Constitutional Court: a purely political choice

Dear Members and Supporters,

as you have probably heard or read, the Constitutional Court ruled on the vaccination obligation after the public hearing on November 30th.

Let's quickly and succinctly summarize what happened: 12 applicants from different areas of Italy, including health professionals and teachers, have appealed to court for issues related to the vaccination obligation. Some judges accepted the objections regarding certain unconstitutionality issues and referred the case to the Constitutional Court. The Court brought together all the cases in a single public hearing which, in fact, was held on 30 November which was joined by other Ad Adiuvandum applicants plus all those Amicus curiae, including ours and of which we have already informed you.

On 2 December, the press office of the Constitutional Court issued a press release entitled "Vaccination obligation to protect health" which was reported by many media.

Here we allow ourselves to have our say, also because stimulated by many of you, and we would like to do it first in a synthetic way: the Constitutional Court does not decide anything about us!

We have never considered that body neither independent nor capable of making objective assessments and free from political influences and we have not even remotely dreamed that it was to safeguard the Constitution. Even the presentation on our part of an Amicus curiae appeal served us to leave a trace, a memory on a subject dear to us, vaccine damage, since with very rare exceptions the entire judiciary has been and is at the direct service of political wills and political parties and we had already seen it since 2017 with the first rejected appeals concerning the suspensions of children from kindergartens. The Constitutional Court, questioned (after an avalanche of popular protests) by the Veneto region at the time of the Lorenzin decree-law, had already expressed itself in favor of the compression of the rights of the individual in the name of a vaunted protection of public health. Not only that, today declaring the rules approved to combat the Covid19 emergency illegitimate and unconstitutional would have meant a shower of appeals and requests for compensation, as well as, in cascade, reviewing the entire schedule (still in vogue for those who visit their loved ones in hospital) of the Green Pass.

We know very well that the system does not go against itself…

However now that it has been confirmed that iIn this country, no institution works to protect the true rights of citizens, we can go further and in doing so allow us to highlight a basic concept once again: no one can decide for us.

The times we've lived have been really hard and both if you "succumbed" to the blackmail of the vaccine and even more if you resisted, you should by now have a clear idea of ​​what the level of the acceptable bar is, what to accept and what do not accept.

Now that you have experienced the "Covid19 two-year period", you have every right to be able to look down on the whole parliamentary arc and every institution of this state. You have the sacrosanct right to be able to look at all the offices of state with the indignation that you feel the most and to blame for life all the abuses perpetrated on our children and on ourselves, knowing that it won't be a press release or a court ruling to cancel them!

We also wanted to try to quickly frame the relationship between the vaccination obligation and the Constitutional Court and in doing so we turn the situation around: let's pretend that the Court, enlightened by an alien deity, said that everything that was done during the Conte and then Draghi governments was unconstitutional, do you think from the day after the Parliament could no longer propose similar rules? Friends, the Parliament, ironically, by law could reactivate the racial laws tomorrow if it wanted to, above all if the President of the Republic, who is the guardian of the constitution and the one who "represents national unity", said nothing... as was the case in these three years.

The vaccination obligation is only a political issue and the Constitutional Court provides an opinion on a precise rule, in this case passed and, like that of the obligation of health workers, even lapsed. Each sentence of the Court does not impose constraints on the future of the rules, or rather, the Parliament and the Government maintain the characteristics without constraints, their legislative power is not subject to a sentence also because if this were the case, none of the crap we experienced would have been possible.

Let's print it on our heads, let's tattoo it on ourselves: the obligation is only a political issue and our body remains inviolable anyway!

We will then comment on the reasons for the sentence when it is published, reiterating right now that nothing changes.

Corvelva Staff