skip to Main Content

Prof Martin Schwab on indirect compulsory vaccination

Epoche Times: What can people do who don’t want to get vaccinated but are pressured by their employer?

Martin Schwab: Vaccination pressure from employers is a common problem. I recommend that affected employees defy this pressure with the following statement:

“If you make the continuation of the employment relationship dependent on my being vaccinated, this means that from now on I can no longer effectively consent to the vaccination. Because from now on I would no longer give this consent of my own free will, but under duress. If the vaccination were then carried out, you (sc. the employer/supervisor) would be liable under criminal and liability law for coercion and for bodily injury in indirect perpetration.”

What I mean by this is that consent under pressure is in fact not consent. Employers who give their staff the choice “inject or get out” are on very thin legal ice.
And this brings us to a very general problem of indirect compulsory vaccination: vaccination is either covered by – and truly – voluntary, i.e. non-coerced consent, or it is not.

ET: What do you think of the claim that the unvaccinated should be discriminated against?

Schwab: “These days – unfortunately – there is no lack of high-ranking teachers of constitutional law who advocate such discrimination against people who have not received the COVID vaccination. The justification is then always: The human being is free in his decision whether he wants to be inoculated or not, must live then however also with the consequences, if he closes itself the inoculation. The obvious error in this derivation is that someone who does not want to be vaccinated does not choose these consequences himself, but that these consequences are imposed on him by the state – in the form of lockdown measures and the like.”

Translated with (free version)

Read more …

Back To Top