Two weights and two measures on children's rights? Letter to the Courier
email sent to the editor of Corriere della Sera - Testo sent as "letters to the editorial staff"
I write after reading the words of Alberto Villani, SIP president, published in your article on February 4, 2020, regarding the alarmism triggered by the coronavirus and its spread - however very limited in Italy.
The distinguished Villani expressed himself on the merits of the "coronavirus psychosis" which is bringing with it suggestions and episodes of marginalization towards children of Chinese nationality.
The esteemed professional launched without fear in defense of right to inclusion, of the need to protect children in the presence of a rischio (only) theoretical which would not justify, according to him, the exclusion of children from schools. "Children would be unjustly harmed for a theoretical risk", he ruled.
What I would like to point out is that the same Villani was a major advocate for the vaccination obligation law, legge which provides for the permanent exclusion, from educational structures, of tens of thousands of unvaccinated healthy children.
Is an unvaccinated child with disease? No, he is simply a healthy child who has not taken a preventive drug. He is not ill and he is not a greaser. More theoretical risk than this, I really don't know what could be there.
Now I ask myself, but above all I ask you: where is consistency? All these champions of inclusion where they were yesterday and where they are while tens of thousands of families ask for the same rights and social attentions for their children?
Dear Villani, if "ASLs are able to prevent dangerous situations in the bud" and if "it happens periodically for tuberculosis and meningitis", can you please, with the coherence that distinguishes it, explain to us how the same reasoning CANNOT apply to children (Italian, foreign, it does not matter), healthy, who cannot attend the their schools? Children who, from one day to the next, in the tens of thousands, have had to leave environments to their families, friends, companions, teachers, like plague-stricken, under the praise of institutions like the one you represent?
I ask in the name of the authoritativeness that is recognized there. Is it not true that the only difference is the availability of a vaccine? And that this applies to the coronavirus, as much as to all the other dozens of diseases - bacterial and viral - that are always and always common in the Italian pediatric population? typical childhood diseases for which there is no vaccine ...
Where is the consistency in all this? Why doesn't anyone stand up for the protection of children's rights when discrimination affects those who have not undergone 10 vaccines? The coronavirus psychosis must (rightly) be avoided, the psychosis-novax instead, created and exploited artfully, okay? Chinese-hunting is a social risk, is novax-hunting good for everyone? In whose interest?
Nassim Langrudi - Corvelva Aps association