Featured Image
European Court of Human RightsShutterstock

April 28, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — A recent report by the European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ) shows that numerous judges at the Council of Europe’s Court of Human Rights (ECHR) have close connections with left-wing billionaire George Soros’ Open Society Foundation. Now, in a remarkable victory against the packing of the Court with Soros affiliates, the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe rejected the candidacy of yet another Open Society employee. Instead, Frédéric Krenc was chosen, a Belgian lawyer, “less political and more competent,” according to the ECLJ.

“On 20 April 2021, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe elected the new Belgium judge to the ECHR. Among the three candidates proposed by the Belgian government was a lawyer employed by George Soros’ Open Society, as is often the case. But for the first time in a long time, the Open Society failed to get its candidate elected, despite its considerable financial and political power. In the end, a Belgian lawyer, less political and more competent, was elected: Mr. Frédéric Krenc, with 148 votes against 81 for the Open Society employee and 29 for Sylvie Saroléa. This is a victory for the independence of the Court, and a fruit of the ECLJ Report on NGOs and the judges of the ECHR,” according to the ECLJ’s website.

The victory is in fact double: Grégor Puppinck, director of the ECLJ, pointed out in his communiqué on the Soros connection that the ambassadors of the 47 member states of the Council of Europe “have just adopted an official text admitting the veracity of the ECLJ’s report on NGOs and judges of the ECHR,” announcing their decision to re-evaluate the effectiveness of the current system of selection and election of the Court’s judges by the end of 2024.

For a major international institution such as the Council of Europe — not to be confused with the (smaller) European Union — to have acknowledged that there is a problem with the ideological proximity with the Open Society Foundation of judges it has itself chosen to designate, indicates that the evidence produced by the ECLJ was of necessity overwhelming.

LifeSite’s Paul Smeaton reported on the ECLJ’s remarkable piece of lobbying on March 11, first recalling the problems posed by the Open Society Foundation that imposes its liberal agenda through massive funding and agit-prop all over the world.

He wrote: “The OSF is just one of the means utilized by billionaire Soros to push left-wing causes throughout Europe, throughout the United States, and around the world, including abortion, euthanasia, population control, same-sex ‘marriage,’ transgenderism, and more. The OSF spends $940 million annually in 100 different countries, including $150 million per year funding the left-wing American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the leading abortion company Planned Parenthood, and other liberal groups.”

“The organization claims to support humanitarian and democratic initiatives around the world but also is documented fomenting social discord — for example, by puppeteering globalist politicians, provoking riots, and pouring money into abortion groups,” he added.

These groups include “Black Lives Matter,” whose propaganda has reached far beyond the U.S.

Puppinck explained that the ECLJ report has found that “at least 22 of the 100 judges who have served since 2009 are former staff or leaders” of the Open Society Foundation (OSF) or a number of NGO’s directly founded by the OSF — seven in total: the Helsinki Committees, the International Commission of Jurists, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Interights and the A.I.R.E. Centre. “Among these, the Open Society Foundation stands out for the number of judges linked to it (12) and for the fact that it actually funds the other six organizations identified in this report,” he added.

Even more shockingly, these judges have sat on at least 88 cases where their former NGO was involved, making them both judge and party.

As Puppinck has now pointed out on the ECLJ’s website, the campaign to expose OSF links to over 20 percent of recent judges of the ECHR was a lengthy and difficult affair because of the complexity of getting the involved institutions to take notice of the report and above all to respond to it.

Puppinck writes: “The revelations in this report are extremely serious; they circulated around the world but have also been met with silence from the ECHR and with the refusal of the European Commission and some governments to respond to them in substance, to the point of denying the evidence. The most important support for the report came from Mr Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister.”

But unexpectedly, the 47 Ambassadors representing the member states of the Council of Europe and as such, its main body, having been seized with three “embarrassing written questions from members of parliament on ‘the systemic problem of conflicts of interest between NGOs and judges of the Court’ and on ‘Restoring the integrity of the European Court of Human Rights’,” decided not to ignore it. This would have been easy if they had invoked an inability to find a common answer: instead, they submitted a written reply.

In their written questions, the parliamentarians pointed to the low number of European judges who had previously served as magistrates, and accused the ECHR of giving too much importance to legal professionals from lobbies; they also denounced the absence of an effective procedure for deferral and recusal in case of a possible conflict of interest. Barna Pál Zsigmond asked “what measures will the Committee of Ministers adopt, in the context of the reform of the Court, to remedy the weaknesses of the system and restore the Court’s credibility?”

Puppinck commented: “At first glance, this response seems smooth and conventional, but when one reads between the lines, as befits a diplomatic document, the undertones become clear. Here, they are obvious: at no time do the ambassadors contradict or even try to minimize the reality of the facts revealed in the ECLJ report and recalled by the MEPs. This is itself an essential confession, which the European Commission had not conceded. The Council of Europe admits the facts revealed by the ECLJ.”

— Article continues below Petition —
PETITION: Tell Vatican to CANCEL 'Health' conference packed with pro-abort, secularist speakers
  Show Petition Text
38119 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 40000!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.

The Vatican has announced its fifth International "Health" Conference on "Exploring the Mind, Body & Soul," to take place between May 6-8, and nearly everything about the conference is rotten -- morally, scientifically and culturally.

Incredibly, the conference organizers have listed huge numbers of globalist and abortion-promoting speakers such as Dr. Anthony Fauci, vaccine developers, Mormon elders, pro-abortion Chelsea Clinton, population control advocate Jane Goodall, a New Age activist, a prominent UK Muslim scholar, and pro-abortion American actress Cindy Crawford, among others.

