Covid Vaccines - the Human Rights Perspective. Debate hosted by the Faculty of Law, University of Malta
A Webinar debate was held on Human Rights Day, the 10th December under the auspices of the Faculty of Law, with the participation of Dr Rodolfo Ragonesi LLD, Justice Emeritus Laurence Quintano, Dr. Austin Bencini LLD, Theologian Reverent Dr Zammit, and President of the Employers’ Association Mr Joseph Farrugia. It was chaired by Dr Ivan Mifsud, Dean of the Faculty of Law, University of Malta.
Mr Justice Quintano and Dr Ragonesi debated the interpretation of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) case Vavricki and others, which deals with the issue of human rights in relation to vaccination laws and policies. Dr Ragonesi explained that the Court had deemed small administrative fines and restricted access to pre school (kindergarten) as falling within the parametres of the legal principle of proportionality in States’ policies and laws on vaccination, and this was the basis for dismissing the case. However the Court also gave a very important reasoned opinion, which is actually the fulcrum of its important decision, by stating that a State seeking to punish a child or its parents by denying access to school, and therefore to education would not be deemed by the court in a future case to satisfy the principle of proportionality. The same reasoning went for any law that would force vaccination upon a person, by empowering a court of law to order the said vaccination, or by imposing crippling fines, or worse. This has so far not been the case in cases brought before the ECHR. The Court made it clear that if such cases would be brought before it, it would deem these to be disproportionate and thus an infringement of a person’s right to private life.
Austria has recently been pushing for the most extreme measures to force vaccination of what is essentially an injection which is still undergoing human trials, by contemplating even imprisonment. Such an insanely extremist approach would almost certainly be shot down by the ECHR.
Dr Bencini spoke about the fact that the various covid 19 measures that infringed human rights in Malta were based upon a declaration of emergency issued by the Superintendent of Public Health ( up to 15th June, 2020) but fell outside the strict parametres for declarations of emergency laid down by the Constitution of Malta.
Dr Ragonesi then went on to add that the reasoned opinion of the ECHR in the Vavricki case was complimented by article 6.3.1 and 6.3.2 of Council of Europe Resolution 2361 of 2021, which calls upon Member States to:
6.3.1 “ensure that citizens are informed that the vaccination is not mandatory and that no one is under political, social or other pressure to be vaccinated if they do not wish to do so”, and
6.3.2. “ensure that no one is discriminated against for not having been vaccinated, due to possible health risks or not wanting to be vaccinated”
The same principle is laid down in the Oviedo Convention on Human Rights and Bio Medicine, which states that no person is to be subjected to a medical intervention without his free and informed consent. He added that almost all vaccine inserts published by the vaccine manufacturers for various vaccines on the market state that serious injury or death might result from the related vaccines. Since the companies cannot guarantee to all persons that their vaccine products would not result in serious harm or death, Dr Ragonesi argued that it cannot be legally maintained that the State could ever be able to force such vaccination on anyone without infringing on the rights to life, the right to private life and the right to bodily integrity. Dr Ragonesi went on to add that the possibility of death from vaccines has also been corroborated by the reports of the Covid 19 vaccines on the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which show a very disturbing indication of causation owing to the statistic significance of having around twice as many death reports on the first day of taking the injections than the second day, around twice as many on the second day as the third, around twice as many on the third day as the fourth, and so on, through the reporting period. If the causes of the over 17,000 reported deaths are not largely caused by the covid vaccination, then how else could a statistician interpret such heavy numerical bias in the first few days of taking the vaccines? This is the ultimate smoking gun, he said.
Dr Ragonesi pointed out that aside from the human rights infringements of any forced vaccination, one must look into the enormous financial benefits that would be gained by the pharmaceutical industry with such forced vaccination, which would destroy pharmacology’s competitor, that is natural health treatments, which would be the pharmaceutical industry’s wet dream. It would give one of the most lucrative industries on the planet, with enormous lobbying power and a very bad legal track record, a global monopoly over people’s health, while denying them their fundamental right to choose the forms of treatments for their ailments. No one could legally be denied making his/her own choice of what medications to take.
Dr Ragonesi added that in seeking to mandate covid 19 vaccines, the very principle of Law has been turned on its head, namely, that as free persons living in a free and open society based upon the Rule of Law, our freedom is limited only by the adoption of laws telling us what we are not allowed to do. Laws do not impose upon us any forced action. By forcing people to take a vaccine, this would go against the very fabric of the Rule of Law. By forcing us to do something the Law will no longer remain a tool to guard our freedoms, but would become an instrument to enslave us.
Dr Ragonesi concluded by raising the question as to whether the Covid 19 injections could properly be classified as vaccines, since science has confirmed that they are neither capable of granting the vaccinated immunity nor of preventing transmission of the disease to others. Accepting the Covid 19 injections as vaccines would therefore necessitate a redefinition of what constitutes a vaccine.
Asked by the Natural Health Community after the debate to further explain and clarify this point, Dr Ragonesi said that Laws cannot be properly understood or enforced without clear definitions of key terms within laws. This is why every law begins with a definition of key words contemplated by those laws. “In recent times we have seen a redefinition of what constitutes a “vaccine”, a “pandemic”, a “sick person”, a “diagnostic tool”, “a safe vaccine”, “mandatory”, “consent”, “human trial”, “herd immunity”... Some Governments have been bending over backwards in order to try and fit a square peg into a round hole, by trying to change the definition of what is square and what is round, in order to make the facts appear to the public to fit their covid management narrative.”
“The Covid 19 narrative is fast coming to resemble George Orwell’s “1984” ‘doublespeak’, Dr Ragonesi concluded, as governments tie themselves up in knots trying desperately to justify their failed policies and insist that the emperor is not naked, when people are opening their eyes to the realisation that he is. Slowly they start to see the naked truth. By changing definitions of key words connected with health management, it is like these Governments are trying to convince people and insist that the emperor is dressed in fine clothes, by simply redefining the meaning of clothes. This is why all laws define key terms at the outset. If they did not, every law would be interpreted in absurd ways by lawyers desperately trying to win their cases. This is exactly what has been happening with the interpretation of covid 19 management and vaccination, as we head into a very dangerous and dystopian age of double speak and newspeak, by redefining words; and words are key to how we think and carry out our mental processes. If you want to fool people, just change the definition of key words in any debate”.
The full webinar can be accessed here:
https://www.facebook.com/um.humanrightsplatform/videos/233640742216146/
