Laurinkus. The anti-vaxxer movement should be equated to a national security threat

The anti-vaxxer movement should be equated to a national security threat. The object of security would be the people’s health, regardless of their race and nationality. The exceptionally protected segment would be students who are receiving every message from both parents and teachers, as well as smartphones and do not have clear criteria on what is right and what is wrong and harmful, Mečys Laurinkus writes in lrytas.lt portal.

Exceptional attention should be directed at “authorities”, who not only maintain a mistaken perspective on vaccination but also disseminate it to society, the campaign to disobey the anti-pandemic decisions made by states around the world.

COVID-19 and its variants are a challenge to all of humanity and the struggle surpasses the territory of states. The measures for combatting this tangible threat have passed through various experimental paths and are gradually converging, just as is the understanding that without joining forces and methods, a loss, which doesn’t bode well, awaits.

I am certain that already in a year, if not sooner, it will be not only the governments of democratic states on the battlefield but also opposition groups and NGOs, who are numerous in the world and whose influence is often far greater than that of sceptically perceived official structures.

Do the anti-vaxxers not have the right to publicly express their opinion? They do and no legal restrictions can be imposed on this, but concurrently, we shouldn’t forget world history. Once, racist theories were announced and distributed under cover of science in even countries such as France, England, the USA. Famous industrial magnates wrote anti-Semitic studies and gifted these to colleagues, distributed in large print volumes to society. Democracy. What did that end with?

I hear you say, “Nonsense, the anti-vaxxers are precisely against dividing the people into the vaccinated and not, against restrictions via the passports of opportunity and so on. Philosopher (albeit I am unsure why she is introduced to society as such) N. Vasiliauskaitė bluntly compares the government’s decisions to Nazi methods. (By the way, if I were the prime minister, I would take note of these claims by the “philosopher”)

But the reality is simple – it is namely those publicly campaigning on the public domain against vaccinations, who are forcing people of various ages, who are forced to be in one space with the anti-vaxxers, into a very definite territory in graveyards.

I listened to the speeches at the protest near the Seimas, which turned into a riot, and, unfortunately, I have only one thing to say about them – total nonsense. Even further – it’s dangerous gibberish. It is clear that the rambling from the protest will not influence the people, who are aware of the scale of the problem, but there are numerous people, who have yet to get to grips with the situation, and this includes youths, including those for whom anarchy is the mother of order.

It is becoming increasingly evident that the riot was planned, even if not by the same persons who obtained the initial permit for the protest. It would be a great loss for law enforcement if those engaged in planning and enacting the riot would be left unnamed.

By the way, it is long overdue in terms of the third countries potentially contributing to the riot, and it is completely evident as to who they are, to present evidence. Guesswork is no longer believed. Should permits no longer be issued to similar protests? If the protest content is related to campaigning against vaccination – a permit should not be issued. Most of Lithuanian society will agree with such a decision.

What are the horizons for near-future Lithuania? After being a little hazy previously, they are increasingly clear. The current government is due to enter heated political autumn.

The protest organisers will not settle down – it matters not what they gather to protest against. And while it was the anti-vaxxers dominating the protest, which ended in a riot, there was a significant mix – there were also protesters against migrants and those from the Family March.

On the border with Belarus, we have a pause in illegal migrant flows. It is uncertain as to how long it will last, but it appears that the push-back worked out even if cautioning voices emerged from human rights protectors. V. Valentinavičius, a representative of the Seimas Ombudspersons’ Office, launched into a rather unpleasantly sounding tale from monitoring at the border. More similar observation results could surface.

While A. Bilotaitė felt insulted over the text he released, after looking deeper, it turned out that the Seimas did take into account the ombudsperson’s remarks. While it is unclear if the refugee flows will be renewed, it must be admitted that A. Lukashenko and his subordinates have created a problem for us. But what of his own problems?

Recently, the anti-vaxxer “father of the nation” tried to lament for the nation. He spoke about potential, even quick resignation, concurrently cautioning that they shouldn’t be concerned with when exactly this would be and that he has combined with Belarus in flesh and blood and so, does not imagine himself in retirement. But what if he is forced to, like it or not?

I have heard a version. A. Lukashenko’s son has been working in the oil business for many years. He and his father have close ties to UAE sheikhs, who have lately turned to visit Minsk again. It is believed that A. Lukashenko is interested in the aid of UAE investment funds in privatising Belkalij and ensuring this company’s shares for the benefit of his family. By privatising the strategic company, he is supposedly saving the Belarusian economy. Afterwards, elections are announced without stress. In spring 2022, he leaves the post of president while holding a safe and guaranteed revenue stream for himself and his family.

There are also other scenarios. I have no doubt that the current Lithuanian government knows of them through various sources. Even after a firm US step in regard to the Belarusian regime, there are things to ponder.

One way or another, Lithuania is nevertheless a transit country, accompanied by international commitments to protect it. Perhaps it would be good to reassure the world that we continue to comply with commitments we have made regarding transit.