The Austrian flag; David Langwallner
This afternoon.
Further to Austria’s decision to make COVID-19 vaccines ‘mandatory by law’ and implement a full national lockdown starting Monday…
…Austro-Irish human rights lawyer David Langwallner writes:
1) This is a worrying extension of control and compliance and in breach of Article 8 (privacy rights). It is the negation of choice and a slippery slope and should not be followed in other countries.
2) This further accentuates a growing apartheid of people based on legitimate disgareement and concerns.
3) The Austrian right-wing People’s Party, though not a fascist party, are displaying deeply authoritarian tendencies.
4) Noticeably, the sensible Austrian people, by not taking up the vaccine in sufficient numbers, have displayed a degree of scepticism and doubt.
5) How do you enforce compulsory vaccination. By force? by internment? by imprisonment? By quarantine of the unvaccinated? By a round up? This creates all sorts of civil liberties issues and, for some Austrians, is history repeating.
David Langwallner is a barrister specialising in public law, immigration, housing and criminal defence including miscarriages of justice.
Earlier: No, Vienna!
Previously: David Langwallner: The Austrian Mind
Accelerate harder ;-D
now the didtor will upload this separately but here with a total reponse
Austrian Political Logic Versus Austrian Philosophy
Austrian Political Logic
I have tried to put this in as limited a fashion as possible.
1. The vaccines were introduced without normal testing due to the emergency and many of them have been found to be partially ineffective with side effects killing a certain percentage of people.
2. There are variants which certain vaccines seem to have difficulty dealing with
3. The booster jab is not completely effective and causes side effects and many people are dying from it.
Therefore,
1. Everyone must be forced compulsorily by whatever means including quarantine, detention, and force to have a vaccine.
2. The world must be divided up into the vaccinated and unvaccinated and those who are not vaccinated will not be allowed work or associate with their fellow man and will be allowed if non-compliant to————–
FILL IN THE BLANK
Austrian Philosophy:
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent
Wittgenstein.Tractatus
re your first point:
Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life
1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
(my emphasis)
And, as mentioned elsewhere. the ECHR ruled in April that compulsory vaccination can be considered “necessary in a democratic society”. (it wasn’t about Covid vaccine)
https://www.euronews.com/2021/04/13/how-a-court-ruling-lays-the-ground-for-mandatory-covid-19-vaccination
Except, the vaccines do not stop the spread of the virus and so the very basis for the discrimination is wholly disproportionate to the infringement on their rights, and they have also not provided alternative means of satisfying that safety concern, where such means exists i.e. tests.
But your reasoning the government could lock down the country and infringe on any Constitutional right to protect against the annual flu. A cold virus impacts on the economy too so going by your rationale, stopping colds would form a reasonable basis for infringing on any human right or Constitutional protection.
The key questions are a) is the measure effective? B) is it proportionate to the risk posed? C) have all other potential measures which could achieve a similar goal been provided for? Otherwise, anything the government deems a risk can then be used to infringement on our rights thereby making them utterly useless. The answer to all three above is NO.
Our Constitutional rights are there to protect us when in difficult times not just when it’s easy. Let’s just discard our rights niw as they become actually needed. Makes sense, eh?
It was all about the fake Covid vaccine, Cian, you know it, too. Of course, it’s unlikely that the Covid Scam will reduce the population enough, so it’s also about the future Fake Vaccines for the future Fake Pandemics.
https://jacobinmag.com/2021/11/australia-neo-nazis-covid-19-protests-uad
A beaut from Sara, there’s always one that’ll get them mixed up, the country in question is Austria, not Australia.
of course privacy rights are not absolute but weighed against a consensus to destroy them on a partially fabricated and over stated sense of public order
wake up and smell the coffee beans
re your 4th point
4) Noticeably, the sensible Austrian people, by not taking up the vaccine in sufficient numbers, have displayed a degree of scepticism and doubt.
Are you suggesting that those that didn’t take the vaccine are “sensible”? What about those that did?
According to ECDC 80% of adults in Austria have had one dose, and 74% two doses.
[only 90% of the over 60s in Austria have taken the vaccine.. that is a lot of vulnerable people exposed.]
4/5s of Austrians aren’t sensible? Wow.
Get a grip David. While the argument for or against mandatory can be made, calling it apartheid is offensive and demonstrated a credibility issue with what you’re trying to say. Best you educate yourself on what apartheid was.
Of course it is apartheid- what else could it be? It is classic back of the bus stuff with zero scientific evidence to support it’s imposition.
And if that makes those implementing it feel uncomfortable then good, they deserve to be made feel uncomfortable- and more.
Yes, that Rosa Parks could have sat up the front if she just took the vaccine that would make her white.
Oh. No. Wait. She couldn’t change her colour. So it is nothing like “classic back of the bus stuff”.
Perhaps you should go back to calling people Nazis again?
Bodily autonomy is a core civil right, it cannot be breeched.
Taking things away from people until they agree to do what you say isn’t giving them a choice, it is punishing them until they concede to your demands. It is totalitarianism.
Uncomfortable with that fact? Good.
you’re talking through your hole again.
Rights are not absolute. There can be conflict between two or more rights.
X and Y work together.
X is infected. X has a right to bodily autonomy and not take medication that would prevent transmission.
Y has a right to bodily autonomy and not be infected by X.
somebody‘s rights are being breeched.
Your argument is based on the assumption that vaccinated are less infectious indefinitely, which is simply not the case.
It is highly likely that as the vaccine wanes then the (possible) secondary benefit of being immune to the SARS-CoV-2 virus is the first thing to go.
The vaccines do not prevent transmission over any period of time, if at all.
SOQ, you continue to ignore peer reviewed research that demonstrates unequivocally that covid vaccines reduce transmission and the viral window.
You’re anti-science SOQ. You keep going on about civil rights.
You know what article 2 of the Human Rights Act is, right? At what point is it ok to erode that right until it meets your demands? You can’t have it both ways SOQ.
Im sure you do know what article 2 is, but I bet you’ve never read it.
Get a grip, Kim, this is far, far worse than Apartheid.
I fully know in depth what aparthied means and not just in a narrow sense it means division and stigma
You are spot on, don’t heed the idiots and bad actors.
David, this quote from Morgoth might pique your interest:
I wish people would shut up about the ”Nuremburg Code” it isn’t going to be implemented because the only people with the influence and power to implement it are the very people forcing you to take the vaccines.
The original trials were themselves a farce and nothing more than a way to usher in a new post-war order, but first a war had to be fought and won because Nazis weren’t going to put themselves on trial for their lives any more than the architects of the scamdemic will put themselves, or allow themselves, to be put on trial.
People have been saturated in liberalism for so long that they think there’s some sort of Deux Ex Enlightenment God going to swoop in and save them, wrong, like any other system liberalism relies on raw power.
People may wince at this, but I’m afraid it’s a hard cold reality, it isn’t about ”rights” and ”laws” it comes down to power.
Cold hard truths, compliance at all levels, is the driving force that is allowing this situation to be enacted.
part of the problem is the lunatics who have taken over the asylum are now in a shadowland immune from scrutiny and there is no world leadership as there were then such as FRD
So I agree
It’s irrelevant whether your materialist or theist. If there is a canonical law that supersedes any transient humanist whims – you have a form of immunity from tyranny.
Before, people could innately and effectively, be directed to the source of their malaise. With moral relativism, they can be lead to any ends. Using ‘shocks’ – reality can increasingly be shaped by the instigators, constantly moving the ground beneath peoples feet, until they’ve achieved their overall aim.
The asylum is of their devising.
Apartheid is the division and stigma of who exactly David? Or are you conveniently writing that part out of history? Pathetic.
Apartheid – segregation on grounds other than race. Yes, it is apartheid.
Commenters schooling a human rights barrister in human rights, eh? Power to the people after all.
LOL… yeah thinking the same, it’s gas.
Sure about that? When Prof Luke O’Neill, Tony Holohan, Philip Nolan etc come along, all you lot seem to know better than them?
Yep still funny, the difference is I can see the positives and negatives in both sides…for people like yourself it’s a George Bush approach… “you’re with us or against us”.
For me mandating vaccines is a redline, as is a pass which achieves nothing, getting the jab wearing a mask is all good, no real problem
I don’t agree with mandating vaccines. But i also don’t agree with comparisons to apartheid or, as we have seen elsewhere, comparisons with wearing yellow stars.
I’d agree with you on the use of the term apartheid its not a great word to use and it does nothing for the argument except detract from valid points
It’s more like segregation
– the action or state of setting someone or something apart from others.
Can you elucidate, Gavin? What are the crucial differences? In what way does the current situation not resemble apartheid, which, by the way is a word, not a regime.
At best, Micko, I’d say your splitting hairs, you aren’t pointing out any differences.
Apartheid means “Apartness”.
What part of Apartness doesn’t apply? Anybody?
Not to mention that, as pointed out by that Jewish woman yesterday, the risk of contagion was the excuse used to move the Jews to camps & what do people actually think is going to happen to those of us who end up in the camps? They’ll let us out in a year, six months with good behaviour? People will remain in those camps til they die, they will literally be Death Camps.
Meanwhile, back in society, people who claim the camps exist will be denounced as Conspiracy Theorists.
Exactly. That’s all I’m trying to say
ah K. Cavan
Now ye see this is where I don’t agree man.
No one is going to round up 300K Irish folks and put them into camps.
As someone pointed out the other day – the Guards can’t even answer the feckin phones here.
This is interesting- I can’t identify the guy as yet- maybe somebody else can help?
https://www.tiktok.com/@aisilyn/video/7031779721876704517
@micko they could use the army or UN ‘peace keepers’ – I’m not saying they will but mentally prepare for all possible eventualitys.
Do not concede to quarantine, you’ll die in a ‘COVID OUTBREAK’ anyone on the outside that questions this will be considered mad and possibly quarantined themselves.