The logo for the conference is a circle of people linking hands, colored in the tones of the LGBT rainbow flag, and positioned next to the crossed keys and Papal tiara of the Pontiff. In the ten goals listed for the conference, the Pontifical Council for Culture makes no reference to God or the Catholic Church.

The organization and promotion of this conference is beyond an outrage, it is a closer to a sacrilege (also outrageous!).

Indeed, of the conference, Archbishop Viganò has said that the Holy See is "making itself the servant of the New World Order." [More below about Arbp Viganò's reaction to the conference...]

Please SIGN and SHARE this petition urging the Vatican to CANCEL this desperately wrong-headed appeasement to the secular world disguised as a "health conference."

114 speakers are set to appear at the event, including prominent and diverse names such as:

  • The CEOs of Pfizer and Moderna, the former of which produces abortion pills;
  • The Director of the National Institute of Health (NIH) Francis Collins, who advocates using fetal tissue in research projects;
  • Chelsea Clinton, a strong advocate for abotion;
  • The head of Google Health, David Feinberg;
  • And, Dr. Anthony Fauci from the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, whose advice to government officials played a major role in shutting down American churches last year.

These "VIP" speakers are also joined at the Vatican conference by the following: United Nations representative and conservationist Jane Goodall, who supports population control; new age activist Deepak Chopra; rock guitarist Joe Perry; Mormon Elder William K. Jackson; executive chair of the British Board of Scholars and Imams, Shaykh Dr. Asim Yusuf; pro-abortion model Cindy Crawford; and, by Salesforce CEO, Marc Benioff, who has firmly aligned himself with the globalist, liberal elite, by censoring conservative voices on his platform.

The sheer number of speakers holding anti-Catholic views has sparked a firestorm of well-deserved criticism.

And, in an letter published by LifeSiteNews, Archbishop Viganò roundly condemns this conference and, moreover, the infidelity to the Church's perennial teaching. Here is a brief excerpt (read the whole letter by clicking on this link):

"...The Holy See has deliberately renounced the supernatural mission of the Church, making itself the servant of the New World Order and Masonic globalism in an antichristic counter-magisterium.

The same Roman Dicasteries, occupied by people ideologically aligned with Jorge Mario Bergoglio [i.e. Pope Francis] and protected and promoted by him, now continue unrestrained in their implacable work of demolishing Faith, Morals, ecclesiastical discipline, and monastic and religious life, in an effort as vain as it is unprecedented to transform the Bride of Christ into a philanthropic association enslaved to the Strong Powers.

The result is the super-imposition over the true Church of a sect of heretical and depraved Modernists who are intent on legitimizing adultery, sodomy, abortion, euthanasia, idolatry, and any perversion of the intellect and will. The true Church is now eclipsed, denied and discredited by her very Pastors, betrayed even by the one who occupies the highest Throne."

The fact that there is so much anti-Catholicism (i.e., anti-truth) held by so many of the speakers makes it impossible to ask for the organizers to simply disinvite disreputable speakers.

That is why we are urging the Vatican to CANCEL this anti-life, anti-truth, anti-Catholic, anti-health "health conference" altogether!

Please SIGN and SHARE this urgent petition asking the Vatican to CANCEL its fifth International "Health" Conference on "Exploring the Mind, Body & Soul."

This conference contains such a high concentration of poison for the Faith and the faithful that is should be canceled, not only for the contents itself, but also for the grave scandal it will (and is, already) cause.

After SIGNING and SHARING, please take a minute to contact the following Church authorities to politely, but firmly, voice your dismay and displeasure at the anti-God, anti-life and anti-faith conference which the Vatican has scheduled for the beginning of May.

Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi - Head of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for Culture

Email: [email protected]

Phone: [+39] 06 6989 3811

His Excellency Archbishop Christophe Pierre - Papal Nuncio for the United States

Email: [email protected]

Phone: 202-333-7121


'Viganò on Vatican ‘health’ conference with Fauci: Holy See is ‘making itself the servant of the New World Order’' -

'Vatican hosting Fauci, Chelsea Clinton, Pfizer CEO, Big Tech oligarchs at ‘health’ conference' -


  Hide Petition Text

The ambassadors stated that it will be necessary to “continue to guarantee the highest standard of qualifications, independence and impartiality of the Court’s judges,” also describing “measures taken to that end.” They added that “by the end of 2024, in light of further experience, the effectiveness of the current system for the selection and election of the Court’s judges” will be reassessed.

This is encouraging, for it means that the problems underscored by the ECLJ report appear to be prompting action on the part of the Council of Europe.

In particular, the ECLJ suggested that ECHR magistrates should make a declaration of interests when assuming their new functions. Grégor Puppinck told the French daily le Figaro that this and other conclusions of the report “were implicitly accepted by the Committee of ministers,” since none were rejected in its written reply to the three parliamentarians.

But the campaign for independent judges is far from over. The ECLJ has stated that it “will closely follow this review of the judicial selection mechanism and ensure that its recommendations are taken into consideration.”

The ECLJ will also work to obtain a renewal of procedures allowing applicants to object to the presence of a politically biased judge in their cases. Two new written questions originating in the ECLJ report have already been submitted to the Ambassadors on April 8. “The first one questions the practical impossibility of requesting the recusal of a judge of the European Court, since the identity of the judges is only revealed once the judgment is published, in violation of the rules imposed by the ECHR on national courts. The other written question concerns the impossibility of applying for a revision of certain judgments of the Court.”


Commenting Guidelines
LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.