54 percent of respondents object to the introduction ‘obligation‘ wearing masks in public places, 32.1 percent are in favour, and 13.9 percent do not express their opinion, according to a SW investigation survey for Rzeczpospolita.
The proposals for wearing masks in public places were resumed, including those reported by well-known pandemist Paweł Grzesiowski.
In a survey published on Sunday, the question was asked: Is the coronavirus infection detected in tests in Poland due to the increase in the number of coronavirus infections, in your opinion, the work to wear masks in public places should be restored?
32.1 percent of respondents replied ‘yes’. 54 percent of the respondents replied ‘no’. 13.9 percent of respondents have no opinion on this issue.
In discussing the results of the survey on the rp.pl website, nearly 3 out of 4 respondents between 25 and 34 years of age (72 percent) object to restoring the work to wear masks in public places. The same position is taken by almost six people per 10 (57 percent) with income between PLN 3001 and PLN 4000 net, and a akin percent (56 percent) of respondents with higher education.
The biggest opposition to the restoration of the work to wear masks in public places is expressed by respondents from cities of between 20 and 99,000 inhabitants (60 percent).
The survey was conducted on 5 and 6 December. The analysis included a group of 800 netizens over the age of 18. The example was selected in a random-quota manner. The structure of the example was corrected utilizing an analytical weight to correspond to the structure of Poles over the age of 18 in terms of key characteristics related to the subject of the study.
We remind you that Article 31(3) of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland shows that restrictions on the exercise of constitutional freedoms and rights can only be established in law and only if they are essential in a democratic state for its safety or public order, or for the protection of the environment, wellness and public morality, or for the freedom and rights of others. These restrictions must not affect the essence of freedom and rights.
This means, in the light of the established jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court, that the Act must itself specify the fundamental elements of the regulation of the law and of freedom (cf. the Constitutional Court judgement of 12 January 2000, Case No P 11/98; Case No K 34/99; Case No K 34/99; Case No P 2/00 of 20 February 2001, Case No P 2/00 of 10 April 2001, Case No U 7/00 of 3 April 2001, Case No K 32/99; Case No K 22/03 of 29 November 2001, Case No SK 16/00; Case No SK 43/06 of 5 December 2007, Case No K 36/06; Case No P 10/02 of 5 February 2008, Case No K 34/06 of 29 November 2007, Case No 7/06 of 19 June 2009, Case No 19/06; Case No K 36/06; Case No 3/06 of 5 February 2008, Case No K 34/06; Case No 7/06 of 19 June 2009, Case No 19/06; Case No 19/07 of 19 June 2009, Case No 19/06; Case No 19/06 of 19/06; Case No 19/06 of 19 June 2009, Case No 19/06; Case No 19/06; Case
Only rules which do not constitute essential elements of the regulation of constitutional rights and freedoms can be the content of the regulation. The Regulation should contain only provisions of a method nature which are not essential for the rights or freedoms of the individual.
When limiting constitutional rights and freedoms under Article 31(3) of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, the completeness and item of the statutory regulation must be substantially increased. It should so be stressed that the provisions laid down at the level of the Regulation, in addition to the fact that they cannot regulate fundamental constitutional freedoms and rights, must besides comply with the conditions laid down in Article 92(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland. The Regulation must so be issued by the body designated in the Constitution, on the basis of the detailed authorisation contained in the Act and for its implementation.
Thus, the possible introduction of mouth and nose gags throughout Poland in the average state would be against the law.
From
The subject of the warrant to block mouth and nose with masks returns:
