Reasons why the green pass is not unconstitutional

The introduction of the Green Pass has sparked a heated debate among citizens and experts alike. Some argue that it infringes upon their constitutional rights, while others believe it to be a necessary measure to protect public health. In this article, we will explore the reasons why the Green Pass is not unconstitutional, but rather a reasonable and proportionate response to the current global health crisis.

First and foremost, it is important to understand that constitutional rights are not absolute. In times of emergency or crisis, such as the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, governments have a responsibility to safeguard public health and ensure the general welfare of their citizens. The Green Pass, which provides proof of vaccination, recovery from the virus, or a negative test result, helps to mitigate the risk of transmission and supports efforts to prevent the further spread of COVID-19. It is a measure taken in the interest of public health, which is a paramount concern that can justify certain restrictions on individual liberties.

Furthermore, the Green Pass is non-discriminatory in nature. It applies to all individuals equally, regardless of their age, gender, or background. The criteria for obtaining a Green Pass are based on objective factors, namely one’s vaccination status, recovery from the virus, or the presentation of a negative test result. These requirements are not arbitrary, but rather evidence-based measures designed to protect public health and minimize the risk of COVID-19 transmission. Thus, it does not amount to discrimination or infringe upon any constitutional principles of equality.

Moreover, the Green Pass does not unduly restrict fundamental rights. It does not prevent individuals from accessing essential services or participating in public life; rather, it encourages responsible behavior and mitigates the risks associated with the ongoing pandemic. While some argue that it limits personal freedoms, it is important to remember that in a democratic society, individual rights are not absolute and must be balanced against the common good. The Green Pass strikes a reasonable balance by imposing minimal restrictions necessary to protect public health and prevent the further spread of the virus.

Additionally, the Green Pass is a temporary measure. It is not intended to be a permanent fixture or a long-term solution, but rather a tool to navigate through the current crisis. As vaccination rates increase and the pandemic is brought under control, it is expected that the need for the Green Pass will diminish. Therefore, any concerns regarding its long-term impact on constitutional rights are unfounded, as it is meant to be a time-limited response to the immediate challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic.

In conclusion, the Green Pass is not unconstitutional, but rather a reasonable and proportionate measure to protect public health. It is grounded in evidence-based criteria, non-discriminatory in nature, and temporary in its implementation. While constitutional rights are important, they are not absolute and must be balanced against the common good in times of crisis. The Green Pass strikes a necessary balance by safeguarding public health and mitigating the risks associated with COVID-19 transmission.