Next, an experienced lawyer will deepen this topic by Dr. Michael Brunner's in a practical perspective.
She is dealing with the tricks of the WHO and its pandemic treaties and the IHR, the international
health regulations.dangers we are threatened with.
Are we threatened by a totalitarian health regime?
So, before we welcome this luminary to the 21st AZK with her expert perspectives to enrich us, let's take a look at her bio.
Dr. of law Beate Sibylle Pfeil, born in 1967, is a German lawyer and independent researcher specializing
in issues relating to national minorities in Europe.
Particularly in the context of constitutional, international and European law.
She has made a name for herself in her field through numerous lectures and fundamental publications, including
as co-author of a multi-volume handbook on ethnic groups.
From 2008 until 2016 she was editor-in-chief
Since 2019, she has been co-editor of the European Journal for Minority Issues, EJM.
She studied law at the University of Heidelberg and passed her second state examination in Freiburg, Germany.
In 2002, she received her doctorate in law from the University of Innsbruck with "summa cum laude".
Dr. Pfeil worked and conducted research at the South Tyrol Institute for Ethnic Groups for 20 years.
17 of which she spent as deputy scientific director.
From 2017 until 2023, she was the German member of an expert committee for the European Charter for Regional or Minority
Languages, an international treaty of the Council of Europe.
From 2017 to 2022, she was Vice Chair of the European Center for Minority Issues in Flensburg.
Her current work focuses on corona measures, including WHO plans from a legal perspective.
She is a member of the Network of Critical Judges and Prosecutors, the Physicians and Scientists for Health, Freedom
and Democracy, the Independent Lawyers, the Lawyers for Uncensored Investigative Information, the World
Health Alliance, action alliance and the Hippocratic Oath, a professional medical association.
Dr. Beate Pfeil speaks today about: The WHO, the Pandemic Treaty and the International Health Regulations (IHR).
Are we facing a totalitarian healthcare regime?
Welcome, Dr. Beate Pfeil. Thank you for sharing your expert knowledge with us.
Thank you very much. Be a sharpened arrow.
I will be very dangerous today, but not as dangerous as the WHO.
And I would first like to thank my colleague Mr. Brunner for his wonderful topic, especially as it was precisely this inviolable
human dignity that inspired me to take up my law studies.
This first sentence from the German Constitutional Law has always been my inspiration for my entire legal studies.
And when I talk about the WHO today, I think we don't need to be lawyers. When we put on our glasses of human
dignity and asess the WHO in this perspecive, then some answers will just flow out automatically.
Now primarily I will direct the focus on these two important treaties of the WHO, the
International Health Regulations and the pandemic treaty.
But first of all, what is already currently valid at the WHO?
Because what we experienced in the so-called corona years from 2020 onwards, and this cannot be emphasized
often enough, it has to do with the already valid, I say regime of the WHO that is in power.
So first: WHO current status
Then the question what could come upon us in terms of international law and possibly also national law if the
amendments to the IHR that were adopted on June 1, 2024 under very questionable circumstances, actually come into force.
Then in a third point, I want to look into the pandemic treaty, that was adopted this year, but not yet completely.
I will expand on this later on.
And then I will draw my conclusion in point 4.
Point 5 are the perspectives: what is going on in the future with the WHO and its plans?
And what probably interests all of us: what can we do as individual citizens in this situation.
So, Number 1: The WHO and its already valid system errors
It is an absolute system error.
The WHO was founded in 1948 as an association of states.
And slowly but surely, from the mid-1980s, a problem arose here, which, among other things, had to do with the fact
that the USA froze its contribution fees in the mid-1980s.
Normally these organizations are financed by their member-states, by regular contributions that
are uncommitted and not bound in their purpose.
In the mid-1980s, the states followed the example of the USA and also froze their contribution fees.
And then secretly and quietly, the disaster began to take its course.
Today, around 85 percent of the WHO budget are so-called voluntary donations that are mostly bound in their purpose, earmarked.
