I show on this page some facts about the legal situation, but I want to avoid that someone gets into unexpected situations thinking that what the law is, or should be, is what one should expect to experience.
What I show here sheds light on the misdemeanours of politicians and judges who try to deprive general rights on the basis of false allegations. Only those points are mentioned that can serve something to a single individual, not those that deal with the overall situation, such as the planned and initiated genocide and the upcoming Nuremberg 2.0 trials against the perpetrators and collaborators.
2) Secular Law
(0 - Love is the law)
- Universal Declaration of Human Rights
- Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (equivalent to 1)
- The Nuremberg Code
- UNESCO statement on bioethics and human rights
- European Council Decision 2361 on Covid-19
- National law (Switzerland)
I will end by talking about the situation where governments try to restrict these rights by means of
and what that means. First the relevant legal passages:
* = Personal remarks
1) Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Source: All articles
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment* or punishment.
*Covid (concentration) Camps, no entry
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home* or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
*Lockdowns, raids, being social
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
2. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
1. Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
2) Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
Source: All articles
Prohibition of torture
No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment
Right to respect for private and family life
1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family
life, his home and his correspondence.
Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right
shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart
information and ideas without interference by public authority
and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States
from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema
Prohibition of discrimination
The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this
Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground
such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other
opinion, national or social origin, association with a national
minority, property, birth or other status.
Protocol No. 12
General prohibition of discrimination
1. The enjoyment of any right set forth by law shall be secured
without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour,
language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social
origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or
2. No one shall be discriminated against by any public authority
on any ground such as those mentioned in paragraph 1.
3) The Nuremberg Code
An international document regulating the principles of conducting medical experiments and procedures on people.
1. The absolutely necessary condition for conducting an experiment on a person is the voluntary consent of the latter.
2. The experiment should bring positive results to the society, unattainable by other methods or research methods; it should not be random, essentially non-binding in nature.
3. The experiment should be based on data obtained in laboratory studies on animals, knowledge of the history of the development of this disease or other studied problems. Its holding should be organized in such a way that the expected results justify the fact of its holding.
4. When conducting an experiment, it is necessary to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and damage.
5.None of the experiments should be carried out if there is reason to assume the possibility of death or a disabling injury to the subject; an exception, perhaps, may be cases when research physicians act as subjects in carrying out their experiments.
6. The degree of risk associated with the experiment should never exceed the humanitarian importance of the problem that the experiment is aimed at
7. The experiment should be preceded by appropriate training, and its implementation should be provided with the equipment necessary to protect the subject from the slightest possibility of injury, disability or death.
8. The experiment should be carried out only by persons with scientific qualifications. At all stages of the experiment, those who conduct it or are engaged in it require maximum attention and professionalism.
9. During the experiment, the subject should be able to stop him if, in his opinion, his physical or mental state makes it impossible to continue the experiment.
10. During the experiment, the researcher responsible for carrying out the experiment should be prepared to terminate it at any stage if professional considerations, conscientiousness and caution in the judgments required of it, give reason to believe that the continuation of the experiment may lead to injury, disability or death test subject.
Full text pdf
4) UNESCO statement on bioethics and human rights,
Article 6, section 1.
"Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical interventions should be carried out only with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned on the basis of adequate information. If necessary, consent must be expressed and can be revoked by the person concerned at any time and for any reason."
Article 6, section 3:
"In no case shall the collective agreement of the community or the consent of the community leader or other authority be a substitute for the informed consent of individuals."
5) European Council Decision 2361 on Covid-19
6) National law (StGB 2021 - Switzerland)
Whoever compels someone to do, refrain from doing or tolerate something by force or threat of serious disadvantage or by other restriction of his freedom of action shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine.
Any person who spreads a dangerous transmissible human disease out of mean attitude* shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one to five years.
*Regarding "Vaccine" Manufacturers, Governments, Hospitals, Doctors
The ten most important violations of the law by the Federal Government in connection with the Corona pandemic:
(From a former external employee of the Federal Office of Public Health)
- According to the Constitution, the Federal Council is not authorised to order measures on its own authority for an unlimited period of time by invoking the so-called "special situation" (Art. 6 EpG).
- The general reference to the "threat to public health" (Art. 6 para. 1 let. b EpG) does not justify the declaration or maintenance of the special situation.
- In view of the epidemiological data, the declaration or maintenance of the special situation cannot be justified by a general "excessive demand on the cantons" (according to Art. 6 para. 1 let. a EpG).
- By ordering and tightening measures relevant to fundamental rights without proving that less restrictive measures are not sufficient, the Federal Council is violating the basic legal provisions of Art. 30 EpG .
- By ordering measures that restrict freedom (in particular quarantine, isolation/seclusion) without observing the sequence of stages provided for in the EpG, the Federal Council is encouraging the criminal offence of (unlawful) deprivation of freedom (Art. 183 SCC).
- By prescribing, recommending or permitting a general "obligation to test" under certain circumstances, or that failure to test may result in the restriction of certain activities, the Federal Council is encouraging the criminal offence of coercion (Art. 181 SCC).
- By recommending mass vaccinations with medicines that have not been duly authorised and by ordering systematic discrimination against the unvaccinated, the Federal Council is violating the principles of the rule of law in several respects (Art. 5 of the Federal Constitution).
- The massive restriction of fundamental rights through the introduction of a "certificate obligation" is unconstitutional and unlawful.
- By making almost unrestricted use of the "special powers" of the Covid 19 Act, the Federal Council is acting against the principle of good faith and violates the prohibition of arbitrariness.
- By leaving the epidemiological assessment of the situation and crisis communication largely to the unauthorised "Swiss National COVID-19 Science Task Force", the Federal Council is encouraging the criminal offence of frightening the population (Art. 258 SCC).
A detailed argumentation of the author of the ten points can be found in this pdf.
Abrogation of these rights through 'emergency regulations'
As we can see, a large number of fundamental human rights are no longer valid or will not be in the foreseeable future if "Mr. Global" would have his way.
The governments of countries are leveraging constitutionally given rights on the justification that there is a 'pandemic'. In fact, the legal texts quoted above provide for exceptions which must be justified by special situations.
If the measures at the beginning of 2020 could still be excused by 'governments under panic', since autumn 2020 at the latest, even slow-thinking politicians have no excuse. This is obvious to any clear-thinking person who can read simple tables. This one table, and there are many similar ones, would be enough to abolish all 'emergency measures' at least in retrospect (since autumn 2020):
Data source: BAG (Federal Office of Public Health, CH)
The blue bars are the minimum values of deaths over 10 years.
The green bars are the maximum values of deaths over 10 years.
The red horizontal lines show where the values for the year 2020 were, in the different age groups.
We see that for most age groups the red line is close to the minimum value over 10 years!
Even including the elderly > 80 years, the numbers have remained in the midfield between min. and max. The 0-70 year olds have died less in 2020 than at any time before in the last 10 years.
2020 was a very 'healthy year'. The fact that 2.4% more people over 90 died compared to the minimum, and 0.4% more than the maximum, has its reasons which I will not go into here.
In general, one can see, or not see, that there was/is a deadly virus, and there is no pandemic that just kills people in masses. 'Emergency decrees' that suspend fundamental human rights are not legitimate under these non-emergency circumstances!
In addition, it could be argued that 125 institutions in 20 countries were not able to show an isolated virus at all.
The governments are thus acting illegally, and by maintaining the measures for another year, intentionally. This is criminal, will have consequences, in addition to the genocide accusations by approving experimental gene therapy through mRNA or vector technology. Here, too, intent is evident, since already the short-term side effects of the "vaccination" that end in death exceed all deaths from vaccinations of the last 30 years combined by a multiple.
Data source: CDC (Center for Disease Control, USA)
The current status (20.11.21) is already at 19'000 deaths, almost 2 rows of spacing higher, no longer just under 15,000.
If we do not comply with the measures, we are acting legally, even according to secular jurisdiction, because the underlying danger is non-existent. 'The emperor wears no clothes!' - we see this and we live this. As said in the introduction, this does not prevent the government minions from fining, arresting and sentencing people.
However, this perspective may also give some of us a legal inner strength, in addition to the ethical conviction not to alter the human genome with unknown information .
That strength we need to stand up for freedom, free will and self-determination, no matter what. If we don't, we have lost our claim to be human, which is already the case for most of the "vaccinated", again ethically as well as legally.
Top of page