01 August 2021
The green pass is not comparable to the panoptic tower to exercise despotic vigilance over people, being one of the tools to neutralize the spread of the virus that has been limiting our freedom since March 2020. The threat of new restrictions derives from the viral enemy, which has calmed down thanks to mass vaccinations, but Covid is a devious beast that would like to insinuate itself into social interstices still not immunized to take root with its variants, multiply and, thus, erode the our spaces of freedom. In the anti-Covid trench they are engaged in an exhausting battle to stop the enemy’s incursion and those who do not join the vaccination front cannot be considered as deserter or fifth column of the invisible rival provided, however, that the respectable freedom not to vaccinating does not degenerate into license to harm oneself and others. In order to face the pandemic emergency, on which the concrete risk of “variants” looms, and to exorcise a worsening of the epidemiological framework, the Draghi government has issued the decree-law of 23 July 2021, n. 105, which provides for a selective mechanism for accessing certain services and activities through the equipment of one of the “green Covid-19 certifications” (commonly referred to as green pass and certifying that the person has been vaccinated or has obtained a negative result on the molecular test / unsanitary or cured of the infection).
The protesters of the government measure appeal to the violation of freedom. For anti-passers, the space of action of freedom cannot be calibrated on the possession, or not, of green certificates as if rights were endowed with absolute and unlimited practicability. Entering into the technical specificity of the government provision we can recognize it a license of constitutional legitimacy through a systemic reading of the Charter, because the limitations of freedom of movement, guaranteed by Article 16, are balanced by the need to protect health in its collective form as well as sanctioned by article 32. The limitation of the freedom of movement goes backwards with respect to the primary interest of protecting people’s lives and public health without implying, however, the complete renunciation of the constitutional good of freedom of movement, but rather its limitation: so that the sphere of expression of freedom of movement is not reduced, one is required, if one chooses to avoid vaccination, to obtain a certificate proving the state of recovery from Covid or the execution of a test with a “negative” result. The certification requirement contemplates a negligible “sacrifice” with respect to the greater good of epidemic containment, the resurgence of which would have deleterious effects on the social and economic side. It should be clear to those who censor the green pass that the widespread spread of the virus would propose more restrictive coercive measures than the current ones.
Today, the “no” to the green pass can mean a projection “yes” to the lockdown. And then we should avoid flaunting the selfish mantra of “inviolable rights” by lowering the solidarity flag of “mandatory duties”, because only from their equilibrium can we ensure an exemplary civil coexistence. On communication, politics should not indulge in ambiguous messages on the prophylactic value of vaccines in order not to feed that toxicity of disinformation which, through the manipulation of real news, pollutes the information ecosystem. Fake news lies undisturbed in web channels which, by causing suggestions in social users, have a distorting effect on reality. A recent study surveyed the “audience” of no vax pages with nearly half a million followers. A serious discussion on the Green Pass would help not to provide certain circles of unscientific skepticism with the pretext for counterproductive proselytism.