Last week, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled in the case of Vavřička and Others v. the Czech Republic that legally enforced vaccinations are a necessary measure in a democratic society. Although the case specifically focused on child vaccinations and was brought to the court before the coronavirus outbreak, the ruling might have much wider implications on the ability of European states to vaccinate their populations against COVID-19.
The spirit of the ruling is quite disturbing, given the context of the pandemic and the rollout of the so-called COVID vaccines, which, medically speaking, are not vaccines at all. The jabs provide a variable immune response to the infection, working for some but proving deadly for others, and they don’t always prevent one from getting the infection. What is promoted as a means of “getting back to normal” is really experimental gene therapy. Moderna Inc., for example, calls its mRNA jabs the “software of life.” Dr. Tal Zaks, its chief medical officer, explained the work of mRNA as “hacking the software of life.” Alterations with mRNA (a single-stranded molecule of RNA that corresponds to the genetic sequence of gene) may have severe health implications. The CDC data also indicates the jabs are far from safe.
{modulepos inner_text_ad}
In this light, the EU court set a highly dangerous precedent in granting governments power to inject their people with experimental, harmful agents, especially considering that a report makes clear that EU courts are far from unbiased.
As the Vavřička and Others v. the Czech Republic case has gotten public attention on both sides of the pond, a highly troubling report entitled “NGOs and the judges of the ECHR 2009-2019” by the European Center for Law & Justice (ECLJ) has resurfaced on the net. The report describes how powerful actors determine the actions of the court.
After racking through the ECHR judges’ resumes, it was found that 22 of the 100 permanent judges who have served on the ECHR between 2009 and 2019 were former officials or collaborators of seven NGOs (nongovernmental organizations) that were highly active before the court. George Soros’ Open Society network, which works to bring into existence a global socialistic government, is distinguished by the number of judges linked to it and by the fact that it funds the remaining six NGOs mentioned in the report. Since 2009, there have been at least 185 cases in which at least one of these seven NGOs was officially involved in the proceedings. In 88 of those cases, the presiding judge was linked with the NGO involved in the case.
The ECLJ clarifies that the objective of the ECHR is to promote and enforce the “open society” ideology that has been championed by its founder George Soros — an ultra-rich and influential anti-capitalist whose network of NGOs operates in 120 countries and promotes a globalist, ultra-liberal ideology.
As the French magazine Valeurs Actuelles put it, Soros has become the master of “causing chaos in the world under the guise of altruism,” and his effect on Europe has been enormous:
Austria, Greece and Italy are forced to legalize same-sex unions; Poland is urged to promote the right to abortion; France is obliged to authorize the change of sex “on paper”; Hungary is forced to abolish life imprisonment; Russia is reprimanded for having condemned the Pussy Riot Punk feminist activists; Austria must legalize adoption by same-sex couples; sharia law in Greece is approved. Are all of these rulings unrelated? On the contrary.
Each time the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) dictates its law to a European country and each time an NGO linked to the Open Society Foundations (OSF) network is involved in the case.
The jurists believe that it is no coincidence that so many countries are embracing the left-wing agenda: They legalize same-sex unions, same-sex adoption of children and abortion on-demand. All of this is happening with the “soft force” of the ECHR.
Similar findings on the profound impact of the NGOs in shaping the legal agenda and the leftist spirit of rulings by three key supranational courts are described by Heidi Nichols Haddad in her book The Hidden Hands of Justice: NGOs, Human Rights, and International Courts and in A. Cichowski‘s book The European Court of Human Rights Between Law and Politics.
Nils Muižnieks, who was the director of programs of the Open Society network until he took office at the Council of Europe (which established the ECHR), once said that the Open Society wanted to create a new man — homo sorosensus — the man of the open society. In the light of the ECHR’s recent ruling, this new type of person will require not just a radical leftist worldview, but, potentially, a new type of genes as well.
