Forced vaccines, vaccine passports against human rights: Council of Europe
The Council urged governments to ‘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’
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.
Read More: Forced vaccines, vaccine passports against human rights: Council of Europe
‘We intend to vaccinate all of the adults in the country by the autumn – plus lateral flow testing’ says moronic fascist Jackboot Johnson. (A) You can forget the first bit and stick your fake ‘vaccine’ where the sun is never seen and (B) the lateral flow test is so useless it has to be confirmed by the PCR test which is not testing for the ‘virus’. The lies just go on and on and on …
Boris Johnson has suggested rapid testing for coronavirus will be used over “vaccine passports” to help reopen businesses when lockdown restrictions ease. The Prime Minister did not completely rule out using domestic immunity passports, saying the Government will “look at everything”.
But he told a Downing Street press conference: “What we are thinking of at the moment is more of a route that relies on mass vaccination – we intend to vaccinate all of the adults in the country by the autumn – plus lateral flow testing.”
Those rapid tests would help “the toughest nuts to crack” including nightclubs and some theatres which had been unable to open last year, he said.
“I think that will be the route that we go down and that businesses will go down,” Mr Johnson explained.
“You are already seeing lots of business using the potential of rapid, on-the-day testing as well. I think that, in combination with vaccination, will probably be the route forward.”
Read More: PM suggests rapid testing will be used over ‘vaccine passports’
‘No Jab, No Job’ – UK Firms Set to Make Vaccines Mandatory
Companies in Britain have been tasking law firms to craft “no jab, no job” contracts that would bar prospective employees from being hired unless they have been vaccinated against the Chinese coronavirus.
While the government has publicly claimed that it has no intentions of requiring domestic vaccine passports, ministers have admitted that private businesses may take up the mantle of imposing it on the British public.
Speaking to the Financial Times
, law firms said
that they have already been contacted by companies, including care homes and multinational corporations, which are looking to draw up contracts that would require employees to be inoculated against the virus.
One unnamed attorney told the paper that such requirements could be risky as they might trigger discrimination claims from people who refuse to take the vaccine on religious grounds, pregnant women, or those who have health conditions, such as allergies, which prevent them from taking the jab.
The lawyer did note that in sectors in which employees are surrounded by at-risk people, such as in care homes, so-called “no jab, no job” contracts may ultimately be defensible.
Some of the law firms contacted claimed that businesses have also begun inquiring about how to require that those already employed receive the vaccine.
However, companies seeking to change the contracts of people already employed would need to gain the consent of the worker, a partner at the law firm Lewis Silkin, James Davies, cautioned.
Read more: ‘No Jab, No Job’ – UK Firms Set to Make Vaccines Mandatory
Is Switzerland Sliding into Dictatorship? Social Coercion, Privileges to Those Who Accept the Covid Vaccine.
Has Helvetia Chosen to Exclude the “Refuseniks”? With proof of vaccination, you can eat in restaurants, attend concerts, etc. “The first human right is the right to life.” Wang Yi.
A secret paper from the Swiss Federal Council (Swiss Executive) was leaked to the Swiss Newspaper “Der Blick” divulging that the Federal Council is considering granting owners of restaurants, theatres, cinemas, and more, as well as private event organizers, the right to allow access to those people only, who have had their corona virus shots.
In addition to the Blick, Swiss Radio and Television (SRG) repeated this news item in the morning of 23 February. SRG, the Swiss fear-inducing propaganda broadcasting system, also linked so-called “corona deniers” to alleged “anti-Semitism”, referring to an article in Swissinfo, “Covid Pandemic Fans Flames of anti-Semitism in Switzerland”. Anti-Semitism has often been used to intimidate free opinions that run counter the official narrative.
If this dictatorial and discriminatory idea is passed as a law, Switzerland would be one of the first countries to grant special privileges to those who have accepted being vaccinated against a virus that DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY VACCINATION to be defeated, as there are many excellent cheap and decades-old remedies that, for example, have helped China to master the corona virus – without a vaccine.
Such coercion runs totally against an individual’s universal right to decide on his / her own, over his or her body and on how to manage his or her health.
Nobody has the right to infringe on an individual’s choice and even less so, to link societal privileges to such bodily intrusions.
