test within the previous 48 hours.
A clear rule that allows us to treat different situations in the same way, allowing us to return to having a sociality even in closed places such as restaurants and pizzerias … yet anyone, since that fateful 6 August, is able to fill the mouth of their own ” rights”.
And then we asked ourselves what weighs more on the constitutional balance?
But let’s take a step back.
Article 32 of the Constitution provides that any treatment, to be mandatory, must necessarily be provided for by law.
This, in other words, means that a certain cure (or in this case the vaccine) can only be made mandatory if there is a law that prescribes it.
In any other case, the choice will always be left to the “freedom of conscience of the individual”.
But, to return to our “Green pass”, we are not talking about the imposition of undergoing the vaccine as many argue to contest the obligation to certify.
As recently happened in Senigallia and Ancona in which huge (and scandalous) advertising posters circulated with the words: “vaccines do not exclude personal infection and the spread of the pandemic coronavirus and can cause very serious events and death. No to any vaccination and experimental obligation !! We cannot experiment because we are not laboratory mice. No Green pass !! “.
Yet the promoters of this initiative have not even understood that the Green pass is not at all obliging anything, much less the vaccine (otherwise it would be in violation of Article 32 of the Constitution which, in fact, provides for the impossibility of mandatory health treatment if not required by law).
The Green pass gives the possibility to return to hope for a normal social life in which everyone is protected and feels safe.
And it leaves me perplexed to know that the answer given by the municipal authorities about the possibility of refusing to put up those posters was: “No, we could not, preventive censorships are made if there are offenses in the cartels, if there are crimes such as incitement to fascism, or sexist or public decency crimes but this was not the case. A colleague took the application for advertising, checked the text for obscene phrases and went to the posting for a few days already. Refusing would have been a problem for our office because we cannot deny freedom of thought”.
Well I believe that, although this poster does not contain obscene content, it is clearly instigating and aimed at contravening a rule of civility and altruism, in violation of common civic sense.
The association “No vax and No green pass” is not (and must not be) automatic.
You can decide not to get vaccinated (precisely because there is no mandatory health tax by law) but you cannot put others at risk, which is why a third requirement has been envisaged, that of the molecular swab, which would allow you to have the certification respecting the other.
But it is not the only episode that has left me baffled.
There were several episodes, very sad, a sign of an all-Italian rebelliousness to respect the rules.
And it is thus that a decree law that was to have, as its main objective, that of facilitating free movement by trying to return to normality in “safety” has become a pretext for selfishly contravening a common good, public health.
Yes, because there are those who, continuing to ignore the need for certification, also think they are right when they appear in front of a pizzeria whose entry is inhibited by the lack of green certification.
It happened to the owners of a pizzeria in Ivrea who even felt threatened by a customer who was annoyed by his inability to access the place.
The customer thus threatened the pizzeria to “ruin it on social networks” and so he did (or tried to do) with countless negative reviews that found the support of the internet no vax people.
And do we call this the right to the manifestation of one’s thought?
Don’t we think it could lead to defamation?
Fortunately, alongside them, there were also countless messages of solidarity to the honest owners.
But this is just one of the thousand episodes that we are witnessing in these weeks of August holidays.
Perhaps, returning to our balance of constitutional rights, we should explain to those who oppose the
Green pass that every now and then should take off those blinders and understand that their rights end where those of others begin.
And that the “freedom of thought” of article 21 of the Constitution can be balanced with the right to health only when it comes to situations in which there is really a health to be protected … but this is not the case!
The Green pass protects collective health without imposing anything that may affect the health of the individual.