At the beginning of the year, the revision of the health law of the canton of St. Gallen caused a stir throughout Switzerland.
It states that the government can declare vaccinations mandatory by ordinance within the framework of the Federal Epidemics Act.
The amount of the fine of up to 20,000 francs is the focus of criticism.
However, St. Gallen is by no means the only canton with a mandatory vaccination program.
In the canton of Zurich, such a provision with a fine of up to CHF 50,000 has been in force since spring 2020.
This program aims to get to the bottom of the matter.
We would like to welcome Ms. Andrea Staubli, lawyer, mediator and board member of Action Alliance
Free Switzerland (ABF Switzerland). Hello Ms. Staubli.
: Good afternoon, thank you very much for the invitation. With pleasure.
Ms. Staubli, could you please briefly introduce yourself and explain how you came to deal
with the issue of vaccination in Switzerland?
I am a lawyer by training.
I was a court president for 20 years and today I work independently as a mediator, coach and consultant.
I work as a lawyer for the "Aktionsbündnis Freie Schweiz" and you asked me how I got involved.
This actually started in spring 2020.
I realized that something couldn't be right.
The Federal Council has started to govern with emergency law.
Our basic rights were restricted and for me that was just a sign that something was wrong.
And then I delved a little deeper into the subject and that's how I ended up at ABF Switzerland.
And there we realized - especially with the experiences from the corona period - that the topics of health and health
policy are very, very relevant; for us people first and foremost, of course, but also for politicians.
And so we then got to grips with the Epidemics Act, the international health regulations and the pandemic treaty.
The Epidemics Act mentions mandatory vaccination.
Then there are the terms mandatory vaccination and compulsory vaccination.
Can you explain the differences and how the cantons actually use the terms?
If we look in Wikipedia or the dictionary, we find the statement that obligation and duty are actually synonyms.
So mandatory vaccination or compulsory vaccination actually means the same thing.
I believe that the word "compulsory vaccination" has a stronger, greater meaning for people.
The Epidemics Act, i.e. the federal law that applies to the whole of Switzerland, talks about compulsory vaccination.
All other cantons that have such a law, with the exception of the canton of St. Gallen,
are also talking about mandatory vaccination.
And the canton of St. Gallen is now the only canton that is talking about compulsory vaccination.
You are right to say that there is also compulsory vaccination.
And I would like to make a very clear distinction between a direct vaccination obligation and an indirect vaccination obligation.
Direct compulsory vaccination would mean picking someone up, taking them to the doctor - perhaps with
the police - and then administering a vaccination.
We don't have that in Switzerland.
But what we have realized since corona is that we actually have an indirect obligation to vaccinate.
This means that many people were excluded from public life during corona and were at risk of losing their jobs.
In such a situation, you can no longer decide freely and we are talking about indirect coercion.
If we now look at the fines that certain cantons have in their health laws - that is, if someone does not comply with a
vaccination obligation and could then be fined up to 20,000 francs - then we also say
that this person can no longer decide freely.
This means that we also have an indirect vaccination obligation here.
If the cantons now introduce mandatory vaccination, then they are relying on the EpG, Art. 22.
It states: "The cantons may declare vaccinations of vulnerable population groups, particularly exposed persons
and persons carrying out certain activities to be mandatory if there is a significant risk."
That's what it says. Does this mean that compulsory vaccination can only be introduced for certain people and not for everyone?
That is a very important point you are making here.
So the EpG, Art. 22 has been in force since January 1, 2016.
And this federal law gives the cantons the opportunity to introduce such a vaccination obligation in their health laws.
Now it is very important that such a vaccination obligation can only be imposed under certain conditions - namely,
it must be imposed on certain people or groups of people.
And that's right, it's not a general vaccination requirement.
But if we take a closer look at these criteria, what does "particularly vulnerable people,
people who carry out certain activities" etc. mean?
Then we see that these are so-called undefined legal terms.
In other words, it can be defined very broadly and that is where the danger lies.
If we now say 'certain groups of people - that's all people aged 60 and over', then that applies to quite
a lot of people, regardless of their state of health.
If we say 'it affects all children and young people', then we also have a large population group.
'People who carry out a specific activity' - this can be anyone who works in a hospital, a nursing home or a retirement home.
And suddenly we see that although it is not a general vaccination obligation, it could affect a great many people.
And that is precisely the problem we have here if this is interpreted broadly.
If any canton now says that we want to extend it widely, then many population groups or classes in a canton will be affected.
Yes, the Epidemics Act also states "if there is a significant risk".
This raises the question of what constitutes "a significant risk"?
And: isn't public health at risk in a pandemic - or a supposed pandemic - anyway?
So what would you say to people who argue like this?
