European Court of Human Rights Says Kids Have No Right Not to be Vaccinated
Following yesterday’s news reports about the pro-vaccination ruling in the European Court of Human Rights, we asked David McGrogan, Associate Professor of Law at Northumbria Law School, to take a look at the judgment for us. Turns out, everything wasn’t as it seemed. Here’s an extract:
A recent decision of the European Court of Human Rights has made something of a splash, because it appears, as the headline on the BBC website puts it, to suggest that the Court has “backed mandatory pre-school jabs“. This immediately calls up images of small children being forcibly vaccinated irrespective of their parents’ wishes. As is often the case, however, the reality is a lot less dramatic. The Court’s decision is really just a faithful application of what must, perhaps regrettably, be the correct legal position. However, it is an important case for those Lockdown Sceptics readers who are wary about vaccinations to understand, because it is a foretaste of the conclusion that a UK court would almost certainly reach in similar circumstances.
The case in question, Vavricka and Others v Czech Republic (App No. 47621/13) concerned a series of six applications from Czech citizens concerning the position in Czech law that all permanent residents must undergo certain routine vaccinations or face a fine, and that preschool facilities may only accept children who have received the vaccinations in question. The applicants, some of whom were parents who had been fined for not allowing their children to be vaccinated, and some of whom had been denied places at preschool facilities as children, argued amongst other things that the consequences of the application of the law in question violated their rights under Article 8 of the Convention – namely the right to respect for their private lives. The Court held that while there had been an interference with this right, it was justified as having been lawfully enacted and being “necessary in a democratic society… for the protection of health” pursuant to that Article.
It is important first to make clear that the Court absolutely did not “back mandatory pre-school jabs”. The Court’s decision was the proper and circumspect one to adopt in the circumstances – i.e., that it is not the place of an international court to override the decisions of national authorities who are accountable to their electorates, as a general principle, and those national authorities must therefore have a wide “margin of appreciation” in how they choose to balance competing interests (those here being the right to privacy and the requirement to protect health). The position in Czech law was somewhat more prescriptive than most of the other parties to the European Convention, but there were other governments (the French, Polish and Slovak ones) which adopted similar positions, and there was therefore no real basis for concluding that the law in question was not “necessary in a democratic society”.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Human Rights court: “If kids want to cut off their genitalia and undergo irreversible hormone treatment, that’s their right and not even the parents can stop them.”
Also the Human Rights court: “If kids don’t want the vaccine, they don’t have the right to refuse it. Not even their parents can stop it.”
Can we all just admit that the Human Rights court is more concerned with destroying young lives than with actually protecting any human rights?
No. Try reading the piece.
More illiteracy around than I thought – or just blind confirmation bias about the contents of a text.
Just making things up is just a reflection of Covidiot ranting.
So, the ECHR wimped out saying ‘not for us to tell the authorities what to do’.
If vaccination cannot be made compulsory for adults, how is it acceptable for ‘authorities’ to overrule the wishes of the parents, just because the child is too young. Parents make proxy decisions for children almost all of the time, except for this situation? And if the child themself declines, it’s okay to ignore their wishes?
I’m no lawyer so maybe this case needs to be heard somewhere else. It doesn’t sound much like consent to me.
They can’t. Parents/guardian give consent unless the child is made a ward off court eg in cases of Jehovah’s Witness children who need a blood transfusion
Of course – one of the ironies is that the ECHR is doing exactly what the Little Englanders have always claimed it never did : i.e. stayed away from interference in a country’s decision on the ‘public good’.
Remember all the rhetoric rubbishing the notion of an international framework of ‘Human Rights’???
Pity when a court of appeal on fundamental human rights is just what we need in a country with demonstrable flimsy protections.
As I see it, there remains an issue of testing the concepts of ‘necessity’ and ‘public health’ etc.
Given not everything is as it seemed, why use an irresponsible headline implying it is!!?
Vaccinate the cattle!
