Hellequin GB has translated three items of COVID news from PolitikStube. And not all of them are in fact madness — the third story about the decision in Weimar is refreshingly sane.
Merkel doesn’t give a damn: aerosol researchers are calling for the government to change course — there is no danger lurking outside
Aerosol researchers from Germany are calling for a change of course in the government’s corona policy. The SARS-CoV2 pathogens are transmitted almost without exception indoors; this is extremely rare outdoors, so the danger lurks inside instead of outside.
Leading aerosol researchers from Germany demand in an open letter from politicians a change of course in the measures to contain the corona pandemic.
“If we want to get the pandemic under control, we have to make people aware that the danger is lurking INSIDE,” said a letter to the federal and state governments. It is considered certain that the Coronavirus spreads mainly through the air.
Unfortunately, Merkel and her Berlin Politburo are not interested in scientific facts from undesirable experts. After all, the Uckermark Pearl is pursuing a political agenda; the staged pandemic or pandemic fight should only ensure implementation and ultimately turn off democracy.
The mask requirement and curfews do not serve to protect health and against the risk of infection, but to suppress demos, freedom of expression and contacts/meetings with friends and family and to harass citizens by imposing fines for refusal and disregard. The propaganda of the “dangerous” virus must also be further stoked and the fear level must be kept high; only a fearful population can be controlled and patronized and will accept any change.
Brandner: Basic rights apply to everyone (AfD)
Once again the calls, this time from the Federal Minister of Justice Lambrecht, are loudly demanding an end to the massive restrictions on fundamental rights, but only for those who have been vaccinated.
The AfD member of the Bundestag and former chairman of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Consumer Protection, Stephan Brandner, makes it clear that fundamental rights are not privileges for certain groups, but apply universally and equally to everyone. An individual vaccination decision cannot be used as a yardstick for granting basic rights.
Quote from Brandner on this:
“Fundamental Rights also and especially apply to everyone in times of crisis. It is not the State, it is not the Rulers who provide or grant basic rights to certain groups and exclude others from them, it is our Constitution. Everyone must be free to choose whether or not to get vaccinated. The fact that the federal government should increase the willingness to vaccinate by means of this blackmail with the granting of basic rights, especially in view of the serious health consequences of using the AstraZeneca vaccine, which has made headlines again and again, is shabby and irresponsible.”
Network of critical judges welcomes the “Bombshell from Weimar”
The critical judges and prosecutors network (KRiStA) welcomes the decision of the Weimar District Court to return to normalcy in schools. By an order on April 8, 2021 (file number: 9 F 148/21), the court prohibited teachers, school administrators and other superiors of a regular school and a primary school from wearing masks, maintaining minimum distances and participating in the administration of Corona tests. It also ordered that attendance at the schools concerned should be maintained.
The decision was made at the suggestion of two students aged 8 and 14. It was a so-called child-protection procedure according to Section 1666, Paragraph 4 of the German Civil Code (BGB). The regulation offers family courts a means of taking ex-officio measures against third parties (such as teachers, school administrators and authorities) to avert a risk to the child’s well-being. The decision applies not only to the students involved in the procedure, but to all students in the schools concerned.
KRiStA spokesman Oliver Nölken explained that in the Weimar decision the court came to the conclusion that the compulsion to wear a mask, but also the other measures mentioned, could harm schoolchildren in their physical and mental development without any significant benefit. It is noteworthy that the court relied on three expert reports from professors in the fields of medicine, psychology and biology to assess the benefits of the measures and then carefully weighed the result against the fundamental rights of children.
“The Weimar decision is not just a bombshell in the matter,” said Oliver Nölken. “Above all, its methodology is the benchmark and role model for judges all over Germany.” Courts must first carefully determine the relevant facts and then assess them. It is not enough to rely on official sources unchecked and uncritically. Rather, a judge must also take the trouble to deal impartially with differing professional views. It is not a matter of evaluating the person who expressed dissenting views, but rather of weighing the weight of their arguments.
Nölken called on the Free State of Thuringia and its affected authorities and schools to comply with the court decision. In an initial statement, the Ministry of Education in Erfurt had questioned the practical relevance of the Weimar decision and also announced that it would take the decision to the Jena Higher Regional Court. With a careful examination of the legal situation, however, the state government will surely notice that, according to Section 57 of the Act on the Procedure in Family Matters and in Matters of Voluntary Jurisdiction (FamFG), there is no legal remedy at all against an interim order by the family court. “In a constitutional state, you have to respect court decisions even if you don’t like them. This also applies to the Thuringian state government.”