Compulsory vaccination: The guaranteed path to chaos (Excerpt)
The traffic light parties are still reluctant to think seriously about compulsory vaccination, at least on the surface. But it would be naivety bordering on stupidity to trust that it will stay that way. There is nothing politicians have done better since the beginning of the Corona crisis than not to care about yesterday's chatter.
So it makes sense to look at the possible consequences of compulsory vaccination.
Let us assume for a moment that there will be a general compulsory vaccination. More or less in unison, more and more politicians, media and scientists are insisting on this obligation. Of course, this is to get us out of the crisis, for which the unreasonable unvaccinated people are to blame.
Let's ignore the absurdity of this. Let us ignore the fact that even people who have been vaccinated can infect themselves and others, cannot rule out severe courses of the disease and can only enjoy the (at best) desired vaccination effect for a few months. In all rationality, one would have to conclude that an all-purpose weapon that is constantly jammed, regularly misses the target and does not even begin to achieve its goal of permanently combating viruses is a blunt sword. But - as I said: we'll just ignore that and much more for now.
It doesn't take a genius to realise that in the case of compulsory vaccination, there would also be consistent refusers (used here as a value-free term, by the way). These have already been "bred" for a long time in advance. The permanent pressure on the "unreasonable vaccination refusers", who stand in the way of social peace and are now held responsible for everything that is somehow connected to Corona, has led to an inner (and outer) distancing from the state.
Of course, the objectors are affected by compulsory vaccination just like everyone else and have to live with the consequences. But their resistance is likely to be much fiercer. Since the steadily growing steadfastness of those who do not want to be vaccinated was ultimately initiated by politics in this form in the first place, the resistance is likely to become all the more massive.
This raises the question: What to do with this group of people? What if all the sanctions and punishments actually come to nothing with a part of the population?
You have to address these aspects if you want to be prepared for the consequences of compulsory vaccination as a politically responsible person. Ultimately, the idea of using violence cannot be excluded if one wants to consistently decide on and enforce compulsory vaccination.
But what will happen to society if the state really does use force? How much and in which direction will the collective mood change? How much violence will the state allow its organs to use, or even demand from them? How will police officers (and possibly even the Bundeswehr) deal with this?
And: Will parts of the population who are in favour of vaccination also develop a willingness to use violence, perhaps form vigilante groups or take the law into their own hands because they are firmly convinced that they are in the right and thus saving lives?
Everything half as bad?
Optimists might now object that someone is painting the devil on the wall here. State violence because people refuse to be vaccinated? That's a bit too much.
But what exactly does violence mean? When you consider that hardliners like Markus Söder, Winfried Kretschmann and - of course! - Karl Lauterbach are in favour of compulsory vaccination, one suspects that they are not squeamish when someone resists.
And numerous supposed experts in the legal sciences do not see a problem with compulsory vaccination either. The constitutional law expert Ulrich Battis' even believes that an obligation is also covered by the Basic Law:
Such a general obligation to vaccinate is perfectly justifiable - namely to protect the lives of other people.
It is questionable to what extent this argument is legally watertight, as it seems very sweeping and superficial. But Batti's statement is topped by the following:
The fundamental right to physical integrity, which is also enshrined in Article 2, must take a back seat.
That sounds schizophrenic. But let's assume here that there are no legal hurdles that speak against compulsory vaccination. And let us return to the question of enforceability.
.The law professor Franz C. Mayer wants to make a strict distinction between obligation and coercion and reassures the population by saying that no one will be picked up by the police to have their civic injection. The reassurance does not last long, however, because in addition to fines (there is talk of up to 3,500 euros), the loss of statutory health insurance is also conceivable.
In this context, it should again be asked where violence begins. The loss of health insurance can certainly be understood as an act of violence. And a low-income earner, temporary worker or unemployed person is unlikely to be able to pay 3,500 euros. Whether the police show up or not can also not be judged conclusively and with certainty here.
And finally, there are further uncertainties: How long would compulsory vaccination last? Until the third vaccination? Would it have to be understood as an annual subscription? Would compulsory vaccination be terminated if people show severe side effects? Would those affected then have to prove these? And sue for the end of the obligation? And will the vaccination obligation be extended if further - possibly telescoped - vaccines come onto the market as a result of viral mutations?
Thin ice
The possible scenarios mentioned here may ultimately (hopefully) not come true. Nevertheless, they do not seem improbable. Everything can turn out more harmless, but also much worse.
If a society is "let loose" on each other in a way that is currently the case, the consequences can be considerable and change the whole social life. For almost two years now, we have been noticing a development that is increasingly dividing the population. The different groups opposing each other are becoming more and more irreconcilable, which can also be attributed to stress, manipulation, the stoking of fear and the building of numerous enemy images.
A general obligation to vaccinate (even a limited one, by the way) would further escalate the situation. This is especially true because the responsibility for illness, suffering and death is attributed to a specific group - the "unvaccinated". The massiveness and constant repetition of these sweeping condemnations of a group of people will (allow) hostilities to increase further.
It would finally be time for de-escalation, not the "gradual escalation" that Alena Buyx of the so-called Ethics Council has in mind. Neither is there in fact a "tyranny of the unvaccinated", nor a "pandemic of the unvaccinated", and the exchange of "carrots for sticks" that is on World Medical President Montgomery's mind also contributes to a further readiness for violence, whether psychologically through media coverage or physically through correspondingly violent actions.
But there is no sign of any kind of "disarmament", it must be said soberly. On the contrary, every day there is a little more armament, the tones are sharper, the hostility more uncompromising and the condemnations more aggressive.
We are already on a path to darkness without compulsory vaccination, and if we do not slowly understand this together, it will end in irreversible darkness. At present, there are still bright spots that can show us the way, towards mutual understanding, mutual consideration and responsible action that naturally puts the well-being of our fellow human beings in the focus of our own interest.
But if politics, media and (certain) science continue to turn the escalation screw, at some point (if this has not already happened, which is not to be hoped for) we will no longer be able to turn back, but will be actors in complete chaos.
Whatever the outcome, compulsory vaccination will definitely not bring us closer to salvation, but most certainly to the social abyss.
|