The significant risk that you mentioned is precisely the second requirement.
So we have the specific groups of people and then the second requirement is that there is a significant risk.
What does "a significant risk" mean?
This is another broad term, an undefined legal concept.
And the cantons then fill this with content themselves.
And here again we have the danger that a canton can interpret this very broadly.
So it can be a considerable danger very quickly.
And you then rightly say, yes, isn't every pandemic somehow a threat to public health?
And yes, this is exactly where the problem lies.
The current definition of the WHO, the World Health Organization, states that "a pandemic exists
when there is a worldwide spread of a new disease".
And that means that the criterion that the WHO uses here is the speed of spread, i.e. how quickly a virus spreads - and
not the high number of deaths or the high number of illnesses.
And when we look at that, it can quickly become the case that something is a pandemic.
And if the WHO then declares a pandemic, as it has done for some trivial matter, then of course we run the risk of more compulsory
vaccinations being imposed in the cantons in Switzerland.
In other words, the possibility that there is a significant risk can happen again very quickly if the WHO acts accordingly.
Also, for example - as we have seen with corona - when a test simply comes along that gives the
impression that a disease is spreading very quickly.
So we have to expect that it can happen quickly.
Yes, if that's what you're talking about: What is the requirement for mandatory vaccination? A considerable danger.
When do we have a significant risk?
If the WHO now declares a pandemic and then says that testing is now necessary.
We know this from the coronavirus era with the PCR test.
We now know that there have been many false-positive results.
This means that many people were tested as ill who were not ill at all.
Then we have a wide spread and then there is a risk that a vaccination obligation will be imposed by a canton
or even by the Federal Council in a special situation.
This is precisely the danger.
ABF Switzerland has also issued a media release with the title "Vaccination obligations put to the test".
Could you give us an overview of how the individual vaccination requirements and the
penalties are handled in the various cantons?
Yes, with pleasure. With the canton of St. Gallen, there has been a lot of movement in the discussion
about mandatory vaccination, compulsory vaccination.
ABF Switzerland then looked at the actual situation in the cantons.
We have created an overview table.
You can find them on our website, where you can also download them as a PDF.
What we found - we looked at all 26 cantons - we have nine cantons that do not have a mandatory vaccination program.
I said that Article 22 of the EpG gives the cantons the option of introducing mandatory
vaccination, but they are not obliged to do so.
And nine cantons have said we don't want that.
Then we have eight cantons in Switzerland that have introduced mandatory vaccination, but no penal provisions.
In other words, they have actually implemented what the EpG makes possible.
Then there are the cantons that have mandatory vaccination with a penalty provision.
And these are the critical or interesting ones. You have to take a closer look.
These are the cantons of Appenzell Ausserrhoden, Baselland and St. Gallen - we know that St. Gallen is not yet in
force, as it is only now being discussed in parliament.
Then Schaffhausen - Schaffhausen is also not yet in force, here we still have the consultation
process, which runs until the end of March this year.
The other cantons are Ticino, Vaud, Valais, Zug and Zurich.
This means that all these cantons have mandatory vaccination with penalties.
And this takes very different forms.
So we have penalties ranging from a fine of 500 francs to 100,000 francs.
So that is very different.
And here, of course, the very important question arises.
Are the cantons even allowed to do this?
Are they authorized to impose penalties or not?
Because the Epidemics Act does not provide for such penal provisions.
And ABF Switzerland is of the opinion that this is not permissible.
This would then mean that all these penal provisions are contrary to federal law and unconstitutional.
This means that these penal provisions are not permissible and must be removed from the laws.
Who actually decides when there is a significant danger?
Is this automatically the case when the WHO declares a public health emergency of
international concern or when exactly does this occur?
The Director-General of the WHO can, as you said, declare a "public health emergency of international concern" (GNIT/PHEIC).
This does not mean that this automatically applies in Switzerland.
Article 6 of the Epidemics Act stipulates an additional requirement that must be met.
This emergency situation in Switzerland must pose a threat to public health.
In other words, these are two conditions that must both be met cumulatively in order for
a special situation to apply in Switzerland.
And that would then be a prerequisite for making vaccination compulsory - by the Federal Council.
What consequences would such a compulsory vaccination have for Switzerland?
Could it then be that there is a two-tier society with different rights and disadvantages?
If the Federal Council were to declare such a vaccination obligation in a special situation, it is of
course possible that those who do not get vaccinated would suffer certain disadvantages.
Now it is very interesting in this context:
When the Epidemics Act was discussed in the National Council and Council of States under Article 22 at the time - that was
in 2013/2014 - there were very clear votes on what the politicians meant and, above all, what they did not mean.
And this is now very relevant for these healthcare laws in the cantons.
