Jens Spahn (CDU) does not want a legal introduction of an immunity card after a survived Corona infection, as media report. Accordingly, he also spoke out against compulsory vaccination on Monday. In a bill to be debated in the Bundestag on Thursday, Spahn had originally provided for an immunity card. These plans had provoked outrage in recent days because they had divided society into two additional classes.
“Normality” is only against “voluntary” mass control
However, the fact that Spahn is now temporarily rowing back on this point and referring it to the ethics council does not mean an all-clear for the fundamental rights. The tendency to make a return to social “normality” dependent on a willingness of the citizens to control it is increasingly coming to the fore. Just recently, the “Handelsblatt” described the withdrawn immunity card as a"pass through the life of the ‘new Normal’". At the European level, “the plans for this have been drawn up long ago – even before Corona. I’m afraid the debate will come back,” Andrej Hunko says on Twitter.
Die Idee eines #Immunitätsausweises, mit dem bestimmte Grundrechte wieder gelten sollen, ist nach heftigen Protesten vom Tisch - erstmal! Auf EU-Ebene sind die Pläne dafür längst ausgearbeitet - schon vor #Corona. Ich fürchte, die Debatte kommt wieder. https://t.co/1oU0v1Av48 pic.twitter.com/nBNnpY1oKB— Andrej Hunko (@AndrejHunko) May 5, 2020
This development can also be observed in the debate about a “voluntary” Corona App: here, the citizen should not be forced to install an application questionable according to data protection criteria on his personal phone. However, it is clearly communicated that tracking citizens, their contacts and their locations is necessary for a” return to normality”. Those who do not participate thus indirectly harm the community and appear paranoid. “Telepolis “describes that” voluntariness " in the case of the App by no means means voluntariness. In contrast, the FAZ critique of voluntary participation in one’s own monitoring describes as “talk of total monitoring”. The newspaper presents a blank check to the mechanisms of our democracy and to itself a testimony of poverty:
“Put the case, the Robert Koch Institute mutated into a dark empire and wanted to build a health dictatorship with the data obtained. What would happen? The Federal constitutional court would declare the App to be unconstitutional, the Reputation of the RKI would be in a shambles, and the government parties would be sent at the next opportunity on the boards. ( … ) The whole argument seems like a dispute among soldiers about whether their tank still has TÜV or not.”
However, a recent statement by constitutional judge Stephan Harbarth gives an insight into how the Erosion of the institutions described by the FAZ as a legal guarantee is progressing in times of alleged health emergencies. Here he calls on his fellow judges to make lenient judgments, for example in relation to politics: “at the moment we are in a quite extraordinary crisis situation, in which there is clearly no easy way to overcome it,” Harbarth told the “Stuttgarter Zeitung”. At the moment, he “does not envy any executive or legislative decision maker the heavy burden that rests on his shoulders,” Harbarth told the newspapers. Judges should” make themselves aware of this pressure to make decisions " when assessing individual measures legally.
According to DPA, the German government’s Corona warning App is to be developed by Deutsche Telekom and the SAP Software group, while the Fraunhofer Society and the Helmholtz Institute CISPA are to advise on its development. In May, Google and Apple plan to unlock interfaces on their Smartphone platforms that developers of Corona Apps can rely on.
Disadvantages of refusal
The drumming for a Corona App and the fight for an immunity card and the designation of both as the price for a “return to normality”, as Hunko also described, is not limited to Germany. For example, this European Press review is already headed with the slogan: “no normality without Corona Apps?“Most of the cited articles support this thesis, some already demand a commitment to the Installation of such an App by European citizens.
Such voices, which demand a obligation to install the App or to vaccinate, are still in the minority. The current political-media Tenor is (still) trying to suggest a (only apparent) “voluntariness” in these measures. However, this voluntariness can turn out to be a bitter deception once the plans have been carried out: because those who would then not be tracked with an App and who would refuse to permanently prove their current state of health, could have to endure considerable social disadvantages in the long term: denied access to authorities, banks, railway stations, events or trips abroad as well as a general attitude of suspicion could be the consequences.
The Virus as a door opener for radical surveillance?
The legitimate fears of citizens as to where all this could lead, if one allows it now, go far beyond the potential limitations described here. There is evidence that influential actors are striving to create a “digital identity” for all citizens of the world, in which, according to journalist Norbert Häring, “travel history, Bank data, hotel accommodation, car rental bookings, documents from universities, offices and much more” would be stored. According to this interpretation, the currently debated vaccination status, the tracking “for Virus prevention” and other alleged health constraints can be interpreted as a door opener for a much more comprehensive Vision.
“Telepolis” notes on digital identity, “the goal is a personalized, portable, biometrically connected digital identity that lasts for a lifetime.” Founding partners include Gates’ company Microsoft, the GAVI Vaccine Alliance financed with large sums by the BMGF, the Accenture management consultancy, which was also involved in the Bundeswehr advisory affair, and the Rockefeller Foundation, one of the largest foundations in the USA.
Beautiful words, bad effect
Critics of both the App and an immunity card can be easily defamed. Refusing to install the App can be successfully presented as an obstacle to the “normalization” of the whole society, i.e. as antisocial. Critics of a global vaccination campaign have a hard time in the debate, because the fundamental criticism of vaccination before Corona was rather a niche opinion. For example, I am not a principled opponent of vaccination, I have always wondered about the resistance, for example, against a duty to vaccinate measles. But what is now planned has a completely different quality. And these projects have only partly to do with health and Prevention.
Once carried out, they have the potential to be used as a powerful Instrument of harassment, gaily, division and surveillance. Melodious phrases are not used for the first time to introduce things that can then be used for non-melodious purposes.