Letter To Members Of The European Parliament Asking For The Rejection Of The Green Digital Certificate
Letter To Members Of The European Parliament Asking For The Rejection Of The Green Digital Certificate
Freedom needs no pass; but the people need freedom
Dear Members of the European Parliament,
We write as the Chair of Children’s Health Defense (CHD), a non-profit based in the United States, and President of CHD-Europe. Our global advocacy organisation seeks to protect children’s health through exposing causes of ill health and bringing to justice those that are harming their health. We are deeply concerned by the unintended consequences of the COVID crisis, including how they affect children worldwide. We oppose the Parliament’s adoption of the “Green Pass” (Digital Green Certificate, introduced March 17, 2021 with proposal #COM 2021 130) without thorough, vigorous debate. While the intent of the Green Pass is to facilitate travel during the COVID-19 pandemic, we fear it will do the exact opposite: it will stifle travel and human interaction.
I write as Chairman of the Board of Children’s Health Defense Europe regarding the Green Digital Certificate Proposal, and subsequent to my highly publicised letter of 22 March 2021 on this important subject.
It is clear we are living in exceptional times, as we see the European Union hurrying to erect a new ‘universal framework’ for disease control within the Schengen Zone. It is a response to last year’s sudden cascade of Member States locking their doors to European Citizens in fear of disease.
The EU would now offer us the key: a vaccine card in the form of ‘interoperable’ digital certificates, to be known as the Green Digital Certificate. The GDC Proposal promises freedom. But when the door remains locked, and only keyholders may pass, are we free? A pass to liberty is, in its nature, a guarantee of discrimination.
In fact, on 19 April 2021 the WHO asked that any plans for making proof of vaccination a condition of entry be abandoned because of the unavoidably discriminatory consequences. A Belgian interdisciplinary group of lawyers and scientists has demonstrated in an extensive legal analysis that this proposal is a “disproportionate, inefficient and unfair obstacle to the free movement of European citizens”, in particular given the incomplete and inaccurate scientific claims it relies on for its justification. The Commission’s assertion that introducing restrictions on free movement will somehow facilitate the exercise of that same right is quite simply absurd.
Despite its inherent dangers, the Proposal for the GDC border control system lacks the usual compliment of impact assessment, cost-benefit analysis and public consultation. As an MEP you will be aware that the Better Regulation rules, recently introduced, emphasise the importance of these procedures in maintaining the balance of power in Europe.
Given that the relevant information is easily to hand, we think that the Commission when drawing up the Proposal may have made this omission in error. In response, popular initiatives have sprung up across Europe, including the Petition on Covid-19 and Fundamental Rights and Freedoms raised by 21 citizens and organisations across 17 Member States to call a Parliamentary Committee to investigate the handling of the crisis; an ad-hoc committee of scientists and lawyers from different countries and organisations to analyse the underlying science and law of the Proposal; and the group Doctors for Covid Ethics, which have warned the Europeans Medicines Agency and the EU parliament of serious risks associated win Covid-19 vaccines in personal letters and open correspondence. In view of the mounting feeling of the European citizenry, it is our duty to ensure that Parliamentarians have what they require for a thorough and open debate.
So out of respect for Parliamentary sovereignty and in the hope of sparking a lively and constructive debate, we would like you to consider the below grounds. If you find our argument convincing, at the Plenary Session you might consider voting in favour of the amendment proposed by Mr Rob Rooken MEP for the complete rejection of this unpopular Proposal.
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
Chairman of the Board of Children’s Health Defense Europe
President, Children’s Health Defense Europe
The Science is wrong
Covid-19 vaccines do not stop the virus spreading
According to the European Medicines Agency and World Health Organisation, there is no proof that vaccination will stop transmission of Covid-19.
Covid-19 vaccines are dangerous
No vaccine for Covid-19 has been fully tested. They remain ‘candidate’ vaccines. We already know they kill people but we don’t know how many. Member States have begun suspending and even outlawing vaccines as their deadliness becomes clear.
Testing does not prove infection
The evidence is and has been that PCR testing, far from being a gold standard, was not designed for diagnosis of diseases such as Covid-19. It was tried for this purpose anyway, and predictably found wanting. This has lead to false diagnosis on a huge scale. The Courts are gradually ruling against its use.
