Questions and answers on the “Stop compulsory vaccination” initiative
Published: Tuesday, May 7th 2024, 09:43
Back to Live Feed
On June 9, the people and cantons will vote on the popular initiative "For freedom and physical integrity (Stop Compulsory Vaccination Initiative)" submitted by vaccination skeptics. Below are the most important questions and answers on the proposal:
WHAT IS THE STARTING POINT?
The Epidemics Act provides for compulsory vaccination as an option, but only for certain groups and on condition that the population cannot be protected with milder and other measures. However, even in the case of mandatory vaccination, the person concerned must consent to the vaccination. Restrictions on the participation of unvaccinated people in public life are possible. However, they may only be imposed in exceptional cases in order to avoid stricter measures such as closures and bans on events. Access to state services and basic services must remain possible in principle. If a fundamental right such as the right to physical integrity is restricted, this must be proportionate, there must be a legal basis and there must be a public interest in the restriction. Vaccinations are recommended in Switzerland, based on the regularly updated vaccination schedule drawn up by independent experts.
WHAT IS COMPULSORY VACCINATION?
According to the Federal Council's dispatch on the initiative, vaccination would be compulsory if it were enforced by direct coercion. The legislation prohibits the use of physical coercion to administer even mandatory vaccinations.
WAS WILL DIE INITIATIVE?
The "Stop compulsory vaccination" initiative calls for the fundamental right enshrined in the constitution to be able to decide for oneself. Anyone who does not want to be vaccinated should not have to accept any professional or social disadvantages or even risk punishment for this reason. According to the committee, the demand does not only apply to vaccines, but also to chips and digital information in the body.
WHEN WAS THE INITIATIVE SUBMITTED?
The popular initiative was launched and submitted during the Covid-19 pandemic. At the time, mandatory vaccination was being considered and at times a certificate requirement was in place, which was sometimes met with criticism. For weeks, only people who could prove that they had been vaccinated against Covid-19, had recovered from the disease or had tested negative with a certificate were allowed to enter public places and events.
WHO IS BEHIND THE INITIATIVE?
The initiative was launched by the Freedom Movement Switzerland (FBS) based in Ostermundigen BE. In addition to FBS President Richard Koller, the committee includes former Lucerne SVP National Councillor Yvette Estermann, comedian Marco Rima and vaccination critic Daniel Trappitsch. In the past, he fought against the Animal Diseases Act and the Epidemics Act. The Mass-Voll movement, which is critical of the measures, is also campaigning for a Yes vote. Of the major parties, only the Swiss People's Party (SVP) has issued a Yes recommendation.
WHAT DO THE SUPPORTERS SAY?
People are only free if they can determine what goes into their bodies on their own responsibility and with conviction, write the advocates. The current developments regarding vaccine damage show that politicians cannot be trusted. Neither politicians, the pharmaceutical industry nor international organizations should decide whether an implantable microchip, nanoparticles, genetic manipulation, a vaccination or something else enters the body. An initiative is the only way to stop "pharma-oriented politics". Everyone should be able to decide what goes into the body or is injected without fear of the consequences of a "no" vote.
It is not the Federal Constitution that must be based on the laws, but the laws must be based on the Federal Constitution. In the event of a "yes" vote, Parliament could legislate on what physical integrity means and thus create legal certainty.
WHAT DO THE OPPONENTS SAY?
The Federal Council, Parliament and the major parties, with the exception of the SVP, recommend voting against the initiative. The fundamental right to physical and mental integrity is already enshrined in the constitution. Because the text of the initiative does not refer to "vaccinations", but to "interventions in physical and mental integrity", the opponents point out that it basically covers any action by the federal government, cantons and communes that affects the body. A yes vote would mean, for example, that the police would no longer be able to arrest suspects without their consent. There would also be major uncertainties in the protection of adults, it was argued in the National Council debate.
The National Council voted against the initiative by 145 votes to 49, with one abstention from the SVP parliamentary group, while the Council of States voted against it by 37 votes and seven abstentions. Most of these abstentions came from the SVP parliamentary group.
WHAT ARE THE LESSONS OF THE PANDEMIC?
The Federal Council wants to draw lessons from the pandemic when revising the Epidemics Act. It does not want to extend the possibility of mandatory vaccination, but wants to improve easy access to vaccination and the monitoring of vaccination coverage. The legal basis for the controversial certificates used during the pandemic to provide forgery-proof proof of vaccinations is also to be included in the Epidemics Act. In the consultation, the SVP rejected "the lack of protective measures against discrimination against unvaccinated persons or persons without a vaccination certificate".
HOW DOES THE INITIATIVE PERFORM IN SURVEYS?
In the poll published by "20 Minuten" and Tamedia on April 24, 51 percent of respondents rejected the initiative. 29 percent wanted to accept it. 20 percent did not state their voting intentions. In the first SRG trend survey, 70 percent of respondents voted against and 27 percent voted in favor. The highest support for the proposal came from SVP supporters.
©Keystone/SDA
English 
German 
French 
Spanish 
Arabic