Vaccination debate in the Bundestag: We are being fooled

All arguments have been exchanged in the discussion about compulsory vaccination.

That vaccination does not protect against contamination by the omicron variant of the virus.

That it is nevertheless a good remedy for serious illnesses.

That dangerous side effects of vaccinations are far less likely than those of infection.

That two to three hundred deaths a day don't have to be.

The fact that we are looking forward to the next autumn and winter, which we and the health system would survive better if the vaccination rate were higher.

And so forth.

All sorts of stupid things have also been exchanged, preferably under the flag of freedom, which supposedly means not having to be vaccinated.

Because freedom is an opinion that does not require justification or knowledge.

Because it means not letting anything dictate you (except what feels like hundreds of thousands of pieces of legislation).

Because the stab in the upper arm represents a drastic encroachment on physical integrity, even if it serves to protect physical integrity from a sometimes fatal disease.

Because being opposed to a majority gives you a strange feeling of having fought for freedom.

And so forth.

The fundamentals of the debate have been clear for two years

All of this has been presented daily for two years, by everyone and in all degrees of knowing and knowing better, cross-talking and pathetic admonitions, using statistics, studies, suspicions and fanfares.

In this respect, it was not to be expected that the debate and vote in the German Bundestag on compulsory vaccination would bring anything forward.

However, their result goes far beyond the fact that no majority could be found for any variant of compulsory vaccination.

The objection that there is a majority in the population for compulsory vaccination, even among supporters of the FDP and the Union, does not indicate such a side effect.

No defect in democracy has emerged.

Law becomes what a majority of MPs find, not a majority of the citizenry.

The political side effect consists rather in the picture that the government, parliament and parties have given in this matter.

The government did not see itself in a position to present its own draft law, and used wild justifications to gloss over the fact that it had once again bowed to the smallest coalition partner.

A year ago, the head of government himself had ruled out the compulsory vaccination that he was now calling for as a sensible project.

Then the vote was delayed with grotesque arguments (need for advice, carnival).

The thesis that compulsory vaccination could be decided but not enforced (probably too few signs in stock) was brought into play.

There were statements like that one was in favor of compulsory vaccination, but for none of the variants offered.

Or: compulsory vaccination, yes, but at an unspecified date.

The Union was fine with any justification for being against the other drafts, and parts of the Union then logically even voted against their own application.

And all of this was decorated early on by Olaf Scholz (SPD) with the word "decision of conscience", whereby it is clear to every observer that these were mostly purely strategic decisions.

In other words, the citizens were expected to be taken for idiots who would believe anything as long as it was propounded by a top politician.

After the boastful announcement of a "turning point", which not even the Vice Chancellor had been informed about beforehand, and the debacle of the Bundestag session with Volodymyr Zelenskyj, Parliament has now been damaged for the third time in a row.

The old sentence that it is more important that decisions are made than what is decided was incomplete.

For the sake of the institution of parliament, it also depends on how decisions are made.