These donors, who now donate to the WHO, also include states that not only pay their membership fees,
but on top of that additionally donate to the WHO.
In my opinion, Germany, unfortunately is very exemplary here.
So our tax money goes to the WHO.
And since the USA has now broken away, Germany is probably the number one donor.
Then the donors also include international government organizations and private
entities. And that is the sensitive point.
And now a great new study from Australia came up.
They looked into these earmarked donations to the WHO. And even though there are only eight pharmaceutical companies among them -
all other institutions, organizations that are not states but which donate to the WHO with earmarked
donations, have almost 100 percent pharmaceutical interests. This study shows this excellently.
They call it pharma-compatible.
And the top two are the Gates Foundation and the vaccine alliance Gavi.
And here is one more point you should know: The founding fathers of the WHO had something in mind when they wrote in Article 37 of
the WHO Constitution: 'In the performance of their duties the Director-General and the staff shall not seek
or receive instructions from any government or from any authority external to the Organization."
And what applies to governments or regulatory governmental authorities does all the more apply to earmarked
purposes from the pharmaceutical industry or from organizations associated with the pharmaceutical industry.
This means that the WHO is violating its own constitution with these earmarked
donations, and there are even additional guidelines.
Then we have another problem in the background of these WHO donations, which cannot be emphasized often enough:
If, for example, the German Bundestag were to say, oh, we simply have to enhance our contributions of each state
again, then we will have easily solved the problem of dependence on the pharmaceutical industry.
No, we have long since secretly, and quietly in the background solidified and institutionalized the relationships between states
and private entities through this perfidious, I would say, construction of public-private partnerships, which is no longer
questioned, where, of course, for example in GAVI or CEPI, the WHO is linked with governments, with the
famous Gates Foundation and with vaccine manufacturers.
Gavi has Unicef, the World Bank and other NGOs on board.
CEPI which has a program to develop vaccines against all rules in 100 days has the EU
Commission and other research institutions on board.
From a legal point of view, this is absolutely unacceptable, because states - now let's go back to this basic idea that states
have to serve the people including human dignity and human freedom. And private
companies may legitimately even be profit-oriented.
But given the fact that the two are combined and state institutions become dependent on private donations that
are driven by profit, then we are facing a catastrophe.
And this whole problem, which is already linked to the WHO, a problem, which up to now hasn't been considered, not even by a
single member of the German Bundestag - and we must point this out to them - is the blatant lack of the WHO's transparency.
Not only do we have these public-private partnerships, where the private and the public realm are linked, we also have, as
brilliant colleagues have shown, a continuous carousel of personell between GAVI, the Gates Foundation and the WHO.
Incidentally, the Gates Foundation accounts for around 20 percent of the WHO's budget, both directly and
indirectly through other organizations it is sponsoring.
And Mr. Gates, who appears as a philanthropist on the one hand, profits from all these profits
resulting from these alleged donations on the other hand..
So now we have conflicts of interest in abundance. If a so-called WHO expert has worked in the pharmaceutical industry on the one
hand and then suddenly switches back to the WHO or again works on something at GAVI, then we have multiplied conflicts
of interests - and that's the point - these are not disclosed, since data protection suddenly plays a role.
And here comes the next point: contracts with WHO donors, which may even clearly show what purposes the donors associate with
their donation are not disclosed either. Would you maybe read there: Hey, use our ModRNA Vaccine, it's really great - at least
when it comes to profit - be so kind to recommend it - otherwise we just won't donate anything. And what a
coincidence..., the contracts are not disclosed either, they are not made accessible to the general public.
And the crowning glory is a procedure called the Emergency Use Listing Procedure at the WHO from 2022.
Pharmaceutical companies can apply for drugs and vaccines, which they will then produce, as a kind of dry run, before we even
know, which supposedly dangerous pandemic virus is on the way again; so they can apply to do it once abstractly with
placeholders and next in a second step, when the so-called pandemic occurs, with the corresponding specific
pathogens. These drugs and vaccines will be assessed, once by a preliminary committee, then by a late committee.
