{"id":166981,"date":"2021-10-08T22:15:03","date_gmt":"2021-10-08T20:15:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=166981"},"modified":"2021-10-08T22:15:05","modified_gmt":"2021-10-08T20:15:05","slug":"leading-german-legal-scholar-freedom-in-exchange-for-vaccination-unconstitutionalviolates-fundamental-rights","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=166981","title":{"rendered":"Leading German Legal Scholar: Freedom In Exchange For Vaccination \u201cUnconstitutional\u2026Violates Fundamental Rights\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Legal opinion: \u201cUnconstitutionality of indirect COVID-19 vaccination requirements<\/a>\u201c.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

Rules indirectly mandating vaccinations in exchange for freedom violates Germany\u2019s Fundamental Constitutional Law, expert legal scholar Prof. Dr. Dietrich Murswiek<\/strong> writes in recently published 111-page legal opinion. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fundamental rights violated<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A number of rules pertaining to restrictions of persons recovered from COVID 19 and especially the unvaccinated tested persons with paid testing who incur a loss of earnings compensation in Germany are incompatible with the Fundamental Constitutional Law and violate the fundamental rights of those affected. That is the result of a legal opinion of the Freiburg constitutional attorney Prof. Dr. Dietrich Murswiek<\/strong>,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cAll disadvantages of unvaccinated persons must be abolished immediately \u2013 they are simply unconstitutional,\u201d Murswiek said.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The restrictions on freedom imposed by rules for persons recovered from Covid 19 and those unvaccinated but and testing negative can no longer be justified and therefore violate the right to general freedom of action as well as other fundamental rights. The official aim of these measures is to curb covid-19 disease in order to avoid overloading intensive care units.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, there is no such danger.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Freedom is guaranteed, and not granted authorities by fulfilling criteria<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

If rules for unvaccinated persons \u2014 those recovered from COVID or testing negative \u2014 are to be used to minimize serious illnesses and deaths, the aim is not to avert danger but to optimize health protection in the sense of risk prevention. For this purpose, the freedom of people who are not responsible for these risks must not be restricted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cAccording to the Fundamental Law, freedom is guaranteed to individuals by virtue of their human dignity,\u201d writes Murswiek. \u201cHe or she does not receive it from the authorities only when he can prove that he fulfills criteria defined by the state for his harmlessness.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Indirect compulsory vaccination \u201cdisproportionate\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The indirect compulsory vaccination exercised on the unvaccinated is disproportionate because it drastically restricts the right of self-determination of the persons concerned with regard to their physical integrity and imposes potentially serious life and health risks on them. For their own protection against COVID-19, the state may not force people.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cFor the protection of others, there is basically no need to compel vaccination, because those who are vaccinated are already protected by the vaccination.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Vaccination as \u201cgateway to freedom\u201d is \u201ccynical\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Withholding compensation for loss of earnings for quarantined unvaccinated people restricts freedoms even further. With this measure, the state defines vaccination as the \u201cgateway to freedom\u201d in a particularly clear and cynical way. It becomes a prerequisite for exercising liberties, although there is no constitutionally viable justification for it. This reverses the The German Fundamental Constitutional Law\u2019s understanding of freedom: the individual is no longer free by virtue of his or her human dignity, but is free because he or she submits to a state request \u2013 the request to be vaccinated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Solid legal argument<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The expert legal opinion can be accessed on the website of the Initiative freie Impfentscheidung e.V.:\u00a0https:\/\/impfentscheidung.online\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/10\/Gutachten-Die-Verfassungswidrigkeit-des-indirekten-Corona-Impfzwangs.pdf<\/a>. A\u00a0brief summary of the expert opinion<\/a>\u00a0and the\u00a0chapter summary<\/a>\u00a0from the 100-page legal opinion are also available (in German).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n