Covid-19 Act: restriction of civil liberties?

by René Zeyer*

(5 November 2021) Fundamental rights are the foundation of a free civilisation. A pandemic endangers health. Curtailment of fundamental rights endangers society.

Freedoms are used without thinking about what a privilege they are. And how quickly they can be endangered.

Constitutional fundamental rights, as every layman knows, should be inviolable. These include freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and freedom of movement. Furthermore, freedom from coercion, unless it is legitimised by law.

One’s own freedom normally finds its limit where it encroaches on the freedom rights of others. The state, or its organs, has the right to enforce rules by force if necessary. So much for the basics of political science. But, before people start yawning: the pandemic endangers not only health, but also freedom.

Anyone who complains about this is usually dismissed as a lunatic, a corona denier, a tin foil hat wearer [usually denoting someone as crazy] or a disturbed “Freiheitstrychler” [newly emerged group from Central Switzerland swaying huge cowbells, in defence of democratic rights, edit.]. Yet anti-democrats sit at the media levers. For example, Denis von Burg, the political director of Switzerland’s largest media group. He calls for compulsory vaccinations – multiplied across the local newspapers by Tamedia's countless headlines – even though there is no compulsory vaccination – in theory.

On the other hand, professors of constitutional law are raising serious concerns about the restrictions on civil liberties imposed by the COVID-19 Act. They even question it in principle. “The amendment of the COVID-19 Act continues to be an unconstitutional intent,” writes Andreas Kley in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung (NZZ).** The professor of public law, constitutional history and philosophy of state and law at the University of Zurich criticises that the Covid-19 Act gives the federal council a “gift of competences”: “It only wants to create legal foundations for already existing (emergency) ordinances.”

Worse still: “The law repeatedly says ‘The Federal Council can, can, can . . .’” It is an “undemocratic intent”, “the federal laws must not be blanket laws with little content”. In other words, essentially containing only references to other laws.

Worse still: “The law bypasses the constitutional legislators and thus the people and the cantons. The title of the COVID-19 Act documents a substantial failure of the federal assembly. It does not take its principle task of legislating serious.”

Dire conclusion: “The democratically elected highest body of the Confederation has disregarded two important articles of the federal constitution with the COVID-19 Act and its amendments and has grossly injured the Swiss democracy.”

Beat Rieder is a member of “Die Mitte” party in the council of states, a lawyer and a notary. He is also president of the Legal Affairs Commission of the “Chambre de reflexion”, where he advocated lowering the hurdles for super-provisional bans on the publication of articles. He was also sharply criticised for this on ZACKBUM.¹

Now he classifies the compulsory COVID certificate and the vaccination passport as contrary to fundamental rights, untenable, a “miscalculation”. The law had been hastily nailed together, economic effects and possible restrictions on fundamental rights had not been sufficiently taken into account.

Or in one sentence: “Since the outbreak of the crisis, we have been on a slippery slope and are actually moving more and more in the direction of violating the most elementary fundamental rights in Switzerland,” he tells CH Media.

The article by the renowned law professor appeared in the NZZ from 20 October. A weighty criticism on a serious platform. Reaction? Zero. While a fake-fact checker from Tamedia felt obliged to compromise a Harvard study with unsuitable means – without being able to refute its core statement that there is no significant correlation between the vaccination rate and the number of infections – here there is nothing but silence.

This is alarming. For both the law professor and the president of the council of states’ legal commission, and a Harvard professor could indeed be wrong. But their analyses, findings and arguments carry so much weight, coming from a qualified source that a serious public debate in the run-up to the referendum vote on the COVID-19 Act would be urgently called for.

But instead, there is a rising panic in the mainstream media that the referendum, which is being fought against with all media power, could be accepted. Although Tamedia, CH Media and Ringier – in association with the SRG TV – are doing everything to discredit it, to label supporters as confused, deranged, as having lost their bearing, even as violent lunatics.

These monopolists of opinion react even more touchy when more and more left-wing groups or exponents like prize-winning writer Sibylle Berg position themselves as opponents of the law. “Trychler und Antifa” is how tabloid newspaper “Blick” put it green with fear. Instead of fulfilling their task as a forum of opinion, their own reputation, if it still exists, is being ruined ever more unrestrainedly.

Weighty critical voices are ignored or put down. If on Thursday there are fewer demonstrators than usual in Bern, there is already jubilation that they lost momentum. If tens of thousands of people fill the Bundeshausplatz [square in front of the Swiss parliament building, edit.] and the surrounding streets on Saturday, then all you can read in short news reports is, that they are reduced to “a few thousand”. Only after massive protest it is grudgingly conceded that the “initial estimates” may have been a little too low.

The pandemic will pass, with or without this law. But, the damage to the credibility of the media will remain and criticism of receiving an extra billion in tax money [see Media Subsidies Act] for this embarrassing performance will become contagious. This kind of smear journalism, and uninhibited anti-democrats as Denis von Burg from Tamedia, really do not deserve to be rewarded any tax money.

If the referendum is rejected, then our civil liberties will also remain affected, which would be even more intolerable. But the noticeable swelling panic of the opponents gives rise to hope.

Source: Die Ostschweiz of 28 October 2021.
https://www.dieostschweiz.ch/artikel/jeder-hat-das-recht-QQyn975

(Translation “Swiss Standpoint”)

1 https://www.zackbum.ch/2021/05/04/anschlag-auf-die-pressefreiheit-2/

* René Zeyer (1955) is a publicist, best-selling author (“Bank, Banker, Bankrupt”) and communications consultant. He lives in Zurich and Havana.

** You find the whole article of Prof. A. Kley here: https://schweizer-standpunkt.ch