But now comes the scandalous story par excellence: the WHO reserves the right to decide for itself what it does or does
not do with the results of these expert reports, and it also reserves the right to decide whether or not to publish them.
"The WHO remains the full control over the results of the expert opinions."
This is an unparalleled scandal as well and then we wonder why so many people are now suffering from vaccine damage, from the
corona vaccination, the so-called corona vaccination, and some of those suffering still don't know that this is possibly the cause.
So now we have a WHO that, against this background, is already afflicted with massive system errors. And on top of
that there is the really huge problem given by the fact that a single person in the WHO has excessive powers.
And, as we all know, the Director General, specifically Mr Tedros, has also been in the focus of human
rights organizations because of war crimes and so on.
This Tedros, who has no democratic legitimacy whatsoever, can even now declare some
so-called health emergencies of international scope.
And he can usher in so-called recommendations on this basis. We have seen the result of
this arbitrary action by Mr. Tedros in 2020.
As we all know, it was about vaccination and testing requirements, medical examinations, treatments, contact tracing,
isolation, quarantine, travel and trade restrictions and so on.
Now the fact-checker may say, yes, but this Mr Tedros has to take certain factual criteria into account, this
is stipulated in the International Health Regulations.
And the law expert cheers and says, oh yes, we have a huge list of diseases, if they are there and spread
quickly worldwide, then he can declare a state of emergency.
PHEIC for short, Public Health Emergency of International Concern, how ironical.
And if he then makes recommendations, for example for general or facility-based vaccination mandates, he definitely has to check
the proportionality, he has to check whether it helps at all in containing the infectious diseases worldwide, and check
the possible side effects and so on, he has to do all that.
Yes, the paper says so, however - and this is too little known, scientific evidence and proportionality that would be so
important here, are not worth the paper they are written on
because this Mr Tedros does have an emergency committee that advises him, but only advises him. It is not
independent in any way: The members are appointed by Tedros himself and, if necessary, removed again.
Unlike in the so-called constitutional state, there is no independent supervisory authority.
What is the result of all this?
We have conflicts of interest in abundance.
We have a massive risk of arbitrariness, of power abuse, by a Mr. Tedros who may be whispered to by all sorts of
people about completely different things that have nothing to do with evidence and proportionality.
That's why you can read here: "the danger of external control"
And at the end of this chain, you find the worst thing whatsoever: which is the danger - that has long since
materialized - of massive violations of fundamental rights, including the right to life, physical
integrity and, of course, the violation of human health.
This is, and it cannot be said often enough, the WHO today.
What can we expect in the future, in case these international health regulations come into being, which are already relatively
close to us, - as I said, they were adopted last year? But now the deadline to object, which was the
19th of July, for almost all countries, has passed.
The states would have had the opportunity to object to the effectuation of these international
health regulations, as of 2024, vis-à-vis the WHO.
In that case the WHO's previous version would have been valid.
Unfortunately, very few states made use of this July 19th deadline - I'll say more about this later.
As a result of this non-objection, the others are now obliged under international law to implement these IHR, if
they have not already done so, and they will then take effect under international law on September 19th.
What do they say?
In the current IHR, we have already formulated the PHEIC (Public Health Emergency of International Concern) - now a Pandemic
Emergency is being added - as a form of aggravation. And as lawyers we see this immediately, there are further
additional aggravating elements in it. It must be even more dangerous, the virus must spread even faster in many countries.
It is about exceeding the capacity of the healthcare system.
This virus, as horribly painted on the wall, may trigger social and economic disruption,
and then it says: The high risk is sufficient..
So this is also an unparalleled scandal; a still functioning German Federal Constitutional Court, for example, would actually
have to shoot down such a claim in flames from the very outset.
Second point: What do the new IHR explicitly say?
