Europe against EuthaNAZIa
Again!
The primary (proto-) medical Modern-Murder will be destroyed again by the SPK.
KRANKHEIT IM RECHT announces:
Ingeborg Muhler, Lawyer and Barrister,
Mannheim
Cour Européenne
des Droits de l’Homme
67075 Strasbourg Cedex
France
Date: October 04, 2006
Your reference: ECHR-LGer1.1R/PGer4; KU/yre
Claim No. 32667/06, Muhler (III) ./. Germany
Your letter from August 21, 2006.
Our letter from August 28, 2006.
In the following we have to expose that the hourly on-going murder that is committed on a mass-scale must be stopped at once.
That matter of course is concerning us directly, because we, more than any others, have succeeded already once in making disappear that murder practice from the face of the earth. That’s why we are expected to succeed in that again, and that expectance is as self-evident as it is well founded. No makeshift can spare to produce relief by drastic means. That murder-practice is the matter of course, the human rights not even that. The apparent difference between that murder-practice and justice is thus no difference at all.
The one who is accomplishing something by doing, especially if by this she or he is making disappear that murder-practice from the face of the earth, is not only useful, but also serving the public good to an extremely high degree. The matter, together with its expression, belongs exclusively to her or him, and to no one else. No "free knowledge", no "benefit to the public", can ever access it, not to mention that it has nothing to do there. Propaganda is a concomitant phenomenon of that murder-practice: it is self evident that it has to pack off. There are thus altogether three matters of course that must be exposed here. The reason for that is the unfounded view that the Law, especially the European Law, would have nothing to do with it. The relative first notification issued by those organs must therefore be refuted in detail.
Our Human Right claim dated July 25, 2006 includes the
Request to enact Europe-wide laws against Euthanasia.
Aim: Abolition of all national laws within Europe that include killing people (so-called Euthanasia), and prohibition of all the relative propaganda materials.
Reason: They are incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
The view that the European Court for Human Rights addressed by us is "not authorized to take the proposed measure" is irrelevant.
In our human rights claim we had made the following application:
Therefore, the European Court of Human Rights is called to take immediately all the necessary steps,
because these laws are incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as with the corresponding United Nations’ Convention on Human Rights.
How to get that underway by the European Human Rights Court, that undertaking we had left to the Court’s own initiative.
The first step would certainly consist in declaring that the relative legislation and propaganda is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, combined at least with the request, addressed at the relative European and national institutions, to take the necessary steps immediately. Or are the human rights only a subterfuge? Are they just a bludgeon against economically competing states and nowadays nothing but a "justification" to conduct wars worldwide, allegedly for propagating "the rule of law and human rights"?
The judges of the European Court for Human Rights, too, are being paid on the basis of streams of blood and 60 millions deaths of World War Two, which was the reason for the ratification of the Human Rights Conventions by the UNO and Europe. These judges are not only obliged to those dead but also to those being alive nowadays, in order to safeguard them from being inflicted the same treatment.
"The Declaration of the right of any human being to live as his or her fundamental right, stated in Article 2, Paragraph 1, of the Convention on Human Rights, has its special significance. Such a declaration can be found also in the UN-Declaration of 20.12.1948, which precedes the Convention on Human Rights, and in the Basic Law of the German Federal Republic ( = German Constituion; Article 2, Paragraph 2 Basic Law), while it was not included in the Constitutional Law of the Weimar Republic of Germany. During the creation of that constitution it was believed that one could renounce an explicit declaratory commitment to that fundamental right, since it was considered being a natural and self-evident human right. The mistaking [Verkennung] and disrespect of that human right, which, in totalitarian states, and namely in the National-Socialist State, had resulted in acts of barbarity, unimaginable cruelties and the sabotage of the moral law, stood before the eyes of the legislators, reminding and admonishing them. This was why it was believed that one had to prevent such elementary transgressions of the law from happening again by an international declaration of the right of any human being to life. So, Article 2, Paragraph 1, of the Convention of Human Rights, as well as Article 2, Paragraph 2, of the German Basic Law, "are to be understood as a reaction to the empirical teachings of certain historical violation-events …"
(Schorn, Comment on the European Convention on Human Rights, Frankfurt, 1965).
