The debate on the need to make the anti-covid 19 vaccination compulsory, which indeed seemed to be dormant by now, comes back into vogue after the so-called Austrian "squeeze". And with it, the multiple expressions of social "rebellion" against the new and (in) existing "health regime" also return, more fiercely than ever.

That the "protest" to the bitter end has become a real political "resource" in the hands of small groups of "social disintegrated", alleged bearers of unprecedented "absolute rights" of lower rank, appears undeniable in the contingent socio-juridical context. The subtle "blackmail", as a tactical-strategic tool of an unspecified "bargaining power" of exchange within the political process, seems to be expressed entirely in the "violent" potential of the protest, in the "dissent" carried to the extreme consequences by " de-qualified minorities "without representation and therefore unable to exert the necessary ideological and political pressure in different forms. Consequently, the choice between tolerance and repression, or the right reconciliation between the two systemic "responses" to dissent, passes through any prior evaluation of the very high cost of repression: in the tolerance of dissent, in fact, the Government would so far seem to have glimpsed the possibility of containing in the political context of reference, and in any case in a marginal position, those "groups" of individuals who have escaped from the social "wholes" of the various communities, that is, more simply, "outside" the range of action of the system; in the tolerance of dissent, moreover, and paradoxically in wanting to consider everything, the alleged and more intense form of social stability seems to have been rooted (and erring in this).

But the point is another, and politics does not seem to have the courage to recognize it and then face it: can "dissent" continue to survive as an instrument of political persuasion beyond and beyond any form of legality? Evidently not. But preventing its expression, wanting to impose a "muzzle" (because in this way the decision would be maliciously perceived) to any form of (the) legitimate "civil disobedience", would lead to the crisis of the system, and its collapse, despite Mario Draghi and indeed, precisely due to the political work of Mario Draghi who, like Mario Monti (nominated sunt homina), seems to have appeared to most, and probably is, only as a cold regulator of accounts in the service of Brussels.

In other words: if it is true, as it is true, that dissent, in its positive meaning, manages to perform a fundamental "docimological" function within every democratic system due to its corrective potential of the distortions of the system, however, it is equally It is true that that same dissent can constitute, in limited cases, the necessary “controlled” relief valve of a condition of human social dissatisfaction which, in extreme situations, could well explode, overwhelming and destabilizing entire communities. Well. If this is the political-social frame of reference, then it is right, before it is legitimate, with all due respect to the serial dissenters, to discuss the subject of "anti-covid 19 vaccination obligation" and "reinforced green certification" definitively overcoming a taboo until too inflated for its age and impromptuness. Meanwhile, because the vaccine allows (and there is proven evidence) to stem the offensive potential of the virus. Therefore, because in application of the combined provisions of articles 16 and 32 of the Constitution, and also in application of the so-called principle of "social solidarity", the vaccination obligation can be introduced without any disputes that may be considered suitable to question it legitimacy. Finally, because, although the vaccination obligation is only a residual hypothesis, that is the "extrema ratio" placed at the end of the system of guarantees, however, this hypothesis must be referred to in a context in which (ours for example), the "Gentle push" does not seem to have guaranteed the desired results. Those who, like Giorgia Meloni on so many occasions, want to insist that the "green pass" is contrary to EU regulation 953/21, either have not read it, or have not understood it, or simply want, how dangerously, to ride the '“Ignorance” of those who do not have the tools to correctly interpret the most complex regulatory texts. I repeat this once and for all, and I challenge anyone to still want to argue otherwise. The regulation in question introduces one and only prohibition: that, to be clear, of using vaccination as a "truncheon" useful for limiting circulation between EU states, without in any way affecting any internal limitations existing in individual Member States. That same regulation, on the other hand, justifies the existence of any internal limitations by stating, clearly and unequivocally, that "Member States may limit the fundamental right to free movement for reasons of public health". In the light of this statement, therefore, the aforementioned principle of "horizontal" social solidarity, which should already permeate the daily lives of all of us, should, if anything, also be able to reflect on individual subjects of law and rights as individuals belonging to the same Community in order to be firmly persuaded to respond positively to the imposition of a certain obligation of medical importance as it corresponds to a higher social interest in a context where the pure and simple spontaneity of the behavior is not able to offer appropriate guarantees for the implementation of that obligation . However, transparent and calibrated decision-making processes are needed, and in this the Politics has failed to fulfill its institutional role. Perhaps out of inability, perhaps out of pure and simple opportunism: certainly, this sub-condition of guilty decision-making confusion has contributed to fuel the already existing social divisions as tangible signs of generational degeneration. The time has come to definitely take the path of the generalized anti-covid 19 vaccination obligation, also through the introduction of the "super green pass" (which, in its intentions, would like not to penalize the unvaccinated, but rather to reward the vaccinated) , addressing once and for all the legal criticalities connected to them, relegating any and all forms of political opportunism to the attic and, above all, restoring the necessary centrality to Parliament as the representative body of society in its various articulations.

Giuseppina Di Salvatore

(Lawyer - Nuoro)

© Riproduzione riservata