In the debate in the National Council and the Council of States, for example, it was said that vaccination was not compulsory.
And furthermore, the opinion has been expressed that nobody will be vaccinated against their will and if it
were compulsory, the law would have to contain sanctions. - But there are no such options.
This means that what was debated in parliament a few years ago now helps us to better understand
these laws and the penal provisions in the cantons.
This means that the federal legislator clearly states that there must be no coercion.
And in September 2025, the Federal Council responded to a question from a member of parliament and I quote:
"As in the current Epidemics Act, the proposed revision does not include a penalty provision for
a breach of a possible vaccination obligation."
In other words, we have clear indications here that there should be no coercion, not even indirect coercion.
And now you have said whether this could lead to a two-tier society?
And here I believe that there is still a danger of a two-tier society emerging.
We know from the partial revision of the Epidemics Act that the federal government wants to promote vaccinations.
So the cantons must make preparations to ensure that the population can be vaccinated quickly and easily.
Measures are planned for schools - we remember the vaccination buses that used to stand in the playground.
And employers should also receive support so that employees can be vaccinated easily
and without any problems during working hours.
So we see a trend here: more vaccination.
And if, of course, we now also know that the possibility of mandatory vaccination is present, then there is of course the
danger of this indirect coercion, that people who would not be vaccinated would then no longer be able to participate in social
life, for example, even without a penalty provision - we know this from the corona period - or would have to fear for their jobs.
And then, I think, we are exactly at the point where we have to say that this is a two-tier society.
And that is something we do not want.
What the Director-General of the WHO keeps saying in this context is also very worrying.
He says that 'we live in a century of pandemics and after a pandemic is before a pandemic'.
In other words, we have to reckon with the fact that coronavirus was not an isolated case; there is always
the possibility that the WHO will declare a pandemic.
And we now know what the consequences are that could befall us.
And the Director-General of the WHO has also said several times in this context that we need to take
stricter and stronger action against the unvaccinated.
So his stance is very clear.
Yes, I also think it could be a salami tactic that the Federal Council is not yet saying that compulsory
vaccination is really coming, that it will be introduced slowly.
But the direction, as you say, is quite clear: we want to promote vaccinations.
And who can guarantee that this will not be tightened up again in the next step?
What I also find blatant in this context is that the Federal Council has said that corona has actually been dealt with well
and that these amendments to the Epidemics Act and the Health Act are actually the lessons
learned from this corona period. How do you see that?
You can imagine that I see things very differently.
The Federal Council says, almost like a prayer wheel, 'we have come to terms with the coronavirus period and that is why we
are now revising the Epidemics Act, because we have learned all the important and correct lessons from this coronavirus period'.
I don't see it that way at all, because the Federal Council does not take into account a great many scientific
studies - which we have had before, and now also new scientific studies that have come out in recent years.
For example, the Federal Council assumes that masks are effective.
We know today, there are countless studies, that the masks do not protect.
The Federal Council further assumes that the "modRNA injection" , which has been vaccinated, is safe and
effective and that there are no side effects or vaccine damage.
Here, too, we have a completely different picture today.
So the Federal Council refuses to look at all these issues.
And we at ABF Switzerland say that the partial revision of the Epidemics Act, where precisely these
points are to be cemented in the law, is unacceptable.
And that is why we are calling for a reappraisal worthy of the name to be carried out first.
And only then can a revision of the Epidemics Act be tackled.
To this end, we have launched a petition that every citizen can sign, if people are also of the opinion
that we first want a reappraisal and only then a change.
And change means, as we have now seen a little: Tightening up the Epidemics Act.
Switzerland follows the international health regulations of the WHO.
What do you think of the WHO?
Is the WHO really primarily concerned with combating diseases or are there completely different goals behind it?
If we look at the WHO constitution and Article 1, the purpose article, it says, and I quote, "the purpose of WHO is to
help all peoples to achieve the best possible state of health".
And if we take that at its word, then that would mean: yes, the WHO is a helpful
organization that is committed to people's health.
You mentioned the international health regulations.
If we read a little more closely, more deeply, we realize, for example, that it is mainly about relevant health products.
- So products. Are products helpful for people's health or is it more about other things?
Sounds more like marketing. Exactly.
And if we then look at the pandemic treaty, which is to be discussed again at the World Health Assembly in May,
we see that there is supposed to be a trade in pathogens.
So the states, the pharmaceutical companies, they would then trade pathogens with each other.
And depending on when a state sells or passes on a pathogen, it receives compensation.
So you can ask yourself - it's about health products, it's about trade in pathogens - is it really about people's health?
And then, if we look further, who are the funders of the WHO?
So where does the WHO get its money from?