The right to life as the basis of all further human rights has a fundamental importance. If the right to life is not being guaranteed, the basis for all the rest does no longer exist. That includes that the legitimacy of the Council of Europe has also been dropped, as well as that of the European Court of Human Rights, and that of the European Union and its organs as well.
It is considered being the main credit of the Council of Europe, the oldest intergovernmental organisation of Europe, that, during its meanwhile almost 50 years existence, it has obliged its members to maintain the rule of law and to safeguard the human rights.
Members of the Council of Europe, apart from several states of the Association of Independent States (Ukraine, Russian Federation, etc.), Turkey and a few states of East-Europe, are particularly the states of the European Community or European Union. A citizen of the European Union is "not a citizen of the United States of Europe, but she or he is considered being a carrier of human rights in an association of European states". Just this definition alone proves the crucial importance of the human rights.
One criterion for the membership of a European country in the Council of Europe, apart from the acceptance of the rule of law, consists in that "each citizen subject to its sovereignty ought to partake of the human rights and the fundamental laws".
To that effect the juridical organ of the Council of Europe, the European Court of Human Rights, has to work towards the end that all the states of the Council of Europe, especially the member states of the European Union, are guaranteeing the safeguarding of the human rights. Otherwise the European Court of Human Rights has to pursue the objective that those states which do not comply with that task are being excluded from the Council of Europe and thus excluded from the European Union.
It is true that the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), signed by all member states of the European Union, has a binding effect only on the single member states and not an immediately binding effect within the frame of the Community law of the European Union. However, the European Union has to its main goals that fundamental freedoms and fundamental laws within the area of the European Union are being safeguarded.
It is true that the fundamental freedoms are referred solely to the free movement of goods (free trade) and the rights of the commodity owners connected to that freedoms, notwithstanding whether they are only the owners of their capability to work commodity (Ware Arbeitskraft) or owners of business enterprises: freedom to provide services, freedom of Capital movements and monetary transactions. Already the so-called "freedom of movement", guaranteed by the Treaty Establishing the European Community (Articles 39-48 EC Treaty), falls in the category of the so-called sub-liberties and protects in the Articles 39-42 the freedom of movement for workers and in Articles 43-48 the freedom of establishment for self-employed persons.
The Fundamental or Basic Laws, however, refer to all the people living in the area of the agreements, be that in the area of the European Union or in the area of the Council of Europe. The Basic Laws are synonym with the Human Rights, not only in the form laid down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 10, 1948, but also in the form embodied in the European Convention on Human Rights of November 4, 1950 in Rome, as well as in the European Charta of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, solemnly proclaimed in Nice on December 8, 2000.
In the European Charta of Fundamental Rights, which is binding the organs and the institutions of the European Union itself, it was stated that the safeguarding of the fundamental rights is the indispensable condition of the legitimacy of the Community itself. All the EU member states have further joined the European Convention on Human Rights, though not the EU itself. However, Article 6 of the EU-Treaty (Maastricht 1992) states: "The Union is founded on the … respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms". And Article 6 (2) of the EU-treaty (Maastricht 1992) states: "The Union shall respect fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights signed in Rome on 4 November 1950". Article 52, paragraph 3, of the Charta of Fundamental Rights of the European Union states: "… the meaning and scope of those rights shall be the same as laid down by the said convention (ECHR)". The level of protection guaranteed by the Charta may exceed and transcend that of the ECHR, but it ought not to fall short of that level (Article 52, paragraph 3, sentence 2, and Article 53 of the Charta of Fundamental Rights).
All these declarations of human rights have acknowledged the right to life as the common basis of all human rights.
If the right to life is not safeguarded, no other human rights can be guaranteed. The dead do not possess any human rights. And also the fundamental freedoms are suspended, because commodities do not circulate on their own ("free movement of goods") but it’s the people that move them.
