Document.no - By: Erling Marthinsen January 10, 2022, 3:53 p.m.
The consultation process on a very sensational proposal has recently been completed. The Ministry of Health and Care Services is responsible for the case, so this ends up on the table of Ingvild Kjerkol (Labor). If the proposal is adopted, the Norwegian Food Safety Authority will have access to your private home.
On page 5 of the consultation note you can read the following:
The provisions of the Food Act on the duty of private individuals to give the supervisory authority access to the place and to take samples (§ 13) and to provide and submit necessary information and sample material (§ 14) are currently linked to infection control that applies to animal or plant diseases. .
The Ministry considers it necessary that new provisions be made in § 13 fifth paragraph and § 14 third paragraph so that private individuals have the same obligations and the Norwegian Food Safety Authority thereby the same instruments in need of clarification of outbreaks of serious illness that may be due to food. Furthermore, an adjustment is proposed in the Food Act § 8 to provide a legal basis for setting additional requirements for authorization and requirements for goodwill control.
This is partly about customary adaptation to EU regulations:
The proposals for amendments to the Food Act § 29 and new § 29 a and the Cosmetics Act § 17 and new § 17 a have their background in Act of 15 June 2018 no. 38 on the processing of personal data (the new Personal Data Act from 2018), which implements the European Parliament and Council Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of 27 April 2016 (Privacy Regulation).
If this is adopted, the Norwegian Food Safety Authority will without invitation be able to enter private homes and look for and take samples of food and leftover food writes law professor Hans Petter Graver in a debate post in Dagbladet.
This will constitute a significant encroachment on privacy, Graver believes.
How will you react if you come home and find that someone has been there and roamed around the kitchen and in the food stall while you were away? Or if it rings at the door, and there are two government employees demanding to be allowed in and search the home for food and leftovers? This may become a reality in the name of disease control in the near future.
The Ministry has not assessed the new regulations against our constitutional right to respect for housing or private life.
Why is the Ministry of Justice and Emergency Management not reacting? Where is the Minister of Justice? In the consultation response from Emilie Enger Mehl & co. it only says " Without comment ".
The Bar Association has taken the trouble to write a consultation response, but there you can read the following:
The Bar Association finds that it can mainly support the proposal and does not have significant substantive comments, neither to the proposal as a whole nor to its individual parts. The proposals in the consultation memorandum are substantiated in detail and the privacy consequences have been assessed and weighed against other relevant considerations.
All other consultation responses, from various ministries and directorates, are without comments. Digging is critical.
It is startling that no one has responded to a proposal that gives the authorities such wide access to house searches.
Section 102 of the Constitution states: “Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his communication. A house search must not take place, except in criminal cases ».
It has been the practice to allow some exceptions, such as on suspicion of disease in animals or plants. But requiring access to private homes is far more intrusive than requiring access to barns and gardens.
Food is not something you choose to have or not have, it is something everyone has. An opportunity to look for this everywhere is therefore without other restrictions than that there must be a risk of serious illness. According to the proposal, an illness will be considered serious if it is an illness that is particularly dangerous, for example an illness that is defined as generally dangerous under the Communicable Diseases Act.
Who defines what is dangerous? You are probably not guessing very badly if this is the authorities, either under pressure from the EU or despite, or because of, professional advice, as we have seen during the pandemic.
The law professor thinks along the same lines.
It is tempting to see the proposal in the light of the situation we have lived in now for almost two years. The consideration of fighting infection and disease has now become so overriding that it is also creeping in in areas other than pure infection control.
A good side of the pandemic is that we at least bring this tradition to light, so that it may be corrected for the future, when we come to the conclusion that we will draw up the framework for the authorities' handling of new small and large crises .
The power of the authorities is creeping ever closer to the most intimate. We can no longer express ourselves freely. Our freedom of movement has been taken from us for almost two years. Admittedly, Erna Solberg has promised us that we still have "freedom of thought", but the promises from a political point of view can not be trusted.
That is also something we have learned in the last two years.
Everything we do digitally is monitored and stored. All our comments can be used against us. And now we are to be physically monitored, in our own homes.
This, therefore, applies in cases where one is not suspected of criminal acts. Whatever the intention, it feels very uncomfortable.
As Mark Steyn tends to say: Safety is the new word for "shut up". Now the concept of security has also taken on a new meaning: By pointing to security considerations, one can introduce something that is no longer similar to democracy.
Is this a sneaky legal way for the Norwegian Government to gain access to your home under the pretext of food inspection, similar to restaurants, while the real cause is to enable them to see your vaccination certificate? Or catch the un-vaccinated?
The bottom line is for the people to regain their original, moral principles, which have intentionally been watered out over the past generations by our press, TV, and other media owned by the Illuminati/Bilderberger Group, corrupting our morals by making misbehavior acceptable to our society. Only in this way shall we conquer this oncoming wave of evil.
All articles contained in Human-Synthesis are freely available and collected from the Internet. The interpretation of the contents is left to the readers and do not necessarily represent the views of the Administrator. Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). Human-Synthesis will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article. Human-Synthesis grants permission to cross-post original Human-Synthesis articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified