Please support THE CITIZEN'S VOICE with a donation HERE!
|
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
| Home About Contact | ||
|
||
Please support THE CITIZEN'S VOICE with a donation HERE! |
||
Were the 2G rules in Saxony a systematic attack on freedom and the rule of law? – Julia Neigel’s fight against state arbitrarinessAt a time when the coronavirus pandemic served as a pretext for massive intrusions into fundamental rights, the singer and artist Julia Neigel stands as a symbol of resistance to state overreach. For five years now she has been waging a bitter legal battle against the Free State of Saxony, which, with its draconian 2G-plus rules—vaccinated or recovered plus test—came down especially hard on arts and cultural events. These measures, which peaked at the end of 2021 and the beginning of 2022, systematically excluded the unvaccinated from cultural life and pushed artists like Neigel to the brink of existence. But instead of swift clarification, the judiciary is playing for time while the government maneuvers to evade responsibility. A clear sign: the state protects itself, not its citizens. What is a judicial review of norms?To understand the core of the dispute, one must first clarify what a judicial review of norms—also called a norms control action—actually is. In Germany, this is a special court procedure that examines the constitutionality of legal norms. Unlike an individual lawsuit, which asserts personal damages or compensation, this is not about individual claims such as damages. Instead, it abstractly reviews whether a regulation or a law violates higher-ranking law—for example, the Basic Law, human rights, or EU law.The procedure serves to control state power: citizens or affected parties can apply for a court to declare a norm invalid if it violates fundamental rights. In Neigel’s case, the action is directed against the Saxon COVID-19 regulations that prescribed the 2G rules. She argues that these are unlawful per se—unconstitutional and in violation of human and international law. The goal: a judicial determination that the state committed a wrong, independent of personal compensation. But this is precisely where the rub lies: the procedure is complex and time-consuming, which plays into the government’s hands. The 2G rules: coercion and discrimination under the guise of protecting healthJulia Neigel, who as an artist was in the middle of a tour, faced an impossible choice in 2021: either accept the 2G rules and exclude parts of her audience, or cancel concerts—with catastrophic financial consequences. “That was coercion,” she emphasizes in a recent interview. The Saxon government introduced 2G nationwide as the first federal state, without sufficient legal basis. Artists who were traveling with 3G (vaccinated, recovered, or tested) were forced overnight to switch. Those who refused were left with the costs—no subsidies, no compensation. Neigel speaks of a “perfect scheme” that made artists vulnerable to blackmail and created an artificial market for vaccinations without imposing a direct mandate.The criticism goes deeper: the measures violated fundamental rights. Neigel points to a Federal Constitutional Court ruling (1 BvR 10/10 of 18 July 2012) that regards cultural participation as part of the subsistence minimum under Article 1 (human dignity) and Article 20 of the Basic Law. Through 2G, a third or more of the audience was excluded—a clear case of discrimination. Moreover, the rules contradict EU law, international law, and a Council of Europe resolution that calls for vaccinations to be voluntary and without discrimination. Neigel argues that people were denied proper information about the experimental nature of the vaccines, leading to an indirect mandate. The criticism of the COVID measures as a whole is even sharper: hospitals were never overloaded, there was no medical bottleneck, and politicians knew from the outset—as the US CDC director admitted—that vaccinations do not provide transmission protection. Nevertheless, freedoms were restricted: freedom of movement, the right to choose therapy, even the ban on complete isolation in clinics (Infection Protection Act § 28a para. 2 sentence 2) was ignored. Neigel speaks of torture when patients died in isolation for weeks—a violation of the UN Convention Against Torture and the Code of Crimes Against International Law. The government disregarded international standards while pretending to protect human rights. For German citizens, there is not even a national point of contact for human rights violations—complaints are supposed to go to the UN in New York. A scandal in a supposedly free democracy! Why the case has dragged on so long: tactics of delay and limitationNeigel’s norms control action has been pending since 2021, yet the court took four years just to decide on admissibility—an этап that is normally concluded more quickly. “That speaks for itself,” says Neigel’s lawyer, Ralf Ludwig. The suspicion: the courts and the Saxon government are playing for time to achieve limitation. Should the court eventually determine that the regulations were unlawful, claims for damages—potentially in the millions for those affected—would already be time-barred. The measures ended in 2022, and with every delay the possibility of holding the state liable dwindles.A perfidious maneuver underscores this: shortly before the challenged regulation expired, Saxony issued a new one intended to render Neigel’s action obsolete. On the day her emergency application was rejected (19 November 2021), a “new” regulation came into force—supposedly hastily drafted “in the back room.” This prevented a substantive review and forced Neigel to sue anew. Ludwig estimates the chances of the action being admitted at 52 to 48 percent, but even then the court could dodge the core questions: Was 2G lawful? Were restrictions on artists permissible? Instead, it could simply declare all Saxon regulations invalid because the state was unable to issue proper rules—an elegant escape that forces no deep reckoning. This tactic is not accidental but systemic: the government avoids responsibility while the courts go along. Neigel sees herself as a human rights defender in the sense of UN Resolution 53/144, which obliges citizens to report violations. But the state blocks her—a proof that freedom in Germany is not a given. Freedom must be defended—before the next “pandemic”Julia Neigel’s fight is more than a personal dispute: it reveals how politics hollows out freedoms under the guise of protection—whether through COVID, climate lockdowns, or future crises. Our forebears fought for a liberal society in which no one is discriminated against or coerced. Yet the Saxon government and the judiciary show: power corrupts, and without accountability history repeats itself. Neigel remains unshakeable: “We are in the right, and we will keep going until justice is done.” It is time for the state to be held to account—not through delay, but through truth. Stay vigilant, as Neigel urges, because the next restriction is already lurking.Author: AI-Translation - АИИ | |
|
| Other articles: |
 | Napoleon and the Most Beautiful Death – Scharnhorst in GroßgörschenScharnhorst in Großgörschen – Reese & Ërnst – Hometown Stories... zum Artikel |
 | Combat-ready instead of peace-capable? – When the warning from history falls silentA memorial, a renamed street, and a commemoration that conceals more than it remembers. While politicians call for rearmament, a former Rehmsdorf resident raises uncomfortable ques... zum Artikel |
 | Protection and Security in Saxony-Anhalt: Resilience Task Force or Political Smoke Screen?Hardly anything exposes the political routine of the CDU, SPD, and FDP in Saxony-Anhalt as vividly as the latest "innovation" from the state government: a Resilience Task Force.... zum Artikel |
|
Support the operation of this website with voluntary contributions: via PayPal: https://www.paypal.me/evovi/12 or via bank transfer IBAN: IE55SUMU99036510275719 BIC: SUMUIE22XXX Account holder: Michael Thurm Shorts / Reels / Kurz-Clips Imprint / Disclaimer |