The effectiveness of lockdowns and strict covid-19 regulations has been questioned many times by many people, but effectiveness aside, an even bigger debate is rather or not lockdowns are constitutional. With the fear of moving into an authoritarian state, many people around the world have protested strict lockdowns measures. More often than not lockdown measures benefit corporations and the government, while they jeopardize the lives of the average citizen.
Recently a Belgian court rules that the current Covid-19 restrictions being put in place do not have a sound legal basis. The Belgian state will face fines if they do not lift the restrictions within 30 days, or provide proof of what law they are abiding by with the current restrictions. Currently, the state is acting based on the Civil Safety Act of 2007 which allows the government to move quickly during “exceptional circumstances”, but the judge ruled that the government “cannot act from ministerial decrees while using these laws.”
Related: Natural Coronavirus Prevention
Shortly after this ruling the Finnish government withdrew its proposal for lockdown measures. Prime Minister Sanna Marin announced the news last week after a statement from a constitutional committee deemed the lockdown “vague and not in compliance with the constitution”.
“The committee said the wide-ranging proposal should be changed to targeted restrictions for where the risk of contracting the virus was significant, such as private gatherings and crowded places such as shops. The Nordic nation of 5.5 million people has recorded 77,452 coronavirus infections and 844 deaths. It has been praised for its handling of the pandemic and has been among the least-affected countries in Europe. It has 295 people in hospital with COVID-19.”