Mind you, this “secret document” may have been “leaked” on purpose, as a trial balloon
to test the people’s reactions. Unfortunately, the Swiss are so tremendously indoctrinated by 24 x 7 of fear-invoking covid-propaganda that the majority may say – YES, let’s go for the vaccination privilege.
In other words, another break in societal solidarity – divide to conquer.
It would be coercion, indirectly forcing the population to accept a “vaccine” that is not really a vaccine, but an inoculation, also called “gene therapy”. Switzerland offers so far only the Moderna
injections, and AstraZeneca
is under consideration.
These are mRNA-type remedies that may affect the human genome. Any distortion of human DNA may be passed on to future generations. The effects of such DNA distortions may be life-hindrances and cannot be “healed” or corrected.
UK Now Coordinating with EU to Push-Through ‘Vaccine’ Passports
Last week, 21WIRE revealed how the UK government was working behind the scenes with Greece to float the idea that travelers would need a new Vaccine Passport in order to ‘safely’ go on holiday. It was clear that this bilateral ploy between London and Athens was designed in order to apply public pressure on Brussels to quickly adopt the controversial Vaccine Passport regime. It turns out we were correct. Today, the head of the EU announced their intention to roll-out this unprecedented bio-surveillance system. The implications for human rights of all people compelled to comply in order to travel or participate in society – is very grave indeed.
Brexit supporters should be aware that British Prime Minister Boris Johnson has not hesitated to rush ahead with this new invasive, technocratic EU regime. In fact, Downing Street has all but confirmed that UK officials plan to completely bypass the democratic process, instead immediately moving to coordinate with Brussels on its plan implement their new European “Green Pass
.” The British Prime Minister’s official spokesperson stated that:
“You can expect [the Department for Transport] will work [with], and do speak to countries across the world in terms of how they may look to introduce passports.”
Few in the mainstream press have bothered to ask the obvious: With the supposed ‘pandemic’ now over, why are governments moving at lightning speed to implement such an invasive and manipulative mechanism and social control?
One thing is certain – that this new “Green Pass” will be permanent, and will eventually encompass levels of social and political control never seen before in modern human history.
Human rights and civil liberties advocates and lawyers should take note.
Read More: UK Now Coordinating with EU to Push-Through Vaccine Passports
The fascists are now after your kids …. Children ‘will be vaccinated from August with up to 11 million under 18s inoculated by the start of the autumn term’ as the government pushes for maximum ‘immunity’ (genetic modification)
Children could receive covid vaccines from August as the government pushes for maximum immunity, sources have revealed.
The plan leaked to The Telegraph
means that up to 11 million under 18s could have jabs by the start of the autumn term, months ahead of when inoculations had been expected for children.
The government awaits data from a major child vaccine study by Oxford University, with conclusions due in June or July, which will dictate the final decision on jabs for children.
The proposal is bound to be controversial because the virus poses only a minuscule risk to children and there is constantly evolving data on vaccine safety.
Figures from Public Health England (PHE) show the risk of dying from covid if infected is 1,513 per 100,000 people for over-80s, but for children aged five to nine, this is just 0.1 per 100,000.
People who back the policy argue that it is important to minimise the risk of infection, despite academics who argue children do not contribute to the spread of covid.
Israel is the first country in the world to have rolled out vaccines to children, with 16 and 17-year-olds having jabs after the health ministry decided it was safe.
Britain’s vaccine drive, like Israel’s, has been immensely successful – with around three million first doses administered each week.
If the proposal to jab children goes ahead, this would mean 11 million kids could be vaccinated before the start of the autumn term.
A Department of Health and Social Care spokesman said ‘no decisions have been made on whether children should be offered vaccinations.’
Read more: The fascists are now after your kids …. Children ‘will be vaccinated from August with up to 11 million under 18s inoculated by the start of the autumn term’ as the government pushes for maximum ‘immunity’ (genetic modification)
Coronavirus: Dozens of MPs criticise ‘divisive’ Covid passports
Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and senior Tory Iain Duncan Smith are among more than 70 MPs to launch a campaign opposing Covid passports in England.
Any demand to prove vaccination status to access jobs, businesses or services would be “divisive and discriminatory”, the cross-party group said.
It comes as the Daily Telegraph reported that a series of pilot tests for Covid passports were being planned
The government said no final decision had been made on Covid certificates.
