Posted on 12/06/2021 7:26:08 AM PST by Mount Athos
The fine is now milder at € 2,000 (instead of € 7,200), but the amendment to the law against vaccination opponents is explosive in terms of democratic politics: Vaccination critics in Austria face a year of custody in the future. The amendment already passed the parliamentary committee. There should be their own detention rooms for the vaccination critics, the costs for food will be charged to “the obligated”.
Quietly, and without wanting to attract a lot of attention, the government has now completed the current template for the enforcement of the planned vaccination requirement. Specifically, this is a corresponding change to the Administrative Enforcement Act.
The text of the law, which has already passed the designated parliamentary committee and has only been approved by the ÖVP, SPÖ, the Greens and NEOS with the opposing votes of the FPÖ, is available to the eXXpress.
Accordingly, anyone who refuses to be vaccinated against the corona virus despite being asked to pay a fine of 2000 euros. But it will not stop with a one-off payment: Each violation is punished again with 2000 euros - as with violations of the speed limit. And: Anyone who refuses to be vaccinated and also to pay the fines should be taken into custody.
And analogous to the fines, the duration can add up in case of repetition: While initially a prison sentence of up to four weeks is possible, the government plans to extend the maximum duration to one year (!).
Particularly explosive: unlike other prisoners, the public purse does not pay for it, but the person concerned has to bear the costs incurred during this time himself. So the perpetrator also has to pay for his food and his cell.
Another interesting passage in the text of the law: "Prisoners are to be held in custody rooms", which are separate from prisoners, "who are held in accordance with provisions other than this federal law". Thus, according to this amendment to the law, there are apparently separate prison floors or prison buildings for anti-vaccination opponents.
On December 2, the constitutional committee gave the green light to the bill - without the content being openly discussed again beforehand.
The regulation should come into force in a few weeks in 2022. Changes would still be possible - but there was no criticism of any kind among the members of the governing parties, as excerpts from the minutes of the committee meeting, which are available to the eXXpress, show.
We are publishing the original transcript from the parliamentary committee here:
The proposed amendment ( 1176 dB ) stipulates a maximum total duration of one year of custody. In addition, it provides for a legal remedy based on the model of the deportation detention complaint, i.e. it extends legal protection. In principle, the enforcement of precarious detention is the exception in Austria, is emphasized in the declarations. Usually fines are used as a preventive measure.
In the committee meeting, Friedrich Ofenauer (ÖVP) emphasized that convicting detention should be understood as a last resort, which is only used if the rule of law cannot be helped to achieve a breakthrough through fines.
The Green MP Agnes Sirkka Prammer underlined that a state is only as strong as its ability to enforce decisions. She pointed to a built-in legal protection mechanism through which the legality of detention is continuously checked.
Johannes Margreiter (NEOS) signaled his approval and went on to say that this was not about classic violations of the law, but about individual cases, for example if a decision about an action to be taken was not followed.
Christian Drobits (SPÖ) particularly emphasized the limitation of imprisonment to one year.
The Freedom Party struck a more critical tone. Susanne Fürst (FPÖ) addressed the ongoing debate on compulsory vaccination, which made the topic particularly explosive. According to her, it cannot be ruled out that precautionary detention could soon be used en masse, especially for those unwilling to vaccinate. This must be clearly ruled out.
There is already a political consensus on this, replied constitution minister Karoline Edtstadler. They want to get people to vaccinate and not lock them up, which can also be recorded in the law of matter. According to Edtstadler, the possibility under administrative law to enforce the desired behavior must be guaranteed so that the legal system maintains its credibility.
The government bill was accepted by a majority without the votes of the FPÖ.
This was a conspiracy a mere 6 months ago
Coming up with new conspiracy theories these days is rather difficult. All the good ones are being taken up by reality.
“ This was a conspiracy a mere 6 months ago”
Yeah, but since then like 10 people died
Bring back the Salem Witch Trials...
Critics or unvaxxed lepers.
This thing is becoming a model for the Mark of the Beast
Now that will not happen until the middle of the 7-year peace deal.
And then shall be Great Tribulation.
The world wide 🌏🌍🌎 lock-down is an attention-getter. The hour is very very late. 🙏🙏🙏🛐🛐✝️✝️✝️
Forcing a vaccine that doesn’t work very well to stop a virus that is not that deadly. Hmmm...there must be something else about this vaccine that doesn’t have anything to do with a coronavirus.
Maybe a microchip in you hand or on your forehead that will allow you to buy and sell?
I'm going to have to sit down and read Daniel, Matthew, and Revelation again before it's too late.
Yep hurry... ✝️🛐🙏
A small amount on my FR home page (fwiw)
I thought the Nazis left Austria a long time ago.
Silly me for thinking so.
Hitler was Austrian.
A few questions:
How is refusing the corona virus vaccination different (legally) from refusing any other disease vaccination?
Some parents refuse vaccines for their babies and infants because of feared side effects. How would such a law work then?
If someone misses their annual booster shot, maybe after receiving reports of side effects and becoming concerned, is that to be treated the same (legally) like someone who has refused to vaccinate entirely?
What is the legal liability of the state for damages when a person, who was compelled to vaccinate by law, suffers side effects attributable to the vaccine or its administration?
Some of us will just have to face jail.
Oh well!!!
https://elijahstreams.com/watch/watch.php?ID=932
INTELLIGENCE BRIEFING WITH ROBIN AND STEVE - EPISODE 29
December 6, 2021
Worth the time to listen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.