Will conscientious objection be the last resort? Gregor Puppinck works with the ECLJ (European Center for Freedom and Justice), which intervenes in particular with the Council of Europe, the ECHR, the United Nations, and returns for a “debriefing”. We received it last year to discuss the independence of the ECHR (see: “The ECHR is not as independent as people think”).
Freedom of conscience is one of the specialties of his NGO: Gregor Puppinck has been working on these subjects for a long time and has signed “Conscientious objection and human rights”, Pierre Tequi editor, in 2020. He gives us his legal analysis of conscientious objection, a concept at the crossroads of morality and law, which is sometimes difficult to define. How to define it? What is its field of application? How was its legal existence forged?
While it might be invoked to resist compulsory vaccination, disguised or not, what would be the obstacles? Can we expect international courts to invalidate what in France, administrative justice, the Council of State and the Constitutional Council have endorsed?
“We must set a limit to the power of the state”, recalls Gregor Puppinck, otherwise, “tomorrow, we will give in to other medical practices”. Explaining that the superiority of law over conscience is the hallmark of totalitarian regimes, he sounds the alarm regarding the growing interference of the state in family life.
A debriefing offered in partnership with BonSens.org
See also: The status of conscientious objector, a Franco-American analysis – Me Snyder and Me Berne
