The new medical tyranny continues to gain strength all over Europe and millions protest on the streets for the fourth week in a row.
The European covid certificate – which certifies having been vaccinated, having a negative result or having overcome the disease – has gone, in just over a month, from being a useful document for travel to becoming, increasingly, a controversial demand from European governments.
More than 300 million certificates have already been issued throughout the EU and 21 countries require it to access concerts, shows, sporting events, weddings, bars or swimming pools. Each one has its own system and restrictions.
The certificate is an essential requirement to enter the cinemas of France, to visit a museum in Vienna, to take a dip in an Italian pool or to stay in any hotel in Portugal.
In Greece, restaurants have been classified into three categories that distinguish between those that only admit people with a vaccination certificate, those that also tolerate people with a negative test and those that guarantee that all employees of the establishment have been vaccinated.
The capacity of cultural venues or gyms is expanded in Romania if clients come with the vaccination certificate. And the same goes for the number of guests allowed to weddings in Croatia. In Denmark it is impossible to attend a football match with more than 2,000 spectators without providing the covid-19 safe-conduct.
In Malta visitors cannot enter the country without a document that just three months ago seemed like just a remote idea, but that we all knew was the next step in the arrival of medical tyranny.
Only a handful of countries, such as Germany and Spain, have not yet introduced any additional use for the certificate. Others have such a low vaccination rate that they do not seem in a position to even consider it, as is the case in Bulgaria.
In Spain, only Galicia has imposed it for the hotel industry and nightlife because Andalusia, Cantabria and the Canary Islands, which wanted to do so, did not receive the relevant judicial endorsement.
The imposition of the certificate has caused protest movements in countries such as France and Germany, where the population reluctant to vaccination feels compelled to accept it under pain of becoming social outcasts.
The debate seems destined to intensify even more with the leap from the certificate to the workplace after the decision of some countries to require vaccination of health workers, teachers or professionals in contact with vulnerable populations.
The European Commission, chaired by Ursula Von der Leyen, openly celebrates the success of the certificate as “a symbol of an open and secure Europe”, according to an official source from the organization. In reality, however, it is a sign of more tyranny piling up on European populations.
And it seems undeniable that in just a few weeks since its entry into force on July 1, the project devised by the European Commission to restrict mobility between the countries of the Union has become one of the documents that, as of this summer, will become as necessary as an ID card, and which many believe will morph into just that.
The system is already operational in more than 30 countries, including the Union’s 27 partners, plus Switzerland, Norway, Iceland and the Vatican. Brussels aims for the pioneering European model to become an international standard.
“We are taking steps to recognize certificates issued by other countries, although for this they must be interoperable with the EU system and allow verification of their authenticity, validity and integrity”, said this week the European Commissioner for Justice, Didier Reynders.
The certificate is now a condition to be employed and to access gyms, restaurants, clubs, supermarkets and other venues.
The implementation of the certificate, however, has triggered protests among the part of the population that considers it as a coercive measure to force vaccination or as an invasion of their private life.
The demonstrations against it have intensified, above all, in France, the country that has gone the furthest in imposing the certificate as a condition to be able to do numerous activities and that as of September will suspend employment and pay to personnel in the health, social and health sector and others professionals who refuse to be vaccinated.
The socialist MEP Juan Fernando López Aguilar, parliamentary negotiator of the regulation that established the digital certificate in record time, stresses that its exclusive objective “is to reactivate the movement of people within the EU and with third countries and in no case can it be used to other purposes”.
During the development of the regulation, the risk of causing discrimination between vaccinated and unvaccinated people was taken into account.
But López Aguilar, who chairs the parliamentary commission that processed the regulation, sees “inevitable that member states will take advantage of the certificate to adopt restrictive measures in their national legislation, as has already happened in France or Italy.”
…the certificate will introduce a mechanism for classifying and excluding people based “on delimiting which bodies are safe and which unsafe.
Alberto Alemanno, professor of European law at the HEC business school in Paris, points out that “covid-19 certificates may seem like the promise of a magic solution to recover global mobility and reopen economies, but there is a risk that they create new frontiers and new forms of inequality. Alemanno fears that the certificate will introduce a mechanism for classifying and excluding people based “on delimiting which bodies are safe and which unsafe.
Dutch liberal MEP Sophie in’t Veld, who was very involved in negotiating the regulation, believes that “without the certificate, the situation would be even worse in Europe.”
The minister regrets, however, that the additional restrictions based on the certificate “are being adopted at the national level and not at the European level, with a lack of harmonization.”
Although the covid passport does not have a legal basis, private businesses also demanding that employees vaccinate and show their papers to be able to hold their jobs. That practice is being done without any judicial control.
The covid passport is inherently discriminatory
“Many companies are already adopting their own restrictions, from not admitting unvaccinated clients to forcing their workers,” warns In’t Veld. Professor Alemanno predicts “a growing resistance, also through the courts, against the inherently discriminatory nature of the certificates”.
For the moment, however, the supporters of exploiting the certificate to the fullest have scored an important victory. The French Constitutional Council validated on Thursday most of the measures adopted by the government of Emmanuel Macron, including the mandatory vaccination for the health sector and the certificate as a requirement to access bars, restaurants or shopping centers.
Paris already plans to issue the certificate also to non-EU tourists who visit France and who can demonstrate that they have been vaccinated with any of the vaccines authorized by the European Medicines Agency, which excludes the Russian Sputnik and the Chinese, which are the majority in countries poor.
The French coercive measures should require an organic law, because they affect fundamental rights. And its application by the private sector will cause a spiral of challenges that will lead to a scenario of legal uncertainty.
In Spain, five autonomous communities have already demanded that the Government promote a law to impose compulsory vaccination on health personnel. So have the employers’ homes for the elderly.
In the US, some large companies already demand it from their employees and even fire those who resist. Several sources acknowledge that the trend will cross the Atlantic, although they warn that in many countries, this type of dismissal would in all probability be declared illegal by the judges.
Coercive measures “are counterproductive, the more people are pressured, the more resistance there will be.”
For Sophie in’t Veld, the coercion measures “are counterproductive, the more people are pressured, the more resistance there will be”. Ella in’t Veld recalls that “you can forbid people to enter certain sites but you cannot ban all sites, so it would be much better to persuade people of the need to be vaccinated.”
The parliamentarian underlines the success of the immunization campaigns undertaken since the sixties, which reached coverage of up to 95% without the need to make them mandatory.