Well, it says everything, the pharmaceutical lobby has probably wanted and hoped for a very long time! The new focus, nice new
language, relevant health products, including, of course, medications, so-called vaccines and also -
something I find very alarming - cell and gene-based therapies
what we have heard from our colleague Broady today.
And these, all of these remedies may become the subject of emergency recommendations. But this Mr
Tedros, the Director General, can also issue recommendations apart from any emergencies.
These are the so-called standing recommendations.
And now the research and development of such products is to be vigorously pursued, and it is crystal clear from the
WHO's statements that these will be Mod RNA-based products, all of them, especially when it comes to vaccinations.
Research and development is to be massively promoted, new additional production facilities are to be built all over the
world, because, as we have lately heard in Geneva, the problem with corona was that the developing countries apparently did
not have sufficient access to all these blessings, which is why the principle of equity, equal distribution, is now being used.
And solidarity, and under the heading of solidarity, the richer countries are requested to dig deep into their
pockets so that the poorer ones can produce even more.
And as I mentioned earlier, there is already this List for Emergency Approval, which means that the WHO is already trying to
exert massive influence on the world's regulatory authorities.
I have had the experts explain this to me. The production of this so-called ModRNA vaccine is
inevitably linked to a form of gain-of-function research.
This means that the pandemic pathogens, which are now being sought after worldwide - because they are of course very
profitable - are artificially modified in the laboratory, that means, the mutation is artificially created, so that a
vaccine can be developed against precisely this mutation.
Experts are arguing about how dangerous this is.
I hear Dr. Wodarg speaking, and I hear Prof. Wiesendanger warning.
I'm not a specialist here, I can't judge.
But just observing the pressure that is being exerted, it is clear there are definite interests.
There are those who would like to see a new pandemic.
That much can be gathered from all this.
In other words, we have a further reinforcement of this merely one-sided, pharmaceutical-oriented view of medicine.
And we have an increase in security risks.
Prof. Kemmerer rightly says that with this Mod-RNA injection, the pandemic will even find much better ground in the human body.
By throttling the immune system, these injections further accelerate pandemics.
This much can be said with certainty based on the current state of knowledge.
Life and health are even more at risk.
Now comes a third highly dangerous point.
These IHR now contain what we have been hearing from the EU for a long time, and what we are also hearing in our own countries.
We are here at the Anti-Censorship Conference.
And one of the most dangerous ideological tools is this perfidious idea that there is an authority somewhere that
claims the right to combat misinformation and disinformation.
And this monopoly on truth in its essence is absolutely contrary to fundamental rights. I am always
surprised that no constitutional judge, hardly any constitutional lawyer, refers to it.
The fundamental rights to freedom of expression and academic freedom are based on the idea of the
free exchange of opinions through a free discourse.
And if this is curtailed, these freedoms are stifled already at their core.
Now this is in place, without any outcry being heard from the official side.
Combating misinformation and disinformation is part of these new IHR.
Added to this is risk communication.
So allegedly there is also someone who knows how it all works and what this risk looks like.
And he now determines what is communicated to the population, what the risk is supposed to be.
And everything else is just ignored.
There is a very perfidious concept behind this. It's called "combating infodemics".
And again there is the propaganda language: "infodemic", almost as dangerous as the pandemic.
And the theory states that even if there is too much information, it can be canceled.
Who decides what is too much?
And obviously, we humans are no longer capable of deciding what information we will consume and what we won't.
Then something has been going on for a long time with behavioral guidance at the WHO, but not only there.
People are no longer persuaded to adhere to certain guidelines by the power of persuasion and the good work of state authorities
- that would actually be wonderful - but in fact it is about guiding people's behavior on a psychological level.
So we no longer need any scientific evidence... which is practical for those who want to exercise power or make profit.
This is reinforced by the fact that the WHO has signed contracts with the entire Digital Big Tech Industry
who, in case of doubt, can also tell the people what is true and what is false.
