Here is the “verdict” that the Constitutional Court could never have issued
The things that the Constitutional Court could never have written were put on paper by the Tribunal of Florence last October 31st. But let's take a step back. Just a year ago, on October 31, 2021, a psychologist challenged the provision with which the reference professional order notified her of the suspension from the activity for not having undergone the anti-Covid-19 vaccine pursuant to art. 4 Legislative Decree no. 44/2021. The applicant also claimed pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages resulting from this draconian measure. The TAR declined its jurisdiction in favor of civil justice and the psychologist appealed to the Court of Florence. Furthermore, she also filed an emergency appeal, against which, on 6 July last, the Judge granted her provisional reinstatement pending the defense of the Order.
Well, having read and examined the defense statement of the latter, the Tuscan Court, with the order in question, fully confirms its provision (initially pronounced as a precautionary measure " inaudita altera parte" ). This is a real ′′ controlled demolition ′′ of many of the inconsistencies, or even falsehoods, of the endless vaccination campaign that began with the fanfares on Brenner at Christmas 2020. Let's start with the very poor effectiveness of vaccination. The magistrate cites the scientific literature in support of this structural "deficiency" of the serum (in particular, a study published in The Lancet on 01.12.21), but goes even further. In fact, it highlights how this awareness is an element “so widespread in the common perception of this historical moment as to be a well-known fact because everyone knows that vaccines do not prevent contagion (…); being in identical situations, discriminatory treatment of the unvaccinated is unthinkable". Reminder for Draghi, one might add.
Then we come to the adverse effects. The Court cites the annual report of AIFA (22 related deaths out of 580 and a causal link recognized in more than 80% of serious reports), but also the same warnings of the manufacturers (Comirnaty information note) on heart inflammation. And it is from this elementary observation per tabulas , as the educated jurists would say, that the Judge derives the radical incompatibility of mRNA drugs with article 32 of the Constitution and, above all, with the granite jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court (sentence no. 307 of 1990). In particular, where the latter states that a vaccination obligation is conceivable only in the presence of "consequences which, due to their temporariness and scarcity, appear normal for any health intervention, and therefore tolerable".
But there's more: the reckless, and in some ways hysterical, vaccination campaign conducted with the deliberate (and declared) intention of "taking no prisoners", so to speak, contrasts not only with the fundamental principles of our supreme Charter, but also with the guiding values of the European Union enshrined in articles 1 and 3 of the Charter of Nice. According to these irrefutable, and non-negotiable, ideals, life and human dignity are not exchangeable for (nor expendable to) any (alleged) higher value. Therefore, the criteria dictated by the jurisprudence of the Consulta leave no room for a "quantitative evaluation". As if to say that it is absolutely unacceptable for a mandatory vaccination campaign to leave dead or seriously injured people on the ground. We have not used the adjective "expendable" by chance.
It is the same pronunciation that uses it in a lapidary passage: "If, instead, in contrast with the values of the European Union and the fundamental charters of the member states, one were to admit the expendability of the individual at the altar of the community, admitting a balancing between collective interest and individual interest and the possibility of human sacrifices (…) not only would the individual always be unsuccessful and exposed to the will of a parliamentary majority which from time to time identifies the prevailing collective interest, such as for example the pressure on hospitals (…) but the very certainty of the law would be lost in such a fundamental and delicate matter of people's right to life".
There are five more key points in the ruling in question before the grand finale. First point : the question of the direct disapplicability of the mandatory tax provisions. On the basis of the principle established by the Court of Justice of the European Union since the so-called "Simmenthal" sentence of 1978, the national judges have the duty to disapply (without the need to appeal to the constitutionality review of the Consulta, in the Italian case) the rules " domestic ones” conflicting with the European ones, both earlier and later.
Second point : in this case there is a clear violation of the sacrosanct right to informed consent, "one of the cornerstones of post-war constitutionalism" declined in the mandatory respect for PERSONAL IDENTITY and FREEDOM OF BIOETHICAL SELF-DETERMINATION OF EACH ONE (editor's note: written in capital letters in the order of the Court of Florence) and proclaimed in article 2 of the Oviedo Convention of 1997: "The interest and the good of the human being must prevail over the sole interest of society or science". Here, according to the Court of Florence, something is at stake that comes even before rights, namely human dignity: "If inviolable rights are indivisible and must be balanced between them, dignity instead is the very basis of rights".
Third point : despite the semantic acrobatics of Big Pharma and its coryphaeus, vaccines are to all intents and purposes experimental (authorized only conditionally on the basis of European regulation no. 507/2006) and likely to imply, according to some studies , a "reverse transcriptase" with therefore negative efficacy and a greater exposure of the vaccinated to "risk of infections and tumor neoformations".
Fourth point : the applicant's refusal to undergo vaccination is all the more justified because "no European citizen can be forced to undergo experimental pharmacological treatments especially when, as in this case, there was scientific evidence on the efficacy of anti-inflammatories from the early stages of the disease" (and the study by the Mario Negri Institute already published in June 2021 in journals belonging to The Lancet is recalled).
Fifth point : the appellant was also discriminated against, for her personal opinions, in violation of art. 21 of the Nice Charter although there is no valid scientific reason why it was suspended from the register with respect to vaccinated colleagues "both being able to get infected". In conclusion, the ruling of the Florentine Court constitutes a real anthological summa of almost all the most solid (and scientifically based) reasons against compulsory vaccination. And – in addition to being a good omen in view of the next November 30 hearing in the Constitutional Court, on the legitimacy of mandatory vaccines – it concludes with a sensational, and dutiful, referral of the documents to the Rome Public Prosecutor's Office "for the adverse events and the dead and the numerous critical issues highlighted and due to the fact that the vaccination campaign continues and has recently even been extended to infants from six months upwards, without any trials". So, now the word goes to the criminal.
In the words of Bertold Brecht, there is a judge in Italy. But in Florence, not in Rome.
Francis Carraro
www.francescocarraro.com
Thanks to our Telegram channel you can stay updated on the publication of new articles from Economic Scenarios.
The article Here is the "verdict" that the Constitutional Court could never have issued comes from Scenari Economici .
This is a machine translation of a post published on Scenari Economici at the URL https://scenarieconomici.it/ecco-il-verdetto-che-la-corte-costituzionale-non-avrebbe-mai-potuto-emettere/ on Sun, 04 Dec 2022 15:47:54 +0000.