A review is taking place into whether such a system could help to reopen the economy in England, with discussions also taking place across the devolved nations.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson has previously said people could be asked to provide a vaccine certificate for entry into pubs in England
, saying it “may be up to individual publicans”.
Certification could involve people being either vaccinated, having had a recent negative test or having previously been infected, the PM said
Culture Secretary Oliver Dowden said vaccine passports could also be used as a “tool in the short term” to reopen theatres and sports stadiums
But a broad coalition of MPs and peers have now signed a pledge saying they “oppose the divisive and discriminatory use of Covid status certification to deny individuals access to general services, businesses or jobs”.
The group contains some unlikely allies, with many of Mr Corbyn’s former shadow cabinet joining the lockdown-sceptic Covid Research Group of Conservative MPs in backing the campaign.
Accusing the government of “creeping authoritarianism”, Liberal Democrats leader Sir Ed Davey said: “As we start to get this virus properly under control we should start getting our freedoms back. Vaccine passports – essentially Covid ID cards – take us in the other direction.”
Sir Graham Brady, who chairs the 1922 Committee of backbench Tory MPs, added: “With high levels of vaccination protecting the vulnerable and making transmission less likely, we should aim to return to normal life, not to put permanent restrictions in place.”
Read more: Coronavirus: Dozens of MPs criticise ‘divisive’ Covid passports
ECHR rules obligatory vaccination may be necessary
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled on Thursday that compulsory vaccinations are legal and may be necessary in democratic societies.
The ruling came following the conclusion of a complaint brought to the court by Czech families regarding compulsory jabs for children.
“The measures could be regarded as being ‘necessary in a democratic society’,” the court judgment read.
Although the ruling did not deal directly with COVID-19 vaccines, experts believe it could have implications for vaccination drives against the virus, especially among those who have so far stated a refusal to accept the jab.
This judgment “reinforces the possibility of a compulsory vaccination under conditions of the current COVID-19 epidemic,” Nicolas Hervieu, a legal expert specializing in the ECHR, told AFP news agency.
What was the court ruling about?
The decision said that the compulsory vaccines administered by Czech health authorities were in line with the “best interests” of children.
“The objective has to be that every child is protected against serious diseases, through vaccination or by virtue of herd immunity,” it added.
Read more: ECHR rules obligatory vaccination may be necessary
Disgusting way a doctor, judge and lawyers forced an elderly woman to have the untested ‘Covid vaccine’ – her son tells the story
My mother is a frail 83 years old, suffering from advanced Alzheimer’s, Emphysema and Ischaemic heart condition. She is resident in a specialist care home providing 24 hour care for her condition.
I hold Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) for Health and Welfare and Property and finance although the property and finance is handled by a deputy solicitor because they are much closer to my mother’s location than I am and it is therefore much more convenient for handling her financial affairs.
Around Christmas of 2020, I was emailed by my mother’s care home, who dropped into the conversation that she was being vaccinated with the Covid-19 vaccine and they assumed I had no objections.
I did have objections, due to her frailty and the reported side effects of the vaccine. I refused to give my consent as her LPA and wrote an email to the care home as confirmation of my decision.
I then had a call from my mum’s GP. He made an effort to convince me to change my mind although it appeared that I knew more about the vaccine than he did because he could not answer questions about long term reactions to medication being taken by my mum, neither could he answer any questions as to why the virus did not appear in the public domain after being removed from the High Consequence Infectious Disease (HCID) register. In fact, he had not heard of the HCID, I confirmed my decision to him and he assured me he would not be administering the vaccine.
Shortly after Christmas, I heard from a solicitor employed by my mum’s GP, threatening that I would be taken to court if I didn’t allow the vaccine.
About a week before the hearing, I received an email telling me that a ‘pack’ would be sent to me and I would be named as the respondent in the case. The papers were served by email and recorded delivery on the Friday19[sup]th[/sup] March for the hearing on Wednesday 24[sup]th[/sup] March. Leaving me, negating the weekend, two days to prepare a defence.
The hearing was to happen on 24[sup]th[/sup] March at 4.00pm and was held remotely via Microsoft Teams.
