Featured Image
European Court of Human RightsShutterstock

STRASBOURG, France, April 8, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) –– The European Court of Human Rights ruled that compulsory vaccination can be “necessary in a democratic society.” The decision which could set a dangerous precedent in the global roll-out of COVID-19 injections.

The ruling was issued on April 8 in response to a case brought by Mr. Pavel Vavřička and five minors, dating back to 2013 and 2014, and thus not related specifically to COVID-19.

The families, all from the Czech Republic, went to court initially after their children were refused entry to nurseries and schools due to their non-vaccinated status.

Under Czech law, children are required to be vaccinated against ten diseases — including tetanus, whooping cough, measles, mumps, and rubella — unless medically exempt. While the injections are compulsory, they cannot be forced.

The claimants argued that the vaccine requirements and subsequent infringements on their life due to not having the vaccines were a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights — the “right to respect for private and family life.”

The 17 judges decided unanimously that all complaints under Article 8 were in fact “admissible,” yet in a further vote of 16-1, decreed that there had been “no violation of Article 8.”

Court notes provided by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) admitted that “compulsory vaccination” did represent “an interference with the right to respect for private life.” However, this was defended by an appeal to a public health interest.

The fully acknowledged interference in the families’ private lives was further defended by the ECHR by arguing it had “an adequate basis in domestic law.”

The ECHR said that Article 8 had to be tempered by Article 2 (right to life), which imposed “a positive obligation on the Contracting States to take appropriate measures to protect the life and health of those within their jurisdiction.”

Meanwhile, abortion is legal to one extent or another in all of Europe.

The Czech Republic’s laws regarding compulsory vaccination were thus defended as “the national authorities’ answer to the pressing social need to protect individual and public health against the diseases in question and to guard against any downward trend in the rate of vaccination among children.”

“The Court therefore accepted that the Czech legislature’s choice to apply a mandatory approach to vaccination is supported by relevant and sufficient reasons.”

Consequently, with the measures defended by the court as being “relevant and sufficient,” the sanctions which were imposed upon Vavřička were deemed “relatively moderate.”

The penalties which the five children suffered were deemed “protective rather than punitive in nature,” since it was a consequence of their parents’ decision “not to comply with a general legal duty” which was ostensibly in place for the protection of health.

“In the Court’s opinion, it cannot be regarded as disproportionate for a State to require those for whom vaccination represents a remote risk to health to accept this universally practised protective measure, as a matter of legal duty and in the name of social solidarity, for the sake of the small number of vulnerable children who are unable to benefit from vaccination.”

The ECHR sought to downplay any fears about the implications of such a ruling by observing that upon reaching the age of mandatory school attendance, the children were admitted to primary school, unaffected by their “vaccine status.”

The ECHR also noted that “French, German, Polish and Slovakian Governments were given leave to intervene in the written procedure, as were several non-governmental organisations.”

A dangerous precedent

The implications of the ruling could be far-reaching, particularly given the current global pressure to administer injections for COVID-19. Although it did not give permission for wide-spread mandatory or forced vaccination, the ruling could easily be used as a key argument in promoting such a move.

One sentence in the notes provided by the court specifically relates to the issue of voluntary vaccination, for even though it was aimed at children, it could easily be used as a basis for a future ruling towards individuals of any age.

“Thus, where the view was taken that a policy of voluntary vaccination was not sufficient to achieve and maintain herd immunity, the national authorities could reasonably introduce a compulsory vaccination policy in order to achieve an appropriate level of protection against serious diseases.”

— Article continues below Petition —
PETITION: Say 'No' to COVID 'Vaccine Passports'!
  Show Petition Text
217387 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 225000!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.

Powerful nations of the world, including China, the UK, and Canada are discussing plans to require so-called 'vaccine passports' as a condition for travel, and possibly to restrict entry to shopping and entertainment venues.

Israel has already put in place a system to discriminate against those who choose not to take the COVID vaccine, and, in the United States, Joe Biden has signed a new executive order which could pave the way for the implementation of a 'vaccine passport' system. [See more below.]

This kind of medical dictatorship must be resisted, and therefore, we must act quickly before these authoritarian notions take root and spread!

Please SIGN and SHARE this urgent petition to SAY NO to government 'vaccine passports.' Tell your legislators to respect your freedom not to vaccinate without fear of repercussion.

People should not have to live in fear of government retribution for refusing a vaccine which is being rushed to market by Big Pharma and their fellow-travelers in NGOs, like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

It would be intolerable and immoral for the government to coerce someone, and their family, to take a COVID vaccine against their will just so they can do their weekly grocery shopping, go to a high school soccer game, travel on public transport, or visit their relatives who live in a different part of the country, or overseas.

Medical freedom must be respected in principle and also in practice.

So, it is now time that our policy-makers listen to all voices involved in this vital conversation, and start to represent those who will not tolerate being punished, restricted, or tracked for refusing an experimental vaccine.

Simply put, legislatures must begin to act as legislatures again.

Questions must be asked. Hearings and investigations must be held. And, the legislatures of each state and country must return to the business of representing the people who voted for them, assuming their rightful place as the originator of legislation.

We will no longer accept the dictates of executive branches without question. And, neither can we accept the dictates of some doctors who seem detached from reality and from science.

Please SIGN and SHARE this urgent petition which asks national political leaders (as well as state and provincial legislators in the U.S. and Canada) to pledge to respect the rights of those who refuse a COVID vaccine, and NOT introduce 'vaccine passports,' or any other system which would discriminate on the basis of taking the COVID vaccine.


'Biden executive order directs government to evaluate ‘feasibility’ of vaccine passports' -

'China lobbies WHO to develop COVID vaccine passports for all nations' -

'UK advances plans for vaccine passports to travel, enter stores' -

'Canada’s health minister: Gov’t ‘working on the idea of vaccine passports’' -

'European Commission president plans to introduce vaccine passports' -

'Israel’s ‘Green Passport’ vaccination program has created a ‘medical Apartheid,’ distraught citizens say' -

'LA schools to track every kid using Microsoft’s ‘Daily Pass’ COVID app' -

  Hide Petition Text

Additionally, the ECHR concluded that the measures taken against the claimants were seen as “necessary in a democratic society,” meaning that any future human rights lawsuits against compulsory vaccinations could well be met with stern opposition from the courts.

Now that the court has decreed that mandatory vaccination is not only acceptable, but necessary, it remains to be seen how wide-spread the effect of the ruling will be across the European Union and beyond, including the U.K.

The 47 member states of the Council of Europe, which oversees the ECHR, will be placed under pressure to adhere to the ruling and any implications it will have in future judgements, particularly with regard to COVID-19 injections.

However, the ECHR decision also presents a contradiction to a recent ruling by its own governing body, the Council of Europe. Even though the Council cannot pass binding laws, its various members must respect the “the rights and freedoms laid out in the body’s treaties.”

A February decision by the Council, focusing on on the “ethical, legal and practical considerations” of COVID injections, encouraged vaccinations as much as possible, but very firmly stopped short of mandating them. The decision prohibited any repercussions for those who refused the injections.

Section 7.3.1 of the resolution, passed by a majority of 115-2, reads: “[E]nsure that citizens are informed that the vaccination is NOT mandatory and that no one is politically, socially, or otherwise pressured to get themselves vaccinated, if they do not wish to do so themselves.”

Additionally, the Council decreed that member states must “ensure that no one is discriminated against for not having been vaccinated, due to possible health risks or not wanting to be vaccinated.”

Since that resolution was passed, however, the web address has curiously been broken, with access now found using the Internet Archive.