[ad_1]
The Covid vaccine can become a passport for access to a foreign country, to the show hall or even to the restaurant. Is it discrimination or not? Csaba Asztalos responded to the morning ProTV News.
At the European level, the idea was put on the table by the president of the European Commission.
Ursula Von der Leyen spoke out in favor of a vaccination passport to guarantee free movement within the community bloc.
However, the facilities offered to the vaccinated raise the issue of discrimination between those immunized and those who refuse to be vaccinated, especially since, officially, vaccination is not mandatory. The president of the National Council for the Fight against Discrimination, Csaba Asztalos, explains whether imposing restrictions on vaccination is discrimination.
-Is it discrimination or not?
– Imposing the condition in itself does not mean discrimination. And until the pandemic, according to the Directive on Free Movement in the European Union, public health is a reason for restriction in a member state. The Member State decides on the restriction if it considers that it should protect public health, but ensuring that certain decisions, that is, be transparent in their decision, proportionate and non-discriminatory, that is, apply them uniformly to all.
-What are the chances that this electronic passport will become mandatory, especially since in the EU each country already imposes various travel restrictions such as quarantine or mandatory tests for COVID-19?
-We and last year, if we wanted to travel, we had to present proof, some had to be in quarantine, and these conditions still exist. I do not know if it will be called a vaccination passport, it will be a unique card at the EU level or it will be a certificate, but legally there is this possibility of imposing this requirement without being discriminatory.
-Could you ask for a card of this type, passport, at work and when you are looking for a job that is a condition?
-It is difficult to say how this requirement will evolve, but when we show up for work and at this time we have to present a health certificate, so at work we have to ensure the health and integrity of people, so who has a contagious disease that cannot function, so this was true until COVID-19 appeared, of course this condition has some specific effects given the contagion. But I think that at this moment we have to focus more on informing the population about the importance of vaccination, which is something safe, to repeat, not to stigmatize those who have grip and do not want to be vaccinated at this time but to try to convince them, providing objective arguments and adequate, and evolve in this process.
We have to evaluate on a case-by-case basis, that’s why we didn’t give them a very clear answer, we can’t generalize. Yes, there may be acts of discrimination when a service or right is denied because a person has not been vaccinated, but we must see the circumstances of the particular case, as well as how I can justify a denial or restriction, in terms of public health, because I want protect life. They do not contradict the privacy of a person in the face of mandatory vaccination, no. We must understand that if at a certain moment we do not get an immunization in a community, a proportion of the population is vaccinated in vain, because we could not reach our goal, then in some way it is a team game.
-And in Romania there have already been several voices from HORECA in particular, who support the introduction of said vaccination certificate or an application to control access to restaurants, for example. Are we talking about discrimination or not?
-Such a solution may be justified, but at the moment I personally have reservations and we are not at the time to discuss such measures, because we are at the beginning of the vaccination stage. If a certain period of time passes in which people have the opportunity to choose and benefit from the vaccine and we see what the percentage of vaccination is, then we can open this discussion.