The Judge entered the conversation and started the hearing by stating that he had read enough documentation to enable him to come to a decision and was not going to allow the ‘ping pong’ of questions and answers and would only be allowing closing statements by all parties. He then instructed me that my mic was to be muted until required to answer questions.
The judge asked if everyone was ready to complete the hearing today. I pointed out that barring the weekend, I had only had two days to produce a defence and had evidence on its way to me by post. I requested that it be delayed for a couple of days considering that the doctor had by now almost three months to prepare her case. This was refused on the grounds that this was urgent and no time could be wasted.
Various solicitors were allowed to state their case (7 in all) and I was then asked to comment. I asked if I could question the doctor, this was denied. I pointed out that the vaccine was only licenced under a temporary licence until testing had finished, therefore it was only an experimental procedure and because of unknown side effects I didn’t want my mother taking part in such an experiment, considering her frail condition. The judge muted me mid-sentence and simply said ok. He then told me that my mother was still in grave danger of catching the virus even though she was surrounded by people who were vaccinated and it was in her best interest to have the vaccine.
The judge then un-muted my mic and asked for comments.
I replied by saying that he had simply verified my point by showing that the vaccine did not actually do anything if my mother could still catch the virus surrounded by vaccinated people and there would be no point in giving her a vaccine that didn’t work. He muted me again.
Just before the Judges ‘summing up’ he asked for my closing comments.
I was surprised to hear two of the solicitors against me interrupt and advise the judge that they were of the opinion that they wanted nothing further to do with this hearing and were withdrawing their case. The judge accepted this.
I asked the judge to consider that my mum was frail and already suffering from a respiratory condition with her emphysema and heart condition. There was a safer alternative for such a frail old lady, which was to have a small finger prick antibody blood test to determine if my mother had antibodies because if this was proven to be the case, she wouldn’t need to take the experimental vaccine anyway whose known side effects were respiratory problems. My argument was just to give her the final ‘sledgehammer’ was not in her best interest as there were safer options to explore before giving an experimental vaccine that carried with it the potential for further unknown side effects, including unproven blood clots causing 20 European countries to suspend the vaccine until further tests were conducted. The judge did not respond, simply took a moment then muted me again. He then delivered his verdict that my mum was to be vaccinated at the earliest opportunity. The vaccine was administered six days later (not really that much of an emergency then!)
I had sent an email to the GP solicitor on the 29[sup]th[/sup] asking that the vaccine be postponed because I had sent an appeal to the courts and had requested that the vaccine was ‘stayed’ until the results of the appeal. The solicitor acknowledged the appeal but ignored my request for the vaccine to be delayed until the results of the appeal had been decided.
Since this time, I have tried in vain to contact the home. Before mum was vaccinated, I had regular email replies, containing pictures and short resume of what mum had been doing. After the vaccine I cannot get anyone to even acknowledge my enquiries. I fear something has happened to her and they are covering it up. I am now at the point of calling the police to check on my mum’s welfare.
Quite obviously the home has been told not to speak to me, even though I hold an LPA for my mother.
As part of the evidence given to the court by the GP, she quoted that she believed that I was refusing my mum the vaccine because I had a conflict of interests in that I wanted her estate. My mother lives in a care home, she only has the clothes on her back, which I bought for her anyway. She has no estate.
I take that as accusing me of plotting to end my mother’s life, I would even go as far as to say of murdering her! I have this in writing and was submitted as evidence to the court.
Further in the GP’s evidence, she claims that I had the LPA for property and finance taken away from me because of financial abuse. This is simply untrue. There has never been any issues with this as this part of the LPA is managed by a deputy solicitor. I wouldn’t be able to do that if I wanted to.
The GP goes on to start name calling, I am an anti vaxxer, this, that and the other. This is just abuse without foundation and not the conduct I would expect from a professional.