The Proposal is illegal
The Proposal ends freedom of movement
Although not explicitly stated in the Proposal, border guards must inspect travellers and their certificates, including those who are not sick. In the absence of such checks, the certificates would have no useful effect, and the ‘universal framework’ would not exist.
The Proposal robs Europeans of health sovereignty
Although Article 168(7) TFEU prevents the EU from taking responsibility away from the Member States ‘for the definition of their health policy and for the organization and delivery of health services and medical care,’ Articles 5(1), 6(1) and 7(1) of the Proposal de facto harmonize an aspect of health policy; namely the certification of vaccination, testing and recovery. Consequently European citizens will require certain medical interventions or face discrimination in the form of individual travel bans or even prevention, according to French Commissioner Thierry Breton, from leaving their private dwelling.
The Proposal robs Europeans of their privacy
Even in the event that Citizens are able to travel without vaccination or undergoing tests, they will still be required to reveal health information to IT companies, the State, border guards and perhaps other citizens in order to go about their daily business. This is an unprecedented invasion of our privacy and one which is impossible to oversee. Thus discrimination awaits those Citizens who still consider this information private.
The Proposal is permanent; not temporary
The European Commission will be able to impose the GDC controls on Europeans for an indeterminate period of time in consultation with unknown experts. Thus the Member States will cede responsibility for control of their borders under the proposed ‘harmonizing framework’ definitively.
The Proposal gives the WHO too much power
This control is ceded by the Member States not to the EU Institutions which they incorporate, but to the Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO). If the WHO declares an international emergency because of any infectious disease with epidemic potential, the European Commission will automatically reimpose the Certificate, until the WHO dictates otherwise, with the Member States having no say.
The WHO can declare such an emergency even if there are no deaths because on 4 May 2009 the WHO redefined a viral pandemic as causing ‘cases’, removing any reference to ‘deaths’. Without any need to prove that a disease can kill people, the WHO may, which will be to its infinite profit, condemn us to a global health alert in perpetuity.
Mr Paul Flynn, a member of the Social Health and Family Affairs Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, draws attention to this anomoly in his report, ‘The handling of the H1N1 pandemic: more transparency needed’, 7 June 2010.
Thus the Proposal is uncertain, disproportionate and discriminatory
The GDC Proposal is uncertain and rich with contradiction. It states that it ‘cannot be interpreted as establishing an obligation or right to be vaccinated’, while promoting this practice, leading to discrimination against unvaccinated. The Proponent seeks to defer criticism through euphamistic language: a vaccine card which is a ‘Digital Green Certificate’; a new system of EU border controls which are a ‘universal framework’; non-discrimination between vaccinated and non-vaccinated, but nothing said of discrimination between tested and non-tested, or immune and non-immune.
The Proposal even encourages mandatory medical interventions for those who ‘are not part of the target group for which the vaccine is currently recommended, such as children, or because they have not yet had the opportunity or do not wish to be vaccinated.’
These are not interferences in the Fundamental Rights of citizens; they are attacks. They would be disproportionate per se, without regard to the poor underlying science.
The Proposal is not the way
The Proposal destroys democray
The Proposal demolishes a central pillar for the EU, ‘one of its most cherished achievements’ to quote the Proposal, and perhaps the principle reason for the Union’s survival: freedom of movement for Europeans. The Member States will hand their sovereignty in matters of their peoples’ health to an unelected international organisation; an organisationthat that has lead a campaign of fear and has shown more interest in the sale of medical products than in the promotion of health; an organistation that does not care about the rule of law or the damage done by its discriminatory policies.
The Proposal will lead to war
The Proposal will lead to discrimination between peoples on health grounds, a distinction so often falling along lines of religious and racial divide, and on a unimaginable scale—one which outstrips divides of the past. Thus it represents a global Great Apartheid. When combined with the reerection of borders, tensions will rise within Europe and without.
But there is hope
If we can but reject the ‘universal framework’ and instead embrace a democratic attitude of personal responsibility for health, we can prevent the final erosion of European political integrity. Rather than end it, we can bring new life to our historic shared project.
Suggest a correction