Antigua and OECS leaders told constitutions support mandatory vaccination laws

19

Leaders of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) have been told that there is “ample provision” in their constitutions to support mandatory vaccination laws as the sub-region continues the battle to curb the spread of COVID-19 that has infected hundreds of their citizens and killed a significant number of others since March last year.

In addition, the governments of Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, St Kitts-Nevis and Montserrat, have been informed that there are corresponding jurisprudence and medical data to support the position of mandatory vaccination.

The position to the OECS governments has been outlined in a 16-page confidential brief, titled “The Legal Dimensions of Mandatory/Compulsory Requirements for COVID-10 Vaccinations, August 2021” undertaken by two prominent Caribbean-born internationally respected jurists.

The issue of mandatory vaccination has surfaced not only in the OECS countries but also in the wider Caribbean Community (Caricom) grouping where governments have been urging their nationals to be vaccinated as part of the efforts to curb the spread of the virus that has led to closure of borders, a crippling of economies and stringent policies such as curfews and states of emergencies (SOE).

The document submitted to the OECS leaders, a copy of which has been obtained by the Caribbean Media Corporation (CMC), notes that the sub-regional countries would be on firm legal grounds in pursuing mandatory vaccination laws even in the face of counter-arguments alleging violations of rights.

“Having demonstrated …that mandatory vaccination is constitutionally appropriate given the leeway granted in favour of public health imperatives, it is submitted that employers could justify a requirement in a pandemic context, at minimum where the workplace is a high-risk environment, such as health-care, or essential services, or for workers more at risk at the workplace, such as frontline workers interacting with the public.

“It is unlikely that employers would be held to a higher standard than a constitutional standard. This is reasonable both to protect other employees, the interacting public and even the employee himself or herself,” according to the document.

It notes that increasingly, the enduring state of the pandemic and the science is pointing to even more liberal rationales for compelling vaccines at the workplace.

“Ultimately, all actions toward compulsory vaccination must be grounded in a firm belief that they are being done in the interest and sustainability of the economy and enterprise, in the public interest, the interests of ALL workers and as a last resort, necessity. Those core principles will be what justifies actions as being reasonable and proportionate as required, and what will ultimately persuade a court.”

The two prominent jurists also argue that medical ethics support mandatory vaccination, noting that the legal position mirrors the position emanating from medical ethics, as enshrined in the Nuffield Report, which is relied upon by the World Medical Health Organisation (WHO) that “Mandatory vaccination “can be ethically justified if the threat to public health is grave, the confidence in safety and effectiveness is high, the expected utility of mandatory vaccination is greater than the alternatives, and the penalties or costs for noncompliance are proportionate…”

The authors of the report say their paper is intended to provide legal support for the policy direction of OECS governments and that by choice “it avoids excessive legal jargon and a preponderance of case-law, as one would generally find in a legal brief, although the principles and positions outlined are informed by comprehensive research.

“Rather, the paper attempts to provide a clear and concise narrative upon which decisions may be based,” they said, adding that “it is emphasised that mandatory COVID-19 vaccination, like so many other subject-areas emerging because of the pandemic, brings forth some grey areas for law, especially Labour Law”

The report notes that the issue is, of course, untested in the region despite the fact that some employers and to some extent, universities, like the University of the West Indies (UWI) have already begun mandating vaccination as a policy.

The question of who pays for quarantine leave, for example is a brand new labour law issue, the authors wrote, adding “we can extrapolate from existing jurisprudence in analogous situations – HIV pandemic etc – but in some instances we will have to wait and see what the courts decide if challenged.”.

But they agree, notwithstanding and perhaps ironically, considering the wide debates, the vaccine issue is one of the clearer legal issues, in terms of existing legal norms.

CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHATSAPP GROUP

19 COMMENTS

  1. This is dangerous. A vaccine mandate at the national level will take away an individual’s choice of not just whether coronavirus vaccination is worth the personal risk to their health and longevity. It will also remove a person’s right to pick which vaccine enters his or her body and that of their children…You must then take what’s made available without question. You can’t switch vaccines down the road.. even when you need to get a booster. And you will be forced to take the booster. And you can easily end up being forced to vaccinate with a vaccine that limits your ability to travel. Your kids could end up on a different vaccine from you, creating more travel nightmares.

    • A vaccine which limits your travel? Hasn’t happened, wont happen.