I’m not sure if this is sarcasm or just straight trolling. Either way it certainly fails to advance the discussion.
There is something very wrong with this decision. The court should have ruled that governments cannot deny children an education because they havent been vaccinated. If someone doesnt get vaccinated, they do not pose a health risk to those that have.
Instead the court has become implicit in medical treatment coercion against children and their parents. If you dont have the right to control what medicine goes into your body or the bodied of you children then you have no rights at all.
Yes, that’s the logical hole that the pro-vaxers fall into
This is shocking and makes very little sense. A UK court should uphold parent’s wishes for their children to not have a vaccine. Something very wrong here.
But surely… parents and children must have rights when the state tries forcing them to take experimental vaccines, as are those now being marketed for covid, i.e. authorized for emergency use without having satisfied normal requirements for approval including long-term side-effects. We need lawyers.
Not in the article is that European Court of Justice for Human Rights is a NGO and two essential backers with money is Bill Gates foundation and George Soros.No surprises here.
So looks like it will be the case that no amount of lawyers are going to be any help to us – this is what I have been saying has been happening in the courts from very early on in this crisis – courts have been “nobbled” and you have provided the proof of that swedenborg. It seems that if those in this scam – WHO – Gates – Fauci – Big Pharma – spray enough money at enough targets and have them all bought up all sorts of “rights” which would ordinarily protect us get cancelled.
I’m torn between feeling despair, as yet again it’s proven that children have absolutely NO value to society, do not belong to their parents and are incredibly vulnerable, and being fascinated to see what happens next. Because in a civil setting, you’ll need to PROVE on a balance of probabilities that a.) vaccines are safe and effective b.) the underlying assumption that public health is benefitted by them is in fact correct c.) it is realistic to expect healthy children to bear the brunt of protecting the vulnerable – which is as preposterous as expecting young children to protect the elderly from COVID-19 by giving up a year’s worth of schooling And frankly, the evidence emerging of the cavalier manner in which vaccines are developed, tested and the monitored won’t withstand court scrutiny. But most importantly, it won’t withstand public scrutiny. And you can’t make a public health defence for vaccines without opening up your inner working for public scrutiny. The public after all pays for the cost of the care to the vaccine damaged child, which can run to millions quite easily. This links back to point (c.) is it right to steal money from taxpayers to fund the… Read more »
It has yet to be determined in the British Courts. The consent process for a minor is via parent or guardian but there is case law to mandate MMR as it is proven to give health benefit to the minor. However in a disease such as COVID19 with essentially no risk to the minor but with an unknown risk long and short-term from the vaccine- vaccination consent is quasi ethical. The now published concern with thrombosis with vaccination be it association rather than causation requires an urgent and Public response on behalf of those minors who have no vote. Is the Government seriously suggesting under 16’s should have a vaccine to go on holiday?
Just want to point out that this was about vaccines for polio, hepatitis B, tetanus, etc. not covid19. In this climate it’s important to state that clearly in title or subtitle. I’m definitely against (directly or indirectly) mandatory covid-19 vaccines, especially for healthy young and middle-aged people who have infinitesimal small risk from covid19, and vaccines were rushed and should have taken many years to test properly (but were not). For these other well-known disease that affect children and respective vaccines, I don’t have a string opinion either way. I would vaccinate my children for polio, etc. but forcing others to do it… I don’t know… As we can see the concept “public health safety trumps individual rights” can be severely abused like is being done for covid19. If individual rights were put on a higher pedestal in the first place, then these lockdowns, restrictions and talks of vaccine passports would be much harder to accept. Here’s the part of the original text: “The Czech government sees no connection or implications from the ruling for its coronavirus immunization strategy, since Covid-19 vaccination isn’t mandatory, said Health Ministry spokeswoman Barbora Peterova. Four out of five families in Thursday’s appeal went to… Read more »
This verdict was bought to you by our sponsors’
Mengele & Mengele