Ontdekken postsOntdek boeiende inhoud en diverse perspectieven op onze Ontdek-pagina. Ontdek nieuwe ideeën en voer zinvolle gesprekken
[Forwarded from Anna de Buisseret (UK Lawyer)]
Italian Court rules mandatory vaccines to be unconstitutional:
“The criterion set by the Constitutional Court for compulsory medical treatments to be enforced is not likely to include a quantitative evaluation.
So the lawfulness of a mandatory vaccination is to be excluded, if it uses products whose effects on the vaccinated patients’ health exceed the threshold of normal tolerability.
Which cannot include the risk of serious or fatal adverse effects, even if these are small portion in relation to the vaccinated population.”
So, even if they are few, one fatal effect suffices to make this inadmissible.
“And even in the case we accept the risk of — albeit rare — fatal adverse effects, this criterion would have sensitive ethical implications.”
For instance, who would determine the percentage of disposable citizens?
It is indisputable. Otherwise it results in Nazism.
It is indisputable. If the Constitutional Court rules against this judgment, it means its members are servants of politics.
They are politicians, not jurists. A jurist cannot but reach the same conclusion as this ruling.
If the members of the court rule differently, it means they are not ignorant, of course, but surely someone extremely biased and politicized.”
https://rairfoundation.com/ita....lian-court-rules-man
[Forwarded from Anna de Buisseret (UK Lawyer)]
Italian Court rules mandatory vaccines to be unconstitutional:
“The criterion set by the Constitutional Court for compulsory medical treatments to be enforced is not likely to include a quantitative evaluation.
So the lawfulness of a mandatory vaccination is to be excluded, if it uses products whose effects on the vaccinated patients’ health exceed the threshold of normal tolerability.
Which cannot include the risk of serious or fatal adverse effects, even if these are small portion in relation to the vaccinated population.”
So, even if they are few, one fatal effect suffices to make this inadmissible.
“And even in the case we accept the risk of — albeit rare — fatal adverse effects, this criterion would have sensitive ethical implications.”
For instance, who would determine the percentage of disposable citizens?
It is indisputable. Otherwise it results in Nazism.
It is indisputable. If the Constitutional Court rules against this judgment, it means its members are servants of politics.
They are politicians, not jurists. A jurist cannot but reach the same conclusion as this ruling.
If the members of the court rule differently, it means they are not ignorant, of course, but surely someone extremely biased and politicized.”
https://rairfoundation.com/ita....lian-court-rules-man
