Justice Department has no constitutional concerns

by time news

Compulsory vaccination – the necessity of a mandatory vaccination against Corona has been debated for days. Opinions differ on this. The scenarios used to operate in order to convey the respective attitude to a prescribed vaccination and the consequences as clearly as possible. There is already talk of compulsory vaccination, as if police officers would soon be transported away for forced injections. It’s not about that at all.

Should it come to a civic duty, this would have to be anchored in law. This would also regulate what happens in the event of violations. In this case, however, it would not be about forced injections. Administrative authorities would have to set fines and impose fines. Courts would decide whether a coercive measure is legally valid or whether it is lifted.

But we’re not that far yet. So far there is every reason to doubt the determination of those responsible. The people in the incumbent as well as in the coming government and also in the opposition have repeatedly refused to make vaccination, which is considered the only effective defense against Covid-19, binding.

The legal situation definitely allows for such a general vaccination requirement. And also in the current federal government is now being discussed whether this “can be seen as a last resort, so to speak, as useful or necessary”, as government spokesman Steffen Seibert explained in the government press conference this week.

Government spokesman Steffen Seibert: This federal government no longer makes a decision

Seibert described the realization that with advertising, with education, with conviction alone, the vaccination rate had not yet been achieved “that will let us get through the winter safely”. And described the discussion about compulsory vaccination as understandable. You will surely be carried on. “There is no decision about it now, and it would not be made by this federal government either,” he said, however.

From a constitutional point of view, the Ministry of Justice sees no concerns. According to a spokesman for the ministry, the Basic Law does not categorically reject an obligation to vaccinate: “Obligations to vaccinate for the purpose of protection against infection are fundamentally constitutionally conceivable”. In the past, the case law saw it that way. Of course, it does not follow from these statements that an obligation to vaccinate against the coronavirus is constitutionally permissible in every case. “A legal basis would be necessary, and of course the regulation would also have to be proportionate,” said the spokesman. How this could succeed, however, is a question that the Ministry of Justice is not asking itself in view of the political stance of this federal government. That depends on a medical-technical indication that would have to be clarified in another federal government and then in any case by the Federal Ministry of Health.

READ Also:  The BVG is still a long way from leaving the Corona Valley

Lawyers have already criticized such and similar statements as a refusal. Recently, the professor emeritus for constitutional law Hans Peter Bull made a guest article for the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. “The same politicians who, in an almost desperate form, repeatedly appeal to those entitled to vaccinations to pick up the spades that protect them and others (and, in the opinion of all experts, are harmless), who set everything in motion to provide the negligent and uninformed people with vaccination offers Place, and who have made it a moral duty to get vaccinated, refuse to give any thought to a legal vaccination requirement, ”wrote Bull.

By sealing off restaurants, bars, theaters and other places of amusement according to the 3G or 2G principle, indirect pressure to vaccinate is exerted. By abolishing the free of charge tests and suspending payment of wages in the event of quarantine or hospitalization, resistance to vaccination will be so expensive that one can rightly speak of an indirect obligation to vaccinate. “But the instrument that can ensure a general, even burden in the interests of common goals in a democratic constitutional state is not used,” says Bull.


You may also like

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.