- Mar 18, 2017
True, pumping money into an organisation doesn't make their deliberations a foregone but iam on the fence on this one.Could be, but as Rebecca Sheppard and Jane Scharf have said on their stand4thee.com zoom meetings, "mandatory" does not make it law, at least in Canada. In essences, one needs to consent with the mandate. Of course, there'll be always be contentions as that's what their zoom meeting discussions are about, but pumping money into something doesn't necessarily mean it's a foregone conclusion.
Sorry, i made a mistake. It wasn't the ICJ but the ECHR (European court of Human Rights)
VA: Six months after revealing the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) Soros scandal, you now show that the Council of Europe on which the ECHR depends...
"The influence of this network is now being illustrated in a public and debonair way. Many leaders like to show their closeness to the Soros, father and son. This is the case, for example, of Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission, or Michelle Bachelet, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights since 2018, photographed with Georges Soros and his son as soon as she took office.
What about the follow-up to your report on the influence of Soros' NGOs on the ECHR?
This report (available here) has had a huge impact in Europe and around the world; it has been taken up by several governments and many politicians. This is notably the case of Russia and Bulgaria. I have the feeling that public opinion is now informed and sensitized. This report proves that over the last ten years, 22 of the 100 permanent judges of the Court have come from seven NGOs active in the Court, and that 18 of them have sat in cases involving "their" NGO, in violation of the basic rules of judicial ethics. Among these seven NGOs, the Open Society network stands out for the number of judges linked to it (12) and for the fact that it funds the six other organizations cited in the report.
However, this report met up with the embarrassed silence of the institution. The ECHR informed the newspaper Le Monde of its decision not to respond to it. Three deputies of the Council of Europe then referred the matter to the Committee of Ministers, targeting "the systemic problem of conflicts of interest between NGOs and judges of the ECHR" (read here) and questioning it on the means to be implemented to "restoring the integrity of the European Court of Human Rights" (read here). Unsurprisingly, the 48 ambassadors seem to be struggling to agree on a response, as they have far exceeded the three-month deadline set for this procedure. They have an obligation to respond in writing, if only to express their inability to respond."
So, for some people, this monetary influence was sort of a harbinger for mandatory vaccination. Examples:
The ruling is the first time that the European Court of Human Rights has weighed in on the issue of compulsory vaccinations. The decision could play a role in efforts to end the coronavirus pandemic.
The ruling came in a case involving several Czech families whose children had been refused admission to school because they had not been fully vaccinated against a panel of diseases.