The European Court of Human Rights cannot talk its way out by sustaining that it is not the Council (of Ministers) of the European Union (the supreme legislative organ of the EU). It cannot talk its way out by sustaining that it is not the European Council of the European Union that, on its summit meetings, is exercising the policymaking power (guideline competency) of the European Union, thus like the latter though not being capable of making decisions that are binding by law yet possessing at least the power to give directions. Neither can the European Court of Human Rights hide itself behind the European Court, which by its leading decisions has also set the benchmarks for the human rights within the European Union.
The question, which line the European Court of Human Rights is going to take, whether it is acting directly upon the EU and its member states or whether it takes action by activating the Office of the Commissioner for Human Rights, created at the Council of Europe on 1.1.2000 and at present exercised by the Swede Thomas Hammarberg, that’s entirely its own concern.
The European Court of Human Rights is given the opportunity, by its verdict in the present case, to stop an essentially and primarily medical modern-euthaNAZISM that, in the present and in the future, is outshining even the mass extermination executed in the so-called Third Reich, a mass-extermination that already then not only had been prepared for, propagated and engineered by medical doctors for many decades but that finally was also put in practice. In that, Nazi-Germany had just offered the most advantageous conditions to the medical doctors.
It is a historical fact, made public for the first time in 1970/71 by the SOCIALIST PATIENTS’ COLLECTIVE and meanwhile having become an integral part of general knowledge, that the mass murder of people, declared by medical doctors as patients, during the so-called Third Reich – at least 275,000 people killed
– was carried out by medical doctors in the name of "health". The so-called eugenics movement of the medical doctors throughout the whole world had prepared the mass murder of people. That mass murder was not the doing of the Nazis but rather the medical doctors’ doing, who had found in Nazi-Germany the suitable conditions to put into practice the extermination of people they had been planning and preparing for ideologically already since the 19th century, and it was carried out in the name of "health". It was by the use of the propagandistic term "health" that they had been preparing the grounds for the programmed killing of people. And the Jews, too, were being fought and killed as patients, for instance, as "a cancerous ulcer in the people’s body". On the other hand, Jews were exempted from prosecution when they were found to have got "good, healthy blood". Thus Jewish women (!) for instance were made pregnant by SS-men in the so-called Lebensborn ("Fountain of life") institutions, in order to create "healthy" offspring. Thus, solely what the doctors had defined as "health" constituted the criteria of selection for those being allowed to live or forced to die.Hitler was but the executor and the highest henchman of this ideology, which, as a therapeutic one in its ravaging against all "unworthy life", had been common to the world and not only to the Germans, and that a long time before the Nazi era. Even so-called leftist Parties in the Prussian Landtag and Reichstag had introduced relative bills in the Parliament long before 1933. And it was not only in Germany, but also in Scandinavia, France, Switzerland, and who knows where else, that patient people were murdered in institutions, and that continued for a long time after the end by force of the so-called Third Reich. Thus the doctors’ international "health"–ideology had prepared the grounds for the murder of hundreds of thousands of patient people already long before. The medical profession as a whole had done in public calculations as to the cost the "national community" had to bear for maintaining the patient people in life, and painted with glaring brightness the threat patient people would represent for the "people’s health" according to the motto: "first of all they are expensive, and in the second place they are monsters" [Denn erstens sind sie teuer, und zweitens Ungeheuer]. The propagandistic call for slaughter "Health" ["Sieg HEIL!"] was followed by the killing as the therapy.
Also the sterilization laws against the so-called "hereditarily sick offspring" were not an invention of the Nazis. Already in 1907, sterilization legislation for so-called eugenic reasons had been passed in Indiana / USA. At least other 30 US-States had joined in. Compulsory sterilization was continued in the USA, as well as in the Scandinavian countries – e.g. Sweden –, till the end of the 1970s.
The University of Heidelberg had awarded in 1936 the title of an honorary doctor to the US-American Harry Hamilton Laughlin, and that precisely for his "science of racial cleansing".
