Infection Protection Act: What do the changes mean?

Christiane Fux studied journalism and psychology in Hamburg. The experienced medical editor has been writing magazine articles, news and factual texts on all conceivable health topics since 2001. In addition to her work for, Christiane Fux is also active in prose. Her first crime novel was published in 2012, and she also writes, designs and publishes her own crime plays.

More posts by Christiane Fux All content is checked by medical journalists.

The Bundestag and Bundesrat want to adopt far-reaching changes to the Infection Protection Act today. What is it all about?

Above all, it is about corona measures that are already in place, which are now to be legally secured. In this way, they will survive in court better in the future. The new draft formulates the measures more specifically and is intended to ensure that they can be imposed when critical infection thresholds are reached.

The opposition and other critics, however, find this questionable. The general formulation of the Infection Protection Act, which was still tolerable at the beginning of the pandemic, is no longer sufficient after more than six months.

In addition, opponents of the corona measures have announced protests - and they are flooding MPs with emails.

Pandemic protection versus fundamental rights?

Here, two opposing attitudes meet: One puts the increasingly urgent pandemic protection in the foreground. Measures based on applicable law were repeatedly overturned.

Now more precise and precise specifications are to be inserted in the new paragraph 28a. The then lists the already known possible measures that can be prescribed by state governments and competent authorities against the coronavirus. These are, for example, contact restrictions, distance requirements, a mask requirement in public spaces, but also restrictions or closings of shops and events - i.e. requirements that mean massive everyday restrictions.

It is also about the possibility of cushioning the consequences of the restrictions for those affected. And to distribute appropriate funds.

A say in parliaments is required

Critics fear an erosion of the constitutionally anchored democratic freedoms, so to speak through the back door. The opposition, business associations and lawyers criticize the project. They see excessive interference in basic rights and demand more parliaments to have a say in corona measures. "For us, the government's room for maneuver in encroaching on fundamental rights is still too great," said FDP parliamentary group leader Christian Lindner, among others.

Inappropriate comparisons

Criticism of a completely different dimension comes from the direction of the groups that are fundamentally opposed to the corona measures.

Their protests are borne by a sometimes highly problematic attitude that brings the measures close to the National Socialist Enabling Act of March 1933. At that time the German parliament abolished itself as a democratic institution.

The National Socialist government was given the right to enact laws without the consent of the Reichstag and Reichsrat and without countersigning by the Reich President through the “Law to Eliminate the Needs of the People and the Reich”. The separation of powers, the basis of every constitutional state, was completely abolished.

There can be no question of such a permanent suspension of fundamental democratic principles today - even if the government was given more extensive powers to issue ordinances during the Corona crisis. They are limited to specific exceptional situations based on the occurrence of the infection and are automatically lifted as soon as they no longer exist.

Tags:  drugs eyes healthy feet