My own thoughts
[li]Obviously I am concerned about my mother, not hearing from anyone despite multiple emails, letters etc. It sounds very suspicious in that in her frail state, she may have succumbed to side effects of the vaccine. I am not allowed to visit the home because of the Covid-19 regulations. I would like to find out her state of health[/li]
[li]II have researched some things for myself and although I am not a lawyer of any description I think I may have found some things that apply to my case. I would like to present them to you.[/li]
The Vaccine is only licenced under a temporary licence and not for marketing or resale dependent on ongoing testing, which makes it an experimental or trial vaccine. My mother’s doctor has taken me to court because she was insisting despite my objections as my mother’s LPA, that my mother was forced to take part in an experimental trial. My mother has been forced to take this experimental or trial vaccine against our/my wishes without the benefits of being given any information about risks/side effects of short/medium or long term effects. As can be seen. It is emerging that as tests on the effectiveness of the vaccine progress, there is a link between the AZ vaccine and potentially dangerous blood clots, causing other European countries to suspend their vaccination programs using the AZ vaccine.
My mother and I were never told about any of these issues, no doubt as tests progress, many more issues will be found.
My own theories on the legal position
As I have said already, I am not a lawyer but I have been studying the 2005 UNESCO bioethics human rights statement, which is required to be integrated into the laws of every member country of which the UK is a full member.
Studying article 6 of this statement, repeated below for clarity:
Article 6 – Consent
1. Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.
2. Scientific research should only be carried out with the prior, free, express and informed consent of the person concerned. The information should be adequate, provided in a comprehensible form and should include modalities for withdrawal of consent. Consent may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without any disadvantage or prejudice. Exceptions to this principle should be made only in accordance with ethical and legal standards adopted by States, consistent with the principles and provisions set out in this Declaration, in particular in Article 27, and international human rights law.
3. In appropriate cases of research carried out on a group of persons or a community, additional agreement of the legal representatives of the group or community concerned may be sought. In no case should a collective community agreement or the consent of a community leader or other authority substitute for an individual’s informed consent.
Part 1 clearly says that the individual has the right to refuse preventative medical procedure (the vaccine) and is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned. We were NOT given any information regarding the vaccine in order to be able to make an ‘informed’ choice and this was one of the reasons for my refusal.
They couldn’t tell me what side effects or other issues my mother might experience therefore I refused the vaccine.
Part 2 deals with the scientific research of a medical procedure and again requires the same informed consent. Which I did not give.
Part 3 essentially says that the individuals rights of consent comes before the collective or community wishes for such experimental or trial vaccines
I believe that all three of these sections have been breached when vaccinating my mother.
I draw your attention to article 7 of the statement. Again repeated here for clarity:
Article 7 – Persons without the capacity to consent
In accordance with domestic law, special protection is to be given to persons who do not have the capacity to consent:
(a) authorization for research and medical practice should be obtained in accordance with the best interest of the person concerned and in accordance with domestic law. However, the person concerned should be involved to the greatest extent possible in the decision-making process of consent, as well as that of withdrawing consent;
(b) research should only be carried out for his or her direct health benefit, subject to the authorization and the protective conditions prescribed by law, and if there is no research alternative of comparable effectiveness with research participants able to consent. Research which does not have potential direct health benefit should only be undertaken by way of exception, with the utmost restraint, exposing the person only to a minimal risk and minimal burden and, if the research is expected to contribute to the health benefit of other persons in the same category, subject to the conditions prescribed by law and compatible with the protection of the individual’s human rights. Refusal of such persons to take part in research should be respected.
In the introduction, ‘Domestic law’ in my mind refers to the courts of protection, LPA schemes etc.
I have abided by these laws and have been given the right by my mother and the courts to make decisions on her behalf in such situations. f she was incapacitated I made a promise to my mother that I would not let anyone harm her.
By ignoring my decisions, my mothers GP, via the courts have negated this ‘domestic law’ and have forced my mother to partake in an experimental (trial) medical procedure against the will of her lawfully appointed LPA (me).
To my mind this is in clear breach of my mothers human rights.
I also feel that the person administering the vaccine is guilty of assault and battery upon my mother.
I believe that it could be said by the authorities that article 27 is invoked in the presence of a public health outbreak, such as a pandemic where the ‘greater good’ takes precedence.