An honorary doctorate was awarded by the University of Heidelberg to the same Laughlin whose sterilization law had served as a model for legislation in the USA by more than 20 states already in the 20ies and also for the German sterilization legislation in the 30ies. More than 60,000 people were subject to compulsory sterilization in the USA on the basis of Laughlin’s sterilization laws, many hundred thousand people were subject to compulsory sterilization in Germany. The epileptic Harry H. Laughlin, father of three children, should have become a candidate for compulsory sterilization he himself if he had to follow the criteria of his own sterilization law. He acted according to the primary medical principle: while being sick oneself and being dispensable as a supernumerary oneself, one shifts one’s own supernumerarity (Ueberzaehligkeit) on to others in order to escape one’s own annihilation.
Harry H. Laughlin was, among other things, member of the Galton Society, member of the Eugenics Research Association, chief of the Eugenic Record Office in Washington D.C., member of the American Society of International Law, President of the American Eugenics Society, co-editor of the Eugenical News from 1916 to 1939, Secretary of the Third International Congress of Eugenics in 1932, and he had served as an expert in genetics for the US-Immigration Commission as well as a member of the permanent Immigration Commission of the International Labour Office of the United Nations. For "eugenic reasons" he wanted to prevent immigrants out of the South and South-Eastern European countries considered being marked by "hereditary diseases", because of their being poor and communists, from coming to the USA, while favouring the immigration of "healthy" Northern-European people (so-called Arian-Germans) instead.
The same University of Heidelberg that had awarded Harry H. Laughlin an honorary doctorate and that has not withdrawn it up to the very hour, had provided renowned medical professors who had plaid a leading role in the preparation and execution of the so-called Aktion T 4 – euthanasia of at least 275,000 people till the end of World War Two, alone in Germany.
It was the same University of Heidelberg that, on behalf of the medical doctors, had fought the SOCIALIST PATIENTS’ COLLECTIVE (SPK 1970/71) as "rank growth that cannot be tolerated any longer and must be done away with as quickly as possible". And the same University of Heidelberg, 34 years after the award of an honorary doctorate to someone like Laughlin, had dismissed someone like Dr. med. Wolfgang Huber, the founder of the SOCIALIST PATIENTS’ COLLECTIVE, one Dr. med. Wolfgang Huber, that means, as true as it is real, the Doctorate of a thaumaturgist and creator of miracles in philosophy and psychiatry who had emerged exactly from that same University of Heidelberg. Why? Solely for the reason that he, without exception, had taken sides in the favour of illness and the patients, but against the criminal medical doctors’ class and their murder crimes.
As to ourselves, in our closely connected society – Patients’ Front / Socialist Patients’ Collective, SPK/PF(H): pro illness! – we have already accomplished the abolition of euthanasia since decades, and we have accomplished that precisely by the exclusion of the medical doctors’ class, of the medical doctors in their totality. We have learned together to get along quite well with our illness on our own and to keep the medical doctors away from our bodies. Every dentist, every gynaecologist, every family doctor, and every preventive doctor has to keep out of our society (off limits!). And meanwhile also our guiding principle (motto) has been taken up all over the world: "Everyone is tied to particular illness (Einzelkrankheit) which objectively aims at the creation of human species (Gattung). But the Iatrocrats (medical doctors’ class, medical governors) reinforce the particular illness to make money out of it.
In addition to that, since then the SPK had to enforce its function as a bulwark against euthaNAZIstic assaults during all these decades also for others. Proscription-propagandists, amongst them the main responsible Andreas Praefcke of the "Wikipedia" syndicate, are still in the need to falsify tentatively the SPK by forging it (falschmuenzen) into a black list. The SPK writes about itself. It goes without saying that any propaganda done by others about the SPK should automatically be banned, now also by the European institutions. With regard to the death list function of any other propaganda, which, because of its hostility to illness, can essentially be only propaganda of euthanasia, we expect the European institutions to take the self-evident and automatic countermeasures in each single case. For legal certainty, as we have already exposed, it has been taken care of since the times of 1948. There is need for action also in order to anticipate any future developments; and after the total failure of the new Laughlin wave that calls itself "liberty of science and education" (Wikipedia), such is required now more than ever and once for all.