And then we see that the large sums of money that come from third parties - not necessarily from the member
states - are, for example, the Gates Foundation or Gavi.
Gavi is the international vaccination alliance.
And these institutions give earmarked funds.
In other words, they say we'll give you money, but you have to use it for this or that.
And now you can guess three times what this money will be used for? - Namely for health products.
We also know that the WHO works very closely with pharmaceutical companies.
And then you get the impression - how can I put this - that it's much more about power, money and
profit than about the health of individual people.
And perhaps some of you have already heard of "Disease X".
This is a term now used by the WHO and also by the pharmaceutical companies.
And what does that mean? Disease X" - the X is a placeholder - stands for the next pandemic or the next pathogen.
And research is already underway.
Now don't ask me how to do research if you don't know what the disease is. The WHO can obviously do that.
And, interestingly, research is already underway into an antidote.
So you look at how you can develop an antidote that you can then give to people as a "vaccination", as a "mod-mRNA vaccination".
And if we look at the experiences we have had with mod mRNA injections in connection with Covid-19 - we know that it was
an emergency approval, that the correct test was not carried out in full because it was approved on an emergency basis.
Knowing that the effectiveness of this injection is assessed post-marketing - that
is, after it has been administered to people.
When we know that these mod mRNAs are now also being considered for cancer therapies, we have a bad feeling that
it is more about money, about the sale of medical products and not about the health of the individual.
Yes, that makes a strong impression, you're right.
Yes, Ms. Staubli, that doesn't sound so good.
What options do ordinary citizens have to oppose mandatory vaccination in Switzerland?
And what advice would you give someone if it actually came to that?
The first thing I would say is: "Stop the beginnings."
There must be no mandatory vaccination requirements in the cantonal health laws.
In other words, where you can still exert influence, for example in the canton of Schaffhausen.
Write your consultation responses by March 31 and say: "We don't want mandatory
vaccination and we certainly don't want penalties."
But this compulsory vaccination must also be dropped from the Epidemics Act in this partial revision.
And the "vaccination" - I like to use the word in quotation marks, because it is not a conventional vaccination that we are
talking about here. But any vaccination must remain voluntary.
And people must not be at a disadvantage if they refuse to be vaccinated. This must be included in the laws.
And it is quite astonishing that the canton of St. Gallen had such a provision in its law, which is
still in force, and it wants to delete this provision.
And we say: "No, that's exactly the right way. So back again."
Then it is absolutely clear: the penalty provisions must be deleted everywhere.
And the second part of your question: "What should you do if you were affected by such a mandatory vaccination program?"
Then I simply think it is very important that we remember that we have guaranteed physical integrity in the Federal Constitution.
We should decide for ourselves what we want to do with our bodies and what we don't want to do.
Every vaccination is a bodily injury. That's a criminal offense, isn't it!
This means that if someone were to find themselves in such a situation, it is very important that they do not bow to this
indirect pressure to vaccinate, that they remain steadfast.
And then, what you can perhaps simply do at the other political level, speak to your politicians, the cantonal
councillors, the grand councillors in the cantons, the National Council and the Council of States in Bern, at federal level.
Write letters to these people and say: "We don't agree."
So this is an appeal to everyone who hears this now to do the same.
And then, as I mentioned, please, please sign our petition "No partial revision of the Epidemics Act without reappraisal"!
You can sign this petition online on our website.
And it is very important that every man and every woman can sign this petition. Regardless of where they live.
This means that you don't have to live in Switzerland, you can also live abroad.
You don't have to be Swiss, you can also be a foreigner.
They can also be Swiss nationals living abroad and it does not depend on their age.
This means that really every man and woman can sign this petition.
And the more signatures we have - and this is also the appeal now to the people watching this video - the more signatures we have
and can then submit to Bern, the greater the weight, of course, and the more the politicians have
to realize that we can't simply look the other way.
And then of course - where possible - write consultation responses.
And then, above all, go and vote!
Many people say: "Yes, it's no use anyway. They'll do what they want in Bern anyway."
No, please go to the ballot box, vote, vote.
And if there were to be a referendum on the Epidemics Act, please sign the referendum and then, of course, go and vote again.
And finally, simply that all politicians realize this: National Council and Council of
States elections will be held again in fall 2027.
See who you vote for in the fall of 2027.
I can really only support this petition "No partial revision without reappraisal".
The Federal Council says that corona has been well managed, but we all know that this is not the case.
So please sign this petition. I have done it myself.
It's very quick, 30 seconds and you're in.
And thanks again to you, Ms. Staubli. You're a hero for putting yourself in this fight.
We are very glad that there are people like you.
And we wish you and ABF all the best and every success, and we will support you wherever we can.
Thank you very much for the interview. Thank you.