I disagree with this for the following reasons:
[li]The Coronavirus Act was given Royal Ascension on 24[sup]th[/sup] March 2020, declaring a pandemic and thus a public health issue.[/li]
[li]On 13[sup]th[/sup] March 2020, some six days earlier, the Coronavirus/Covid-19 was actually removed from the High Consequence Infectious Disease (HCID) register and was never placed on any other register in the public domain. [/li]
[li]This was due to problems in isolating the virus and more importantly purifying the virus, which has not been achieved without having waste genetic material present, meaning that any further tests would not be valid because they could not differentiate if results were affected by the ‘virus’ or pathogen itself or by the genetic waste material. [/li]
[li]Therefore it could not be classified as a ‘virus’ as others have been that appear on the HCID register (HIV,Ebola,Smallpox etc)[/li]
[li]Meaning that at the time of the Royal Ascension, the Coronavirus/Covid-19, no longer being classified anywhere within the public domain, did not actually exist. [/li]
[li]If the virus did not exist, how can it be responsible for a public health crisis? [/li]
[li]Therefore I would suggest that the whole Coronavirus Act2020 is null and void.[/li]
[li]Under these circumstances then Article 3 of the 2005 UNESCO statement must take effect over article 27.[/li]
Article 3 – Human dignity and human rights
1. Human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms are to be fully respected.
2. The interests and welfare of the individual should have priority over the sole interest of science or society.
Particularly section 2, that clearly says that the interests and welfare of the individual should have priority over the sole interest of science or society. To my way of thinking, this is again a breach of my mother’s Human rights.
The end result is that my mother/ I were not given adequate information to make an informed consent to the vaccination and so I refused to give consent without this important information. This was ignored and my mother was vaccinated anyway. Since her vaccination, I have been unable to find out her condition and have met with a brick wall of silence, leading me to believe that something has happened to her because of the vaccination. I believe that the human rights of my mother have been breached by her GP/courts and want the appropriate action taken to remedy this situation.
In addition there were safe and reliable tests available that could determine if she indeed needed the vaccine in the first place. I requested these test to be conducted, considering her age and frailty, not an unreasonable request considering my mother’s ‘best interests’ yet this was refused”
She is a frail 83 year old who cannot leave her care home, indeed she cannot speak now and does not remember me as her son. My wish was for her to see her days out in relative comfort and peace. Now, as her court appointed LPA, I don’t know if she is still alive or not.
I hope you can help
U.S. Universities Now Forcing Students to Take Experimental COVID Vaccines
It’s been said the university is the place where young people go to learn skills for life. However, what is being taught here is beyond disturbing.
Are school administrators forcing students to undergo an unnecessary medical procedure? Oddly, none of the university officials quoted in the mainstream report below have acknowledged the fact that this age group of students is statistically at virtually zero
risk of ever getting sick, much less hospitalized due to coming in contact with the coronavirus.
Which begs the question: why force young people to take this experimental and not properly licensed pharmaceutical product?
Also, CNN avoided going into too much depth on whether these colleges will require the controversial vaccine passport bio surveillance system. By all indications, most campuses appear to be keen to unleash this dubious digital tracking on their students.
This would set an incredibly dangerous precedent, and will certainly opens universities up to potentially endless lawsuits for blatantly violating students constitutional rights.
As colleges and universities nationwide make plans to welcome back students in the fall, a growing number have announced they will require all students to be fully vaccinated against Covid-19 before returning to campus.
So far, at least 14 colleges
have said vaccinations will be required, according to a CNN tally — and that number is expected to grow.
Universities have been implementing vaccination policies since late March, when Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey, became one of the first
to say that having all students vaccinated will allow for an “expedited return to pre-pandemic normal,” making more in-person classes possible, as well as more on-campus events that will be allowed.
“This health policy update means that, with limited exceptions, all students planning to attend in the Fall 2021 semester must be fully vaccinated,” a statement from Rutgers president Jonathan Holloway said, adding that proof of vaccination will be required. Rutgers faculty and staff members are also being strongly urged to get vaccinated, but the statement did not say that it was required for them.
Cornell, Brown, the University of Notre Dame, Northeastern, Syracuse University and Ithaca in New York and Fort Lewis College in Colorado have since made similar announcements, though all will make exceptions for medical or religious reasons.
(…) In its April 1 announcement, NSU said “with the extra protection of widespread vaccination, the NSU community will be able to resume more activities and operations sooner, leading to a more engaged educational and professional experience.”
Since the announcement, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed an executive order saying that vaccines are available but not mandated, and prohibited any government entity or business from requiring a vaccine passport.
Read more: U.S. Universities Now Forcing Students to Take Experimental COVID Vaccines