Surprisingly, they are not public either.
So here we have, in essence, a fight against freedom of opinion, of information and also against the press organs, the free
press, the free media, which represent dissenting opinions....
...and of course, and this is quite fatal, a fight against the freedom of science.
Then one last crucial point: What else is in the IHR?
They are now telling the states to set up a national IHR authority, which of course has to deal exclusively with the
implementation of the IHR obligations. And this they may perform even at the administrative level in between: in Germany for
example at the federal state level, or at the municipal level. Health authorities everywhere are to be geared towards or
should be made interested in complying the WHO obligations.
In case of doubt, it is no longer checked whether such doubts are sensible and, above all, whether they are compatible
with the Basic Law, with the Constitution, with human rights.
This massively increases the pressure on the contracting states to implement these regulations.
These would be the International Health Regulations 2024, which we are facing.
The pandemic treaty is still a little way off and, with a lot of luck, it may not be realized.
It contains the connection to these pandemic emergencies.
However, the Pandemic Treaty itself does not contain any authorization to declare a state of emergency.
Unfortunately, we already have the International Health Regulations for that.
But the Treaty states, for example, that the contract applies during and between pandemics.
So the pandemic narrative is again being promoted by it...
We live in the age of pandemics.
As an explanation only zoonosis is given. The fact that this involves human activity in the
background, keyword gain-of-function research,
is quickly set aside.
Furthermore we observe a further substantiation and strengthening of the promotion of these relevant health products.
Everything I have already mentioned here in relation to the IHR.
In addition, technology transfer is supposed to take place between the rich and the poor.
Next there is the famous Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing System.
The issue here is that the countries of the world are of course fighting over the access to genetic material.....
... since drugs and vaccines can be developed on this basis, which is of course a super profit model.
And of course the poor in particular are keen on sharing in the profits of the rich.
Perhaps that is our good fortune, beause internally there is a great battle about finances.
And that's one of the reasons why this Pandemic Treaty has not yet been concluded.
And that is also the reason why it was almost overlooked this year when it was adopted that Article 12 (2) states that the
treaty can only be opened for signature once the parties involved have agreed on an annex to this so-called "Pope System".
This means that we have a glimmer of hope that the internal dispute - when two people fight, the third is happy
- that possibly this dispute over money, will play a major role here and spare us this pandemic treaty.
And that would be fantastic.
And of course it is all about strengthening the emergency admission systems.
What was in this extra sheet - Emergency Use Listing - is now specified there.
So in the end it's all about establishing a global medical-industrial-complex, nothing else.
It's not about health. It's about the opposite of health.
Human health and physical integrity are being put at risk in the interests of profit and power.
And here we come to point three: the infodemic concept in the Pandemic Treaty is very worrying.
In the IHR, we already have the fight against misinformation and disinformation.
Now comes another bombshell.
The aim is to strengthen the population's so-called Science Health and Pandemic Literacy.
This means that by the WHO's claimed monopoly on truth, the population shall be brainwashed in the area of pandemics, public
health, science. The population is to gain literacy, i.e. knowledge, but of course
only in the sense the WHO understands it..
Yes, because, as I said, we have no supervisory authority.
It has already been said quite clearly by a high-ranking UN representative, without any outcry from the United
Nations; the WHO is a subsidiary of the UN, as is well known, and the United Nations owns the science.
What does science have to do with property?
The only explanation has been power and profit again and again.
And simultaneously we hear that people should be informed about the efficiency and safety of medical products.
This is taken for granted, so behavioral control is further promoted.
Then we have further innovations, a strengthened monitoring mechanism and then the introduction of the already existing One
Health principle, which links animal health with environmental health, with human health and which gives the
WHO further immeasurable powers and which of course also serves to underpin this zoonosis theory.
That pandemics can never actually be caused by humans, but only by animals suddenly falling dangerously ill, for
whatever reason, and the whole thing then spreading to humans.
Zoonotic spillover is of course already included.