The propagandistic call for slaughter "Health" ["Sieg HEIL!"] was followed by the killing as the therapy, and that by far not only in the so-called Third Reich. The parallels to nowadays cannot be ignored. Not even in the party manifesto of today’s Greens, by the way. Nowadays too, an extremely aggressive long-running HEAL-political propaganda under the sign of "health" is being pressed ahead from part of the doctors. "Health" doesn’t exist, has never existed. All the more so today: from the genetic point of view, nobody is "healthy", everybody is genetically defective, everybody is ill. And once again calculations are being spread in which patients are presented mainly as a "cost factor" that ought to be "reduced", because otherwise the national economy would collapse under the expense of illness. Through the cost-benefit accounting the lives of the single persons are being registered, summed up, are made an economic balance of it, are evaluated and devaluated. Numbers are being turned into supernumeraries, i.e. "unworthy life", nowadays as well as in the past. To give priority to aspects of profitability in the case of illness, that means in the end to practice coercive euthanasia (euthaNAZIa). Others are in for it today; you will be in for it tomorrow. So, no one takes notice. It’s because of their money that they decide who’s allowed to live and who’s going to die. Who ignores in this the ruling class of the jackers, there included your family doctor, has not reckoned with the most important thing. It’s the doctor who decides, who selects, as the Master of death and life, at the death-life selection platform in Auschwitz and everywhere where the only thing they care about are "healthy" numbers and ill ‘supernumeraries’.
Both female and male judges of the European Court for Human Rights are not immune to that, independently whether they are young or old, sick or allegedly "healthy". In spring, the medical doctors are happy about the imminent fair weather period: "That’s the time of the motorbike-cyclists, that’s when we’ve got to have soon new donator organs once again, delivered by those who have died after an accident, no matter how-". In The Netherlands, underage children are permitted, without the consent of their parents, to give on their own will their approval to the medical doctor for their being put to death by the doctor – they call that "assisted death". In Germany, there are nurses for the elderly on the loose, who, in the wake of the medical propaganda, declare in public: "There are already far too enough elderly people, they have got to get off!" The newspapers are full with reports on "nurses of death", "angels of death", and "doctors of death", who have treacherously killed patients. Female nurses of hospitals are warning especially the elder patients: "Don’t enter the hospital. It may be the end of your life!"
Entirely different, however, sounds what Mr. Ex-Lord Mayor of Bremen with his 67 years of age has to say at that regard: "Soon the over-sixties will represent the majority of those entitled to vote. Nothing goes without us. The one who is bullying us will be torpedoed (Listen, listen! Torpedoed and sunk by the aged, by the aged becoming the majority, no matter how)". And he adds: "Who are, then, the ones paying the expensive tickets to cultural events? Who are, then, the ones listening to the speeches of the politicians? It’s the aged people!"
In Europe, emergency doctors let patients die because they receive bonuses from undertakers, when the latter have got an order by the bereaved. In the print-media, the medical doctors are being excused: the medical doctors’ wages would be too low, they would not be able to make a living out of their job, and they would be "forced to earn a bit on the side". Forsooth, a cannibalistic "bit on the side", because, according to the general principle of the commodities exchanging society and thus society of deception and fraud, that "bit" is being made of corpses. If someone who’s not a medical doctor is killing another person in order "to earn a bit on the side", there’s no-one who would demand to increase his income so that he would stop to kill other people. But he is being locked up for the rest of his life because he has committed a murder for base motives. But the medical doctors are continuing to murder without being punished, and they even succeed in getting apprehension for their doings: they are said to have been "forced to earn a bit on the side". That happens not only outside the European Union, as in the case recently reported by the newspapers, which happened in Serbia. In Poland, too, people are being euthanized. There, it’s the so-called "skin chasers" who are on the move: emergency doctors who, with their syringes, take care for the fact that the emergency patients die. They have made an agreement with undertakers according to which they receive a bonus for each "skin", thus for each patient they have killed. The bereaved had to discover that the patient had not died in spite of, but because of the medical intervention.
