Justice Minister Zadić's letter from 9 Feb. 2022 puts the entire political class that voted in favour of the Injection Mandate on notice: let's all find lawyers and file criminal charges *now*
"I resent the fact that the fate of the countless victims of these [Nazi] crimes...is...inappropriately...brought up in comparison with those people who are not vaccinated against Covid-19." I would say that it is also being brought up with regard to people who have been vaccinated but under coercion.
Oh my, I'm with you on this one, but keep in mind that the more one (self-) identifies as 'progressive' or even 'left-liberal' (whatever the latter might actually mean: I've met quite a few who self-identify as such, but none could tell me what that means…), the larger the premium on public virtue-signalling.
Ms. Zadić' is certainly not an exception in this regard, and the fact that she is both well-qualified (JD plus LLM from an Ivy) and willing to--perhaps inadvertently?--tell everyone to watch out for potential criminal charges* is, well, quite something.
Note, in this particular regard, that her answer to Mr. Hauser's enquiry is dated 9 Feb. 2022, i.e., five days after the injection mandate entered into force. In other words: she could have just stated 'something' within the two months it took 'her' (i.e., somebody in the DoJ) to write these two paragraphs.
My money as to why Ms. Zadić did so now follows this line of thinking: in mid-December, when Mr. Hauser wrote his letter, these questions were so heavily suppressed in legacy media (after all, it's just the tinfoil hat-wearing right-wingers--like Mr. Hauser--who would ask such questions), that the actually helpful answer is telling in and of itself. Furthermore, by late January, the Consitutional Court has asked even more poignant questions, hence there's nothing to gain by playing stupid.
Two last snippets from Ms. Zadić's biography might also play a role:
First, she's like the poster child of 'successful integration', having fled Bosnia-Herzegovina in the early 1990s before she turned 10, Ms. Zadić came to Austria as a persecuted refugee of Muslim faith. Now, look at that CV again, and you can clearly see that by becoming Minister of Justice before she turned 40, that's quite an accomplishment, esp. as she, unlike, say, other hopeful up-and-coming politicians (Sebastian Kurz comes to mind, who managed to graduate from high school) actually worked outside party jobs.
Speaking of Ms. Zadić's party, the Greens, second, it's worth pointing out that she's about the only quite 'independent' mind in government these days. When the Greens split in the 2010s over intra-party bickering (she sided with former MP Peter Pilz, whose demands for 'ideological' and 'moral' purity were, after decades as one of the most vocal proponents of more oversight, deemed 'quite unhelpful by the likes of Werner Kogler and his sidekick, current head of the Green parliamentary faction, Sigrid Maurer), Ms. Zadić sided with Mr. Pilz, i.e., against the Green Party. While the Greens subsequently failed to enter parliament from 2021-19, political mayhem ('Ibiza') and the eventual unification of these two party wings led the Greensout of te wilderness, back into parliament, and into government in 2019.
While I don't know what Ms. Zadić had to 'promise' her fellow party members to gain that appointment at the DoJ, I know that she's there as a (virtue) signal to that particularly 'puristic' faction of the Greens, without as much party-political support as, say, the lifelong party hack S. Maurer has (who, incidentally, started out as a student politician, spent countless years at college before eventually 'earning' an undergraduate degree; she's currently--since 2017--enrolled in a MA curriculum, as per https://www.parlament.gv.at/WWER/PAD_83101/index.shtml).
Most likely, she's been appointed to the DoJ to placate the virtue-signalling woke faux progressives in her party, but still: the letter is quite a testament to two over-arching aspects, I'd argue: first, like the Constitutional Court, the DoJ is signalling a willingness to take these legal matters seriously, 'even' if the questions are asked by Ms. Zadić's political opponents from the right-wing Freedom Party.
Second, much of the commentary so far has focussed on the Court's letter etc., which is specifically dedicated to the mandates, hence note that Ms. Zadić's letter points to the already-existing legislative framework to actively engage those who propose to break both criminal and civil law, irrespective--or, perhaps better: independent of--whatever the Court may or may not do.
I suspect that this letter has raised quite a few eyebrows among the legal minds.
Good question. From what I read so far, I suspect that his arguments favour more on the human rights aspects (which is good, don't get me wrong), but Ms. Zadić's letter opens up another set of avenues on which the pre-Covid legal system may be employed to fight these mandates.
As such, it's probably 'even better' that the Fuellmich approach because 'human rights' are kinda detested by parts of the political right, hence the 'beauty' of bringing up the possibility of playing the 'law and order' card.
Because of that second point I'm fairly convinced, althought I don't know for certain, that Ms. Zadić's reference to the criminal and civil codes was either a major 'gaffe'--or that she sees more clearly that the winds are about to shift in an altogether different direction.
Hmmm, might be, but the problem is--the selection process for MEPs in Covidistan is this: the list of vote-able candidates is cobbled together in shady private backroom dealings. Only once everything is settled in advance does the electorate get a chance to 'vote'.