Yes, and if we look at the whole thing again now, the idea that human dignity is
inviolable, the idea of human rights, of freedom.
And then looking at these treaties, we first and foremost have an increased de facto threat to state sovereignty.
I emphasize de facto, because even in 2020 no state was obliged to simply implement what was recommended by the WHO.
But they did it.
They did it and it shocked me deeply.
And Mr. Brunner has explained so well where the shortcomings are in our legal systems.
In my view, what is missing is the ethos without which the most beautiful legal system cannot exist, the ethos that is
also capable of compensating for a deficient legal system.
We had times, for example in Germany, and certainly elsewhere, with a functioning Federal Constitutional Court
that considered the freedom and dignity of the individual as the starting and end point and put it first.
And all that has been lost.
I remember how horrified I was when I read for the first time in the handbook of state law (Handbuch des
Staatsrechts) that every constitution lives on preconditions that it cannot create itself.
And I always thought, well, if it's on paper, then it will be adhered to.
That's how naive a law student can be.
Now I have been given a lesson, but of the highest quality.
With this cognitive warfare, with this infodemic policy, with this Digital Services Act of the EU, with this insane disease
of fact-checkers, we end up with a complete reconditioning of people from independently thinking citizens to obedient subjects.
This applies to all areas, including statehood, the judiciary, the legislature and so on.
And without this ethos of human dignity and freedom, a legal system can no longer function.
Mr. Brunner said it beautifully and perhaps at this point: the first draft of a German Basic Law initially
contained the sentence that the state exists for the sake of man, not man for the sake of the state.
And all of that has now, he expressed it beautifully in another way, all of that has broken away at the moment.
So sovereignty continues to be massively threatened by the WHO and we have a total failure of
constitutional control, including the constitutional courts.
I see it especially in Germany, and the political persecution that is taking place in our
country is something I would never have dreamed of.
And then, of course, an increased risk of massive restrictions on freedom, arbitrary declarations of a state of emergency, possibly
the permanent issuing of recommendations restricting freedom.
And against the background of the lack of control bodies at WHO level - and the states simply ignore their control bodies.
Then we have an additional important point, as our colleagues Silvia Behrendt and Amrei Müller have repeatedly pointed
out: and this fits into the overall global picture, we have a sneaky ideological militarization of health policy.
This is not written in the treaties, but there is a doctrine on global health security: pathogens are treated like a military
enemy, a security risk, and then there has to be an automatic response, so an automatic mechanism is
installed and of course there are vaccinations against it.
People no longer question whether they are vaccinating people to death.
And a strengthening of the overall digital surveillance of humanity is also included. Digital vaccination passports
have now been introduced, this is but also a very important issue when it comes to check on the totalitarian nature of it.
Then, of course, increased health procedures through this medical-pharmaceutical complex, the
infodemic concept, I have already described it in detail.
And then a creeping ideological restructuring in these contracts as well.
It's about slowly but surely moving people away from the idea that I am the individual and
that my freedom is the starting and end point.
No, you are nothing, the community is everything.
Does that sound familiar to you?
Human dignity, no longer an issue.
We have a development towards collective obedience.
This includes, for example, the whole-of-society approach.
This means that when a dangerous pandemic occurs, everyone in society must stick together and pull together.
What does that mean logically?
Logically, they say that if you don't comply, you're out, we've seen it all before.
You have to vaccinate your basic rights, otherwise you're gone.
Anything with a dissenting opinion is massively attacked in one form or another and then there are these
pseudo fundamental rights of equity and solidarity.
And these are then put in the same line with genuine human rights.
Yes, that actually provides the answer.
When I ask: Are we facing a totalitarian health regime?
We not only have a totalitarian health regime awaiting us but a worldwide development towards
authoritarianism and totalitarianism, in places where it is not yet or has not been so far
it is supposed to come.
We have massive pressure on the rule of law, on fundamental rights, including the right to voluntary
consent to medical experiments, which is enshrined in Article 7 of the UN Covenant on Human Rights.