When the concern is about euthaNAZIa, the killing of people under the pretext of "health", the head lines in newspapers may even be printed with luring titles as "Murder camouflaged as T 4" (Rhein-Neckar-Zeitung from 29.09.2006). But only if and only after the named T 4 - Programme has already terminated some 60 years ago. Before that, they used to call it: "Mercy killing". The T 4 – Programme was terminated, but not the murder practice. A former female judge of a Higher Regional Court from the German National Ethics Council speaks of "assistance to death". The 66th German Jurists’ Day (or was it the biblical 666th?, many a big shot – literally: apocalyptic beast – were also present), that Jurists’ Day, which was held last month, had argued in favour of the abolition of the medical doctor’s so-called guarantee-position (or responsibility) and for the introduction of legal euthaNAZIa, whereupon the latter had been obfuscated sarcastically as "strengthening the patient’s volition". What is really meant by that is that they want a medical doctor being allowed to assist a patient in "his" "sui"cide. By that, so it is alleged, the euthaNAZISTIC killing practiced by medical doctors would be restricted by law, but mainly it would remedy the "uncertainty of judges and medical doctors" who - acting the fool – don’t want to know, if and when a murder is a murder.
The Dutch euthaNAZIa legislation, too, was intended - according to the Dutch legislator’s own proclamation - to limit the illegally practiced euthaNAZIa to narrowly restricted cases. After the guarantees of exemption from punishment in cases of killing by medical doctors, given by the Ministry of Justice, had no longer been sufficient to keep that killing within certain limits, a first euthaNAZIa Law became effective in The Netherlands on 1.1.1994. Since the medical doctors did not keep their murdering practiced on a mass scale within the limits imposed by the law, the least one could have expected was that they were brought before the courts and condemned for their criminal doings. But nothing of the sort! The penal laws were changed instead, in order to take off their strictness, and to take away the medical doctors’ fear of the law. The margins of the law for unpunished killing by medical doctors were extended with effect from April 1, 2001, thus more patients and categories of patients were permitted to become the medical doctors’ fair game worthy to be killed. As even that second amendment had not served the purpose to keep the patients killing by doctors in their greed for prey within the boundaries established by the law, it were not the medical murderers who finally would have been withdrawn from circulation; No! Once again it was the law to give way to the medical doctors. The excuse: "to dam up euthanasia by legalizing it and to prevent malpractice", invoked by the jurists and backbenchers of The Netherlands, has been unmasked and exposed. Even former members of the Enquête-Commission "Ethics and Law of Modern Medecine"of the German Parliament had stated that already a year ago.
The occasion for that statement on the part of the member of the Enquête was the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) in April 2005, on which the members were called to decide on medical euthaNAZIa. The medical profession had found a Member of the Parliament of Switzerland named Dick Marthy, who had submitted a "recommendation" in their favour to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which he initially had given the title: "Euthanasia". After protests on the part of his competitors because of that plain text, he changed the title of his recommendation into: "Assistance to patients at the end of their life". That foray made by the Swiss had been already the 4th start-up within only 1-½ years to bring about a decision of the Council of Europe in favour of euthaNAZIa. The objective of that foray consisted in the modification of the recommendation given by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in 1999 to the 46 member states, a recommendation whose title was "Protection of the Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being". In that the European Council had stick to the principle that the states had to guarantee the right to "live in human dignity in all stages of life till its end". In that recommendation it was stated that "a person’s wish to die never constitutes any legal claim to die at the hand of another person, let alone to constitute a legal justification to be killed on somebody’s demand".
The resolutions of the Parliamentary Assembly, though not binding legally the single nations, give very often an initial ignition and have a political impact, as the print media and specialised scientific journals have pointed out again and again. The same priming effect is required also by an unambiguous judicial decision of the European Court of Human Rights against the primary medical Modern-EuthaNAZIa.
