Forced vaccines, vaccine passports against human rights: Council of Europe
Big Tech is censoring us. Subscribe to our email list and bookmark LifeSiteNews.com to continue getting our news. Subscribe now.
STRASBOURG, France, February 2, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – The Council of Europe has advised that out of respect for human rights, people must not be forced to have a COVID vaccination, and that there should be no repercussions for those who do not have one.
The Council of Europe was founded in the wake of the Second World War in 1949, and now numbers 47 European countries, with the U.S, Canada and the Holy See listed as observer states. Its purpose is to “promote democracy and protect human rights and the rule of law in Europe,” and is separate to the European Union.
The Council oversees the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), and whilst the Council cannot pass its own binding laws, its various members must respect the “the rights and freedoms laid out in the body’s treaties.” The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) is composed of members of the national parliaments of the member states.
In September 2020, PACE began a motion for examination, regarding the issue of COVID-19 vaccinations, and in particular the “ethical, legal and practical considerations.” After parliamentary debate in the assembly, the resolution was passed last week, by a majority of 115 - 2, with 13 abstentions.
The resolution counselled governments, “member States and the European Union,” to encourage people to have the vaccinations as much as possible, yet laid out very clearly that mandatory vaccines were not permitted, despite the aim of ensuring a “high vaccine uptake.”
Section 7.3.1 reads: “ensure 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.”
Furthermore, the resolution states that protections must be given to those who do not have the vaccine, so that they do not incur any penalty for not having the injection: “ensure that no one is discriminated against for not having been vaccinated, due to possible health risks or not wanting to be vaccinated.”
The document also adds that full and proper information should be provided, informing potential users about any possible side effects of the vaccine. It states that governments must “distribute transparent information on the safety and possible side effects of vaccines, working with and regulating social media platforms to prevent the spread of misinformation.”
In addition to the issue of mandatory vaccines, the resolution also deals with the matter of vaccine certificates, which some politicians have proposed effectively using aspassports which would restrict the movement of those who have not been vaccinated. It stated that such certificates can only be used for the “designated purpose of monitoring vaccine efficacy, potential side-effects and adverse events.”
In fact, the above passage was added specifically as a result of an amendment made to the original, draft resolution, and the explanatory note of the newly inserted clause was clearly and firmly against such vaccine passports.
“Vaccination certificates should not be used as a ‘vaccination passport’ (at borders, in aviation, or for access to services). Such use would be unscientific in the absence of data on the effectiveness of the vaccines in reducing transmission, the length of any acquired immunity, as well as the percentage of ‘failure’ to produce immunity due to new variants, viral load and delayed second doses. Such use would also pose privacy concerns, and, taking into account the limited availability of vaccines, may perpetuate and reinforce exclusionary and discriminatory practices.”
Whilst the news is a welcome defence of individual human rights in the face of a global vaccine roll-out, the Council’s resolution does nevertheless heavily promote COVID vaccines as the chief measure by which to combat the spread of COVID-19, and the key by which to unlock countries from lockdown. It also advises that states “take early effective measures to counter misinformation, disinformation and hesitancy regarding Covid-19 vaccines.”
An additional issue which the Council largely ignores is the question of the safety of the vaccines. Whilst the resolution acknowledges that “we cannot exclude potential side effects, especially in the long term,” it does not mention the large concern about the number of deaths, adverse side effects, and unknown consequences of the vaccines, including on fertility.
LifeSite’s Raymond Wolfe reported that recent data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that by January 22, at least 271 people had died after receiving a COVID vaccine. Most of the deaths occurred within 48 hours of receiving the vaccine.
Another major cause for concern is that a warning issued by the U.K. government about Pfizer’s vaccine revealed that there was no information about the effect of the vaccine on fertility, and stipulated that pregnancy should be avoided for two months after the injection, while breastfeeding mothers shouldn’t receive it.
In contrast with such untested and potentially dangerous vaccines, the long established medications ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine have shown great success in treating COVID-19, with doctors saying that ivermectin “basically obliterates transmission of this virus,” with “miraculous effectiveness.”
Meanwhile, hydroxychloroquine can reportedly reduce mortality of COVID patients “by 50 percent.” The Association of American Physicians & Surgeons explained that the COVID mortality rate “in countries that allow access to HCQ is only 1/10th the mortality rate in countries where there is interference with this medication, such as the United States.