"I resent the fact that the fate of the countless victims of these [Nazi] crimes...is...inappropriately...brought up in comparison with those people who are not vaccinated against Covid-19." I would say that it is also being brought up with regard to people who have been vaccinated but under coercion.
Oh my, I'm with you on this one, but keep in mind that the more one (self-) identifies as 'progressive' or even 'left-liberal' (whatever the latter might actually mean: I've met quite a few who self-identify as such, but none could tell me what that means…), the larger the premium on public virtue-signalling.
Ms. Zadić' is certainly not an exception in this regard, and the fact that she is both well-qualified (JD plus LLM from an Ivy) and willing to--perhaps inadvertently?--tell everyone to watch out for potential criminal charges* is, well, quite something.
Note, in this particular regard, that her answer to Mr. Hauser's enquiry is dated 9 Feb. 2022, i.e., five days after the injection mandate entered into force. In other words: she could have just stated 'something' within the two months it took 'her' (i.e., somebody in the DoJ) to write these two paragraphs.
My money as to why Ms. Zadić did so now follows this line of thinking: in mid-December, when Mr. Hauser wrote his letter, these questions were so heavily suppressed in legacy media (after all, it's just the tinfoil hat-wearing right-wingers--like Mr. Hauser--who would ask such questions), that the actually helpful answer is telling in and of itself. Furthermore, by late January, the Consitutional Court has asked even more poignant questions, hence there's nothing to gain by playing stupid.
Two last snippets from Ms. Zadić's biography might also play a role:
First, she's like the poster child of 'successful integration', having fled Bosnia-Herzegovina in the early 1990s before she turned 10, Ms. Zadić came to Austria as a persecuted refugee of Muslim faith. Now, look at that CV again, and you can clearly see that by becoming Minister of Justice before she turned 40, that's quite an accomplishment, esp. as she, unlike, say, other hopeful up-and-coming politicians (Sebastian Kurz comes to mind, who managed to graduate from high school) actually worked outside party jobs.
Speaking of Ms. Zadić's party, the Greens, second, it's worth pointing out that she's about the only quite 'independent' mind in government these days. When the Greens split in the 2010s over intra-party bickering (she sided with former MP Peter Pilz, whose demands for 'ideological' and 'moral' purity were, after decades as one of the most vocal proponents of more oversight, deemed 'quite unhelpful by the likes of Werner Kogler and his sidekick, current head of the Green parliamentary faction, Sigrid Maurer), Ms. Zadić sided with Mr. Pilz, i.e., against the Green Party. While the Greens subsequently failed to enter parliament from 2021-19, political mayhem ('Ibiza') and the eventual unification of these two party wings led the Greensout of te wilderness, back into parliament, and into government in 2019.
While I don't know what Ms. Zadić had to 'promise' her fellow party members to gain that appointment at the DoJ, I know that she's there as a (virtue) signal to that particularly 'puristic' faction of the Greens, without as much party-political support as, say, the lifelong party hack S. Maurer has (who, incidentally, started out as a student politician, spent countless years at college before eventually 'earning' an undergraduate degree; she's currently--since 2017--enrolled in a MA curriculum, as per https://www.parlament.gv.at/WWER/PAD_83101/index.shtml).
Most likely, she's been appointed to the DoJ to placate the virtue-signalling woke faux progressives in her party, but still: the letter is quite a testament to two over-arching aspects, I'd argue: first, like the Constitutional Court, the DoJ is signalling a willingness to take these legal matters seriously, 'even' if the questions are asked by Ms. Zadić's political opponents from the right-wing Freedom Party.
Second, much of the commentary so far has focussed on the Court's letter etc., which is specifically dedicated to the mandates, hence note that Ms. Zadić's letter points to the already-existing legislative framework to actively engage those who propose to break both criminal and civil law, irrespective--or, perhaps better: independent of--whatever the Court may or may not do.
I suspect that this letter has raised quite a few eyebrows among the legal minds.
Thank you so much for taking the time to reply. It is all very interesting. I appreciate your Substack articles very much.
You're perfectly welcome, and thank you very much for your kind words!
Where is Reiner Fueller of bulla bulla?
Good question. From what I read so far, I suspect that his arguments favour more on the human rights aspects (which is good, don't get me wrong), but Ms. Zadić's letter opens up another set of avenues on which the pre-Covid legal system may be employed to fight these mandates.
As such, it's probably 'even better' that the Fuellmich approach because 'human rights' are kinda detested by parts of the political right, hence the 'beauty' of bringing up the possibility of playing the 'law and order' card.
Because of that second point I'm fairly convinced, althought I don't know for certain, that Ms. Zadić's reference to the criminal and civil codes was either a major 'gaffe'--or that she sees more clearly that the winds are about to shift in an altogether different direction.
Hmmm, might be, but the problem is--the selection process for MEPs in Covidistan is this: the list of vote-able candidates is cobbled together in shady private backroom dealings. Only once everything is settled in advance does the electorate get a chance to 'vote'.
I'll have a look, but I'm not very hopeful.