Leading German Legal Scholar: Freedom In Exchange For Vaccination “Unconstitutional…Violates Fundamental Rights”

Share this...

Legal opinion: “Unconstitutionality of indirect COVID-19 vaccination requirements“.

Rules indirectly mandating vaccinations in exchange for freedom violates Germany’s Fundamental Constitutional Law, expert legal scholar Prof. Dr. Dietrich Murswiek writes in recently published 111-page legal opinion. 

Fundamental rights violated

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,

“All disadvantages of unvaccinated persons must be abolished immediately – they are simply unconstitutional,” Murswiek said.

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.

However, there is no such danger.

Freedom is guaranteed, and not granted authorities by fulfilling criteria

If rules for unvaccinated persons — those recovered from COVID or testing negative — 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.

“According to the Fundamental Law, freedom is guaranteed to individuals by virtue of their human dignity,” writes Murswiek. “He 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.”

Indirect compulsory vaccination “disproportionate”

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.

“For the protection of others, there is basically no need to compel vaccination, because those who are vaccinated are already protected by the vaccination.”

Vaccination as “gateway to freedom” is “cynical”

Withholding compensation for loss of earnings for quarantined unvaccinated people restricts freedoms even further. With this measure, the state defines vaccination as the “gateway to freedom” 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’s 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 – the request to be vaccinated.

Solid legal argument

The expert legal opinion can be accessed on the website of the Initiative freie Impfentscheidung e.V.: https://impfentscheidung.online/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Gutachten-Die-Verfassungswidrigkeit-des-indirekten-Corona-Impfzwangs.pdf. A brief summary of the expert opinion and the chapter summary from the 100-page legal opinion are also available (in German).

Contact: vorstand@initiative-freie-impfentscheidung.de Telephone: (+49) 821-742165




Share this...

14 responses to “Leading German Legal Scholar: Freedom In Exchange For Vaccination “Unconstitutional…Violates Fundamental Rights””

  1. richard

    “This just in from NSW Australia.
    Jo Rowan, [Oct 6, 2021 at 10:11 PM]
    Here is,a short statement from the court proceedings today pretty damming for the government looks good for the people😁
    🚨 For those that may have not been following the Supreme Court hearings over the past couple of weeks against Hazaard and the NSW Government:
    As per my earlier post, Kristine McCartney is a big key player in this whole story.
    • Today, along with 20,000 + other Australians I watched the Supreme Court case continue in NSW against the government for the rollout of mandatory vaccines
    • The barrister asked Kristine McCartney a few questions today (the player behind the scenes that insisted we lock down our state and mandate vaccines as the only solution)
    • Barrister – ‘Is it true that double vaccinated people are 13 times more likely to catch and spread the virus?
    • Kristine – Yes
    • Barrister – ‘Are vaccines dangerous at all to pregnant women or those planning to fall pregnant?’
    • Kristine – Yes
    • Barrister – ‘Is it true that the vaccines have never been studied for effectiveness and safety’?
    • Kristine – Yes, they have never been fully studied
    • We are patiently waiting for what was meant to be the final hearting today and it’s looking promising that the Judge Thomas Beech Jones will put a stop to the mandatory rollout of the vaccines
    • Judge Thomas Beech Jones also stated that the government suppressed the medication to the population and the government made people believe there was no way out of this unless we all get the vaccine
    As a wise man once said, the people have the power, all we have to do is awaken the power in the people!
    Please Share Everywhere because although this court hearing was live streamed, I bet you all that it will not make any main stream news”

    1. Chris Hanley

      Whether vaccines are effective ineffective or harmful is a separate question.
      The point in this article is the simple fact, assuming vaccines do work, the unvaccinated pose no threat to the health of the vaccinated and therefore the state has no business interfering in personal decisions about an individual’s health.

    2. Robert Folkerts

      richard, are you able to verify those alleged statements from McCartney? If they are indeed accurate it would be significant.

      1. richard

        unfortunately not yet. We will have to wait for final verdict. Let’s hope!!!

        1. Robert Folkerts

          richard, you said you watched these proceedings but you can’t verify what you claimed McCartney said??

          1. richard

            I just cut and pasted. As I said, let’s hope it helps end this nonsense.

          2. Robert Folkerts

            richard, you first said you watched on video link what you quoted. Then you say you cut and pasted, but not where from. Of the thousands who watched the proceedings no one else backs up what you wrote. If it were true, it might help end this nonsense. It would have to be true Though!

          3. Jeff

            You would need to question Jo Rowan, cf.

            “This just in from NSW Australia.
            Jo Rowan, [Oct 6, 2021 at 10:11 PM]

            (snip)..

  2. JohnM de France

    A) Paragraph 36 of the REGULATION (EU) 2021/953 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL says…

    It is necessary to prevent direct or indirect discrimination against persons who are not vaccinated, for example because of medical reasons, because they are not part of the target group for which the COVID -19 vaccine is currently administered or allowed, such as children, or because they have not yet had the opportunity or chose not to be vaccinated. Therefore, possession of a vaccination certificate, or the possession of a vaccination certificate indicating a COVID-19 vaccine, should not be a pre-condition for the exercise of the right to free movement or for the use of cross-border passenger transport services such as airlines, trains, coaches or ferries or any other means of transport. In addition, this Regulation cannot be interpreted as establishing a right or obligation to be vaccinated.

    B) European Commission reaffirms the primacy of EU law.

    https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/statement_21_5142

  3. RoHa

    Who would dare disagree with a paper titled “Freiheitseinschränkungen für Ungeimpfte : Die Verfassungswidrigkeit des indirekten COVID-19-Impfzwangs”

  4. oebele bruinsma

    Vaccination as “gateway to freedom” is “cynical”. Indeed, alike “Arbeit macht Frei” It is pure evil.

    1. Yonason

      @O.B.

      I saw this in the comments over at JoNova…

      “Vaxx Macht Frei”

      Essentially the same thing.

  5. CK
  6. nasbad

    COVID19 “vaccines” can kill, both directly, as toxins, and indirectly, through Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome:
    https://theexpose.uk/2021/10/10/comparison-reports-proves-vaccinated-developing-ade/

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close