Wednesday, March 31, 2021
Home Breaking News Restrictions on movement are open to criticism - has one of the...
- Advertisement -

Restrictions on movement are open to criticism – has one of the milder measures been completely forgotten? “It would focus on risky behavior” – Domestic

Politicians have highlighted the restriction that exists in many European countries.

The metropolitan area and restrictions on movement, primarily in Turku, have aroused surprise and criticism.

Chief of Staff of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health Kirsi Varhila said on Thursday that restrictions on movement are an “indirect way” of restricting encounters between people that take place at private events. Director of THL Mika Salmisen According to him, restrictions on movement are a last resort that has not yet been tried in Finland.

Politicians However, they have now raised the question of why Finland has not introduced night-time movement restrictions, which have taken place in several other European countries at different stages of the pandemic.

The issue has been raised on social media at least by the chairman of the Basic Finnish Parliamentary Group Ville Tavio, Member of the Coalition Party Timo Heinonen and the Green MEP Ville Niinistö. Tavio and Niinistö are from Turku, where restrictions on movement are planned in the first phase.

- Advertisement -

– It is unacceptable for the Marin government to impose a 24/7 curfew in order to reduce house parties and gatherings. In Germany, restrictions on outdoor movement only at night and such would be enough here as well, Heinonen tweeted.

According to Tavio, it would also be worth trying milder restrictions first.

– In the spirit of the Constitution, less severe means should be used first. For example, a curfew at night should be tried first, he tweeted.

Ville Niinistö notes that in many countries a night curfew has been introduced at an early stage of the epidemic.

- Advertisement -

– A night curfew would be simple (exceptions only for work and health reasons). In most countries, it is a first-stage restriction, other restrictions on movement only after further consideration. And that would be precisely the focus on risky behavior, that is, nightly private parties, he said.

Outdoor activities night time is currently limited or limited in several European countries.

One of the strictest bans is in France, where the curfew is in force between 7pm and 6am. For the first time, a fine of 135 euros will be imposed for violating the ban.

In Austria and Slovakia, you are not allowed to leave home after 8 pm in the evening.

In Greece and the Netherlands, the curfew starts at 9 pm, in Italy at 10 pm. In Spain, the curfew is in force from 23-06, but the times may vary from region to region.

The curfew ends between 4:30 and 6:00, depending on the country.

Ville Niinistö attention received support in the thread. It is welcomed by, among others, a constitutional expert, Doctor of Public Administration Pauli Rautiainen.

– So, it is easy to create a much stricter action with a simple circuit. The real question is probably why you do not want to do this. The response must be assessed against the epidemiological and impact data base. Do we have risks outside of private parties at night? he asked.

Rautiainen has criticized before imposing restrictions on movement. Prime minister Sanna Marin described the movement restrictions as a “latch” that would work better than a “screwdriver for point-to-point adjustment of different locations”.

Rautiainen announced that he would rather dig a screwdriver from the toolbox.

– The performance is exceptionally harsh, here people are moderately locked in their homes. Hit the screw with a screwdriver that could be screwed with a screwdriver. If it were possible to intervene in private meetings with a screwdriver, has it really been established to the end that this cannot be done?

Along the same lines taking into account the night curfew was a postdoctoral researcher Matti Muukkonen, which also proposed an alternative approach.

– I think that would be smarter than now agreed. Indeed, it would be even simpler to restrict access to the homes of others under Section 118 of the Emergency Act (and some exceptions may be made for these polyamorists). The procedure would also be simpler, he suggested.

Kirsi Varhila did not take STM on Thursday In studio A. directly state why this particular means of restriction has not been used. However, he generally noted the limitations that have not been introduced:

– Very pointy things could have been done, such as trying to intervene in the organization of private events. This tool, which is now being introduced, is more comprehensive than the kind of point tools that we now got together, Varhila said.

Source site

- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

- Advertisment -

Most Popular

Recent Comments

- Advertisement -