Vaccine Passports Around the World: Is It a Violation of Rights?

Rory Sullivan, Staff Writer

October 1, 2021

Every once in a while, a divisive issue comes along and takes over public discourse. Some major issues that have been deeply debated include banning hate speech, gun control and the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and, most recently, the new Texas law which severely restricts access to abortion, and many focus around the topic of rights. Over the past couple of months, the debate concerning potential vaccine passports as a solution to travel and mobility in the time of COVID-19 has consumed public discourse. Some see vaccine passports as a necessary step to getting back to normal, at least for those who have been vaccinated, as well as an incentive for vaccination. Others see this as an invasion of their privacy and are frustrated at being ostracized from certain events and activities due to their vaccination status. But this isn’t the first time some sort of vaccination record has been required for people to have access to certain things; for example, immunization records have been required for attendance at schools for decades (barring any legitimate exceptions). Whether it be the MMR vaccine, Hep B, HPV, polio, or any number of the many other vaccines that are mandatory for travel, school, or other cases, proof of vaccination is not a new concept. So, why is COVID-19 different? 

There are a couple of different perspectives when it comes to the argument against vaccine passports. On one hand, there is the issue of equity. Prior to the pandemic, the world had become a smaller place with the help of digital connectivity and international travel, but with the restrictions over the past year and a half, globalization has slowed. By enforcing vaccine passports, the division between countries based on wealth and access to vaccines could worsen, along with international relations as a whole. While the U.S., EU, and Canada may be struggling to fill vaccine appointments, there are many in middle to low-income countries who do not have that privilege. According to Our World in Data, only 1.9% of the population in low-income countries have received one dose, despite pledges of donations from high-income nations. This argument demonstrate how first-world solutions to a global problem can create another division between the rich and the poor. 

The other main argument against vaccine passports is one involving constitutional rights, and is more hotly debated than the former. Those who view the debate on vaccine passports as a constitutional issue see this as a violation of their liberty, or a way to force them to receive the vaccination. In Canada, it is often claimed that vaccine passports are in violation of the section 7 Charter right to "life, liberty, and security". In the U.S., governors in Florida and Texas have banned the use of vaccine passports through executive orders. In the UK, there was a parliamentary petition against vaccine passports, stating they “could be used to restrict the rights of people who have refused a Covid-19 vaccine, which would be unacceptable”. In France, 200,000 people protested the “pass sanitaire”, arguing that it violates France’s oldest values, “liberté” and “égalité”. These are just a few examples of how the “violation of rights” argument is taking place. But how will these vaccine passports differ across the globe?

Some countries, like China and Israel, have established a color-coded system through a QR code in which green indicates the ability to move around without restrictions, and yellow means they may be required to stay home. The EU certificate, which was mentioned earlier, can be downloaded digitally or printed out, free of cost, which allows the passport holder to be exempt from quarantining and testing. Other countries, such as the UK and the US, are using vaccine apps to show proof of vaccination, but in the US this is not being used country-wide given the deep divide over the legality and necessity of the vaccine passport. Most of these vaccine passports apply to those who are vaccinated, have a negative COVID-19 test, or have recently recovered from COVID-19. The implementation of vaccine passports varies by province in Canada, with some, like BC, implementing paper versions, others, like Manitoba, are leaning toward using a QR code. Other provinces, like New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, do not currently have plans for a vaccine passport. Canada is also planning on enacting a federal vaccine passport in the Fall, but that will only be for international travel, not for use within the country. 

As was mentioned previously, a “vaccine passport” is not so different from an