Spanish Supreme Court rejects use of COVID passports for entry to indoor venues
The Supreme Court of Andalucia in Spain has rejected the government’s request to use COVID passports to control entry to some indoor venues such as bars, restaurants, and nightclubs. This August 18, 2021 report from EuroWeekly covers this development.
According to the Andalucia Supreme Court, the proposed measure is “not sufficiently justified”. For the measure to be justified, the government in Andalucia would need to prove that the so-called fifth wave originates in the target venues. The second reason for rejection is that the measure does not pass the proportionality test. The intention of the government was to use the COVID passport for the whole of Andalucia, which meant that the coronavirus situation in each territory will not be considered.
The Supreme Court has these final words in the ruling “the court argues that it is not possible to restrict the fundamental rights of citizens with a preventive measure such as the ‘covid passport’…It is not a measure that is punctually indispensable to safeguard public health…but rather a preventive measure when it happens that, for the restriction of fundamental rights, mere considerations of prudence of precaution are not sufficient”.
The government ruling on COVID passports has previously been thumbed down by the Superior Court of Justice of Andalucia. With this development, anyone in Andalucia does not need to show proof of vaccination or a negative PCR test to enter indoor venues.
The Spanish courts have refused to allow the use of covid passports for four autonomous communities, Andalucia, the Canary Islands, Cantabria, and Galicia.https://www.elmundo.es/andalucia/2021/08/18/611d69e9e4d4d8cd2a8b45a5.html
Editor’s Note: This ruling is important because it can serve as a precedent for countries and communities that wish to use vaccine passports to control entry to indoor venues. All coronavirus policies, the majority of which impede our constitutional rights, must pass through the same stringent requirements before they are allowed to be implemented.
If a certain pandemic policy cannot show the scientific basis for its capacity to stop infections and prevent deaths, then it should not be allowed to be used nationwide. Moreover, pandemic policies should always consider local situations and one-size-fits-all solutions should be banned by our courts [also read One-size-fits-all strategy cannot work for the coronavirus].
Years of development work has shown that such universal solutions cause more problems than it solves. In the context of COVID, we are now seeing the same harmful effects of implementing solutions without considering the unique conditions of certain areas [just check out one of the many articles we have under the category Societal Impact].
No science has proven yet just how large the impacts are of sweeping lockdowns, school closures, universal masking, physical distancing, and vaccines to pandemic control. On the other hand, there is numerous evidence now pointing to the fact that none of these solutions work [see Stanford’s Dr. John Ioannidis destroys the Covid lockdown narrative, Danish mask study now published: Masks do not reduce SARS-CoV-2 infection, New MIT study challenges scientific basis for social distancing policies, World’s most vaccinated nation activates new lockdowns as cases rise, Sweden was right: No need for lockdowns, universal masking, Finland study shows vaccines, universal masking, useless against Delta variant].
Read Original Article
Click the button below if you wish to read the article on the website where it was originally published.
Click the button below if you wish to read the article offline.