Fundamental rights are what

The proclamation of an "epidemic situation of national importance" was, according to the official reading, the reaction to a very extraordinary emergency. According to a proposal by Health Minister Jens Spahn, this "epidemic (emergency) situation" should not be extended from November. Such an extension would probably no longer be possible even if all panic capacities in the media and politics were exhausted and is logical for this reason. In principle, this step would also be welcome all around – if at the same time the extension of an "emergency situation" on other levels were not demanded: So the countries should be able to continue to restrict fundamental rights even without the official national "epidemic situation", the legal basis for this must now be created. Observers already see this legal possibility anyway, quotations follow in the text.

Should corona measures be decoupled from the danger and "normalized"?

An attempted decoupling of the corona measures from an officially established "(emergency) situation" could be the first step to separate the measures allegedly serving an acute security from the direct "danger" and thus to consolidate and "normalize" them. Such a tendency should be countered: With the end of the "epidemic situation of national importance", the corona measures must also be ended, which then no longer even have the official blessing - not to mention a rational justification.

The "epidemic situation of national importance" would not expire without reason (if it comes to that), but because the scenario of an overwhelming danger from the (real) corona virus is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain. Even the last extension of the "epidemic situation" could not be adequately justified. How then could one argue for the continuation of the measures (even at country level)? It could not be serious: The corona measures (especially those against the children) no longer meet the criteria of being appropriate, effective and necessary, as all corresponding regulations require. The dubious official data basis, which cannot justify the corona measures in an appropriate form.

End "epidemic situation", but at the same time continue measures

Because of the two poles of the debate (ending the "epidemic situation", but at the same time continuing measures), the discussion receives a contradictory and anti-scientific touch, like many other aspects of corona policy. The position of Jens Spahn is quoted in this article, in this comment Deutschlandfunk breaks a lance for the simultaneous termination and continuation:

"The current corona situation can also be encountered without an 'epi-situation', comments Volkart Wildermuth. (...) But the protective measures must remain – and appropriate laws must be passed quickly."

RT asks whether "2G would remain forever" in this article. The lawyer Friedemann Däblitz is of the opinion that new laws would not be necessary to perpetuate the restrictions on fundamental rights - he cites the "Infection Protection Act" (IfSG) – therefore, even if the "epidemic situation" expires, everything could "remain as it is":

"What does it mean if the epidemic situation of national importance were lifted?

§ 28a para. 7 IfSG: (7) After the end of an epidemic situation of national importance determined by the German Bundestag in accordance with § 5 paragraph 1 sentence 1, paragraphs 1 to 6 may also be applied insofar and as long as the concrete danger of the epidemic spread of the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) exists in a country and the Parliament in the affected country determines the applicability of paragraphs 1 to 6 for the country.

I.e. everything can remain as it is, but the state parliaments instead of the Bundestag must determine that this should be necessary."

After all, the countries would then be responsible, individual prime ministers could depose themselves. Certainly, however, voices will quickly be heard complaining about a federal "patchwork" and demanding a "uniform approach".

There is criticism of Spahn's initiative - but for the wrong reasons: for example, it is usually not the contradiction between the farewell to the "epidemic situation" on the one hand and the retention of the "(emergency) situation" measures on the other hand that is discussed, but rather the non-extension of the "epidemic situation of national importance", which can no longer be justified, that is criticized. SPD health politician Bärbel Bas has reacted "cautiously" to Spahn's announcement. The parliament will decide "which measures are still necessary so that the infection remains contained in the winter". She also now wants to decouple the measures from the acute security: Regardless of the "epidemic situation", measures are still needed, according to Bas.

Example 9/11: Many problematic laws remain in force without resistance

This decoupling, as well as an attempted consolidation of the "emergency measures" and the introduction of a potentially strictly monitored "new normal" should be opposed. The "anti-terror" laws introduced after September 11, 2001 as a reaction to an "acute emergency" in numerous countries can act as a reminder: that these laws are partly still in force today. Thus, many of the "security laws" built on 9/11 media campaigns 20 years ago are still in effect, even though many of the reasons put forward at the time have now collapsed. The article cites a recent study:

"In democratic states, many of the originally temporary, because massive interventions in privacy, such as the monitoring of telecommunications, the storage of telecommunications data or the collection of biometric features, remain in force and have been normalized by the inclusion in permanent law."

The article also emphasizes:

"The laws are still based on the factless power of the propaganda of that time. If one refers this experience to Corona: To believe that the now established, complex digital monitoring structure of health passports, contact tracking and status queries would be dismantled again if Corona "disappears" is naive in my view. To leave the citizens in this widespread naive belief means for me an irresponsible journalistic refusal to work. What does not meet resistance now (at a very important current stage) and is therefore introduced, is very likely to remain with us for a long time."