Forwarded from Robin Monotti + Cory Morningstar
HOLOCAUST SURVIVOR INNA ZHVANETSKAYA STILL NOT SAFE FROM INCARCERATION AND FORCED VACCINATION
INTERVIEW WITH ZHVANETSKAYA’S LAWYER HOLGER FISCHER
By Robert Hoeschele and Andrew Barr
The case of the 85-year-old composer Inna Zhvanetskaya has attracted a lot of attention because of the decision last month of a court in Stuttgart in Germany that she should be incarcerated in a psychiatric hospital or secure care home, where she was to be forcibly vaccinated against COVID-19, against her will.
This treatment by the German authorities of a Holocaust survivor evokes obvious parallels with the incarceration of Jews in Nazi Germany and their subjection to forced medical experiments (the origin of the Nuremberg Code).
Currently Zhvanetskaya is in hiding from the authorities, while her lawyer Holger Fischer has managed to obtain an order from a higher court to stay the vaccination, pending the result of an appeal against the decision of the original court. Contrary to claims on social media that the original decision has been overturned, Zhvanetskaya has merely been given a temporary reprieve.
Full details are given in an interview that Fischer gave to Alexander Wallasch, reproduced below in an English translation by Uwe Alschner.
In this interview, Fischer is highly critical of the original decision: ‘This decision is so lousy, it has gross errors in so many places, that the regional court probably couldn’t help but say, “We have to suspend it.” Let me give you an example. The decision has a statement of reasons, the so-called “grounds”. But no reason is given why a compulsory vaccination is necessary. It doesn’t say why. There is nothing there. That is such an obvious error.
‘I don’t know what is going on in the mind of this judge. I can only say that I have never read such a decision on compulsory vaccination. The legislation in this case, Section 1906 of the German Civil Code, was originally intended for people who have to be treated with psychotropic drugs in a psychiatric hospital. And you will not find – certainly not from the Federal Supreme Court – any case law on compulsory vaccination. There’s nothing there.
‘We are moving here into something that is newly blossoming. In Stuttgart, where other strange decisions are made, it is said that they are necessary because we are in COVID times. I have often experienced the phenomenon that, because of COVID, one suddenly deviates from a decision-making tradition or from a legal practice that one has cultivated with great care for years.’
Fischer also expresses his concern about the failure of the court to realise the historical resonance of forcing medical treatment upon a Jewish person in Germany, against her will:
‘The court has put its foot in its mouth here. And the giant fetlock is the Jewish origin. Possible childhood trauma as a result of her Jewish origin cannot be ruled out.
‘Why isn’t the court sensing that? And why is there so little awareness in Germany in the meantime? Why is there so little sensitivity? That is where I would then say, “There is the scandal.”
‘And you have to say to Germans: “You don’t have any sensitivity, and yet you all said that you had learned from the German past. But that’s not the impression we get.”
https://teleg.eu/s/robinmg/25891
INTERVIEW WITH ZHVANETSKAYA’S LAWYER HOLGER FISCHER
By Robert Hoeschele and Andrew Barr
The case of the 85-year-old composer Inna Zhvanetskaya has attracted a lot of attention because of the decision last month of a court in Stuttgart in Germany that she should be incarcerated in a psychiatric hospital or secure care home, where she was to be forcibly vaccinated against COVID-19, against her will.
This treatment by the German authorities of a Holocaust survivor evokes obvious parallels with the incarceration of Jews in Nazi Germany and their subjection to forced medical experiments (the origin of the Nuremberg Code).
Currently Zhvanetskaya is in hiding from the authorities, while her lawyer Holger Fischer has managed to obtain an order from a higher court to stay the vaccination, pending the result of an appeal against the decision of the original court. Contrary to claims on social media that the original decision has been overturned, Zhvanetskaya has merely been given a temporary reprieve.
Full details are given in an interview that Fischer gave to Alexander Wallasch, reproduced below in an English translation by Uwe Alschner.
In this interview, Fischer is highly critical of the original decision: ‘This decision is so lousy, it has gross errors in so many places, that the regional court probably couldn’t help but say, “We have to suspend it.” Let me give you an example. The decision has a statement of reasons, the so-called “grounds”. But no reason is given why a compulsory vaccination is necessary. It doesn’t say why. There is nothing there. That is such an obvious error.
‘I don’t know what is going on in the mind of this judge. I can only say that I have never read such a decision on compulsory vaccination. The legislation in this case, Section 1906 of the German Civil Code, was originally intended for people who have to be treated with psychotropic drugs in a psychiatric hospital. And you will not find – certainly not from the Federal Supreme Court – any case law on compulsory vaccination. There’s nothing there.
‘We are moving here into something that is newly blossoming. In Stuttgart, where other strange decisions are made, it is said that they are necessary because we are in COVID times. I have often experienced the phenomenon that, because of COVID, one suddenly deviates from a decision-making tradition or from a legal practice that one has cultivated with great care for years.’
Fischer also expresses his concern about the failure of the court to realise the historical resonance of forcing medical treatment upon a Jewish person in Germany, against her will:
‘The court has put its foot in its mouth here. And the giant fetlock is the Jewish origin. Possible childhood trauma as a result of her Jewish origin cannot be ruled out.
‘Why isn’t the court sensing that? And why is there so little awareness in Germany in the meantime? Why is there so little sensitivity? That is where I would then say, “There is the scandal.”
‘And you have to say to Germans: “You don’t have any sensitivity, and yet you all said that you had learned from the German past. But that’s not the impression we get.”
https://teleg.eu/s/robinmg/25891
Telegram
Robin Monotti + Dr Mike Yeadon + Cory Morningstar