The comment of a former member of the Enquête Commission of the German Parliament on the session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and with regard to The Netherlands: "Once the sluices are being opened and the killing ‘on wish of the concerned’ is being declared constituting a legal medical treatment, the mentality of the medical doctors is obviously changing (their mentality is no longer that to protect life). Then, medical doctors are killing also with disregard of the patient’s ‘wish’, if any further treatment is being considered pointless by them, if the relatives are considered being overburdened, or if the quality of life is being estimated by the medical doctors as being too low".
Wrong in that comment is that the member of the commission believes that to bring about that "change" in the mentality of the medical doctors a law would be needed. At all times that killing mentality (their ideology, Gesinnung) is abounding with the medical doctors in their hatred of illness. Murder is and remains murder, especially and more than ever if it is committed by medical doctors.
Compared with this it cannot be objected that patients in coma, patients connected to apparatuses or machines, would be kept in life solely by artificial means. That it would be better "to let them die". Only a short time ago, a patient in the USA has awakened from coma lasting 19 years. He says: "Life is beautiful!" No one is permitted to arrogate herself or himself to allege that the life of an other person would no longer contain "life quality", that it would no longer be worthy to be lived. That totalitarian dogmatism with regard to "unworthy life" has been proscribed by all the human rights declarations.
The primary medical Modern-EuthaNAZISM has to be condemned no matter behind which flowery phrases it is hidden: "Death assistance", "Let die", "Strengthening of the patient’s volition", and whatsoever. Likewise has to be condemned any assistance and complicity to euthaNAZIa by propagandistic means for their being incompatible with the human rights.
The European Court of Human Rights is hereby given the opportunity to demonstrate whether the conglomerate of the Council of Europe and the European Union serves only to the purpose of providing protection for the flow of commodities and the accumulation of Capital unimpeded by national boundaries and protective duties, or if the institutions of the Council of Europe and of the European Union, which devour enormous amounts of money, have also to serve the purpose of providing all those at least with the elementary protection of life, all those who are living in the area of the Council of Europe and the European Union and without whose work and consumption of commodities the accumulation of Capital would simply be impossible and without whose taxes neither a Council of Europe nor a European Court of Human Rights or a European Union would exist.
The matter has nothing to do with intrastate laws or interstate treaties, as the first examiner thought he could notify us. Quite contrary to that it is the European Court of Human Rights itself that has to act on its own initiative. The European Court of Human Rights has to work towards the purpose that all the countries which are members of the Council of Europe, especially the countries of the European Union, ensure the compliance with the human rights laws.
Therewith, we have named five imperative measures to be taken by the European Court of Human Rights, so that it can take action and weight those that are promising success, and make use of them. Are there still others and better ones?
The casus belli is the hourly on-going blank murder, practiced on a mass scale. Any police station and any citizen in his legally defined function as para-police-in-case-of-emergency will receive your relevant information. The case of emergency is given here. Therefore, the European Court of Human Rights in its quality of one of the highest relevant instances, even if not the first and not the last one, is not at loss as to the means and institutions to impede the hourly on-going civil mass murder, also because every single citizen, the same as the officials employed at the European Court of the Human Rights are at least para-police they themselves. And what about the German saying: ‘Where there is no plaintiff, there will be no judge’ (‘if nobody complains, then never mind’)? At least one plaintiff has been found. In the present, and it is impossible to overlook it, it is the signatory. The European Court of Human Rights abandons with judges. There is no escape. EuthaNAZISM, precisely because of its being primary a medical one, always deserves the sweat of the noblest ones. Only the noblest of the noblest: namely the medical doctors’ class, is oozing with sweat and blood in its hourly ongoing civil murder-business among citizens and taxpayers. Even that limit, to say it with the European Charta of Fundamental Rights, can be at the most exceeded, but not on the contrary. Let’s put an end to it, on the spot and on each place!
Muhler
Lawyer and barrister
|
Translation: |
Kurd Ch. Schager, Dipl.-Angl., M.A.soc.ling. , PF/SPK MFE |
|
Final editing: |
Huber |
|
|
|
|
|
|