We have pressure on the sovereignty of the member states and finally this very great danger.
So everything is at stake here really.
Therefore section 5, very briefly, What will happen next?
You can think about these states whatever you like, but thank God, the withdrawal of the USA was a massively important signal.
Argentina has followed.
These states will no longer support any version of the IHR.
These IHR 2024 are also not supported by Israel and Italy, very interesting,
Austria also objected, but only, I say this in quotation marks, because they realized
very late that Parliament had not yet approved
However, according to the constitution, they should have approved even the very first IHR
This means that they will still want to obtain parliamentary approval.
In the case of the pandemic treaty, as I have already described, it is to be hoped that it will not materialize.
And one important thing, I noticed this with the example of Austria, and this is that governments, if they are
not directly democratically elected, they are allowed to negotiate and sign treaties under international law.
Generally, however, parliaments must give their approval.
We were able to initiate this in Austria at the last minute because it had somehow been overlooked, strangely enough.
That is important. One thing is representation under international law and another is the
democratic legitimacy of these government decisions.
And usually, parliaments are involved.
In other words, we are calling on the lawyers worldwide to check whether you had a parliament to have a say in this?
If not, please refer to this and demand it.
Otherwise, these IHR cannot simply be implemented without a parliamentary procedure in these countries.
Germany is a little more thorough and has now passed a law of consent through the federal government.
But Germany had already allowed the objection period to expire beforehand, which actually corresponds to an act of ratification.
Imagine now that the Bundestag and the Bundesrat do not pass this law of consent
then the government will get into trouble.
On the one hand, it has an obligation under international law, but on the other hand it must not
override the democratically declared will of Parliament.
It is to be feared that they will agree.
But I still find it very exciting what is happening.
And I come from a human rights background, we also have every chance in Austria to draw attention to such problems.
It is also interesting to note that in Germany this law already states that consent to the IHR will restrict the fundamental
right to physical integrity, personal freedom, the secrecy of correspondence, post and
telecommunications and the right to freedom of movement.
So they are somehow assuming some kind of automatism, even though the German authorities would
actually have to implement the WHO legal files.
Yes, and Mr. Brunner and I didn't talk beforehand.
For me it is always important to go back to the idea of human dignity when it comes to what we can do.
It has been beautifully described that human dignity, which is also the ethos of the Basic Law, flows from
the idea that man is an image of God, and therefore the German Basic Law is Christian-inspired.
And thus the value of the human being is unquestionably and automatically given as a result.
And it results as well from the idea of the Enlightenment, which says that it is about
man's exit from his self-inflicted immaturity.
Without this ethos, nothing works in our legal system, and perhaps hardly anything in our lives.
That's why it is really about doing everything in our capacity.
Mr. Sasek said it so well: to always ask for help, to educate people in society through political
activity, demonstrations, flyers, lectures, whatever.
Through the free media, by approaching the corporate media.
Trying again and again, maybe there is someone sitting there who is accessible.
And above all by educating politicians, provided they are still people who are perhaps still unsuspecting.
I assume that there are many who are not unsuspecting.
But perhaps the unsuspecting backbenchers of the informed ones.
Please, please educate and encourage people to make a decision of conscience here.
And finally, also try to approach the courts as often as possible and point out that
elementary human rights are being violated here.
And every single action, I am even convinced that every single thought counts here of "NO, we do not want such kind of world!"
We are embarking on a vision of a better world with human dignity and freedom.
With this in mind, thank you very much.
Thank you very much, Beate Pfeil. My arrow is sharpened again. It's not over yet. People
say, Corona is over. It's not true. You heard it.
I could repeat everything you have said. Just go full-speed with education. Wherever we can while we still can.
Then we'll look further. Thank you for being with us. Keep networking.
May as many lawyers and judges and all come and strengthen this front.
Thank you for your expertise. We need it. Thank you.