Luke O’Neill? Come on, even the most wildly Fascist vaxiteer can’t avoid noticing what a scrambled brain that lunatic has, he’s obviously a bumbling fool.
As for Holohan, he’s a lightweight, a gofor with a Masters in Public Health, he hasn’t even got a PhD.
Not to mention they’ve been clearly lying through their teeth & spoofing from the start.
lol, I rest my case.
Rest your case on these facts Kim. As regard Luke O’Neill…
He stated
– Vaccinations are stopping transmission.’ (No they’re not)
– ‘When vaccination reaches a high level ‘the virus goes away’ ‘ (No it doesn’t)
– ‘We can prevent Covid through vaccination’ (No you can’t)
– ‘All of the vaccines, including AstraZeneca, will prevent you getting sick and ending up in hospital.’ (No they won’t)
Lying and spoofing.
I always hoped Europe’s short, post-war experiment with Democracy would outlast me.
Damn!
Picking up on a theme touched on above, why should the rights of those who are anti vaccine be greater than the rights of those who are not. I have a right to be safe, to be healthy and to go about my life knowing that the risks have been minimised. I cannot do that when there are people refusing to act in a way which benefits the greater good by reducing the risk of transmitting a serious illness. I have had 2 vaccines and a booster, knowing that it will not make me 100% immune but it will reduce the risk. Sadly though, even if I get a mild dose I could still become seriously ill or even die, because, like large swathes of the population I have underlying health issues. I have my covid “passport” and would be massively reassured if I knew wherever I went where there were large crowds, everyone else was vaccinated and we were all as safe as we could possibly be.
It is not a vaccine, it is an experimental gene therapy, released on the public without adequate testing.
They even had to change the definition of vaccine, as this shot does not stop transmission or actually protect from the flu.
The known side affects are already on a staggering scale according to their under reported data.
Convid 19 is survivable by 99.7% of all people, and that figure would be higher with better early treatments like Ivermectin and less Midazolam.
Your irrational fears should not be my problem but your compliance only encourages the circus clowns to become more authoritarian.
+1 Neuroticism leads people down a dark path, where their rights and health, are entrusted to those who care nothing for either. They’d also thrown yours to the wind without a second thought.
You’ve got to ask why the huge pharma companies (or their insurances companies) are not accepting any legal liability for injuries to people that their vaccines have caused or will cause. Why is that? If the vaccines are so good and work so well why don’t they?
It beggars belief that early treatment was not distributed to every household. It quickly turned into the vaccine or nothing. And just as quickly it was revealed, that emergency approval would never have been given to Pfizer/Moderna etc, if HCQ and Ivermectin, zinc, etc., were accepted as a viable cure. The mere fact that I have underlying conditions discouraged me from taking this particular vaccine… I bought a blister pack off the internet.
So you see Judith, you pays your money and you takes your choice!
Ivermectin is a horse wormer which kills dogs and you would rather have that, purchased off the internet. There is no reasoning with that logic
When you’re living in Gods waiting room you may understand that the fears are not irrational
I think I understand where you are coming from Judith, I wish you well.
of course privacy rights are not absolute but weighed against a consensus to destroy them on a partially fabricated and over stated sense of public order
wake up and smell the coffee beans
If you want to talk about segregation please do David, but don’t lower yourself to drawing comparisons with the history of black South Africans or any other marginalised community. Your content is usually interesting, engaging and considerate. Your choice of words this time round was not appropriate.
No, if you were “living in God’s waiting room” as you’ve stated, you would be living without fear or doubt. You’ve invested your well being in the machinations of men. I wouldn’t hold my breath for any payout.
see a david langwallner article, skip a david langwallner article
Ergo, if YOUR dad is Centerest Dad, get a new dad.
Which begets – if your husband is Centerest Dad, get a divorce.
However, never, ever, forget to leave a comment.
Article 8 of the ECHR reads – “2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety…”
Think the last two words were forgotten by David.
And as for calling it apartheid, David is way over the top.
I don’t really know why a British based barrister is being entertained here to be honest – David hasn’t resided in Ireland for some years as far as I’m aware.
‘ I don’t really know why a British based barrister is being entertained here to be honest – David hasn’t resided in Ireland for some years as far as I’m aware.’
Elaborate perhaps? Does his opinion not count then?
>> Elaborate perhaps? Does his opinion not count then?
I don’t see why he gets special treatment on Broadsheet which is an Irish website. David has no lived experience of Covid in Ireland as far as I am aware. Many lawyers and law professors actually residing and teaching here. Why aren’t they getting opportunities to write articles?
Write one, then, so!
Excuse me?
David Langwallner is one of Cabinteely’s finest (like yer man from My Bloody Valentine). He can live where he likes. Even outside the EU.
I think David always makes very valid and interesting points. I love his articles, his writing and his intellect.
Notwithstanding the arguments made here however I do feel the greater good is likely served by being vaccinated. I don’t feel those who object to the vaccine should be oppressed or denied fair access to services , mind you, but there is a sliver of unreason and irrationality proposed among those who oppose it (not everyone).