      Choosing not to get vaccinated affects other people when they can’t get treatment because the hospital is full of conspiracy theorists on ventilators

      • LOL…try getting into the EU with a Russian or Chinese Covid-19 vaccine. There are travelers who got AstraZenica vaccine and were barred from entering the EU because the EU wasn’t recognizing AstraZenica vaccine manufactured in India…just the ones made in Europe. So much for “won’t happen”.

        It’s just a matter of time before you won’t be able to travel without having taken a booster shot. And what do you think will happen to your travel plans if that booster is not available in your home country? It’s not like you can go buy it on Amazon.

        Vaccinated folks are so smug, it’s amazing. You don’t even realize that everyone who is currently vaccinated will be as vulnerable as an unvaccinated person inside of a year or that any number of variants (including animal-human hybrid coronaviruses) can pop up at any moment and put every vaccinated person in hospital. Next year will be the year of the vexed vaxxers on ventilators because this is all going to catch you by surprise. Seriously, would you have been so eager to get one of these vaccines if you knew that coronaviruses, like the dengue virus and several other RNA viruses, are actually capable of using antibodies to enter and infect immune cells? Not everyone resisting the use of these vaccines on themselves is a ‘conspiracy theorist’. Some of us simply know a whole lot more about the risks that the governing bodies of the health care systems have decided to keep from you than you can ever hope to learn by reading the news.

  2. This article makes no sense..how is one legal opinion going to simultaneously address 8 or nine different constitutions?…They keep trying to intimidate ppl. It is clear…the majority do not want their vaccines.

    • And you as a layman have the legal knowledge and qualifications to question legal opinions from prominent legal jurists? I guess you are a legal expert as well as a viral/vaccine expert who has the knowledge and experience in both of these matters to determine that the vaccines are no good. Fool.

  3. Only one important thing missing from this article the ( NAMES) of these so called prominent Caribbean -born ( internationally) respected jurists we need to know who they are.

    • ANY article that uses phrases such as this one did (The two prominent jurists or the author said) is not worth reading, let alone be taken seriously. Anonymous sources have commonly been used by the lying leftist ‘journalists’ to hype this plandemic from the start. Most of them have had later to be retracted for being untrue.

      So let us have some transparency here and reveal exactly who said these things – we want to know the NAMES of these legal experts!

  4. So y’all tryna go against the Nuremberg code and the iccpr treaty that was signed? Did y’all think before trying this? We want to know the names of those who was involved in This

  5. are the caribbean island human rights different from those in the larger countries. or maybe we are third world we get test subject treatment

  6. Mandatory food, Mandatory clothes, Mandatory homes,Mandatory Money let’s make these mandatory also . Don’t just show the love in regards to vaccination

  7. * love that is only shown in vaccination, it is false, other issues of life that affect the people, where was the love?

  8. Regardless of what the law says, a true democracy could never consist of one half of the population forcing something on the other half. It doesn’t matter if a slim majority exists on one side or the other. It is obvious that 1/2 the adult population disagrees with mandatory vaccination whereas the other 1/2 either agrees or unwillingly complies because of fear of social consequences imposed by the provax crowd. In a situation like this, respectful dialogue to find a compromise as to the best path forward is the only humane thing to do. We should not lose our humanity while trying to supposedly save lives. Otherwise we might prolong a few lives but would we really want to live in the oppressive dictatorial world that would result from a decision like this? Allowing the state to force people to inject substances into themselves is a slippery slope that can slide us right into complete dictatorship.

  9. A large team of more than 1,000 lawyers and over 10,000 medical experts, led by Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, has initiated legal proceedings against the CDC, WHO and the Davos Group for crimes against humanity.

    Fuellmich and his team present the incorrect PCR test and the order for doctors to describe any comorbidity death as a Covid death – as fraud.

    Be a Part of a Broader Suit:

    All information shared below is confidential to America’s Frontline Doctors. Your information will never be shared or sold. If your information meets the criteria for an upcoming case, we will contact you for additional information. There is no cost to you to participate in our broad litigation. If you decide to proceed with the case, you cannot do so anonymously, as your name will appear (with others) in the court proceedings. Thank you for being willing to take a stand for your health and our freedom!

    https://americasfrontlinedoctors.org/forms/plaintiff/

  10. No one has the right to dictate anyone to take a foreign chemical into their body.

    No One and that includes world dictator traitor tyrant liar bully (HT) Gaston Browne and the rest of his cesspool gang. The All Bullsheet Lying Politicians (ABLP) are enjoying this Draconian rule but it won’t last forever. The people will do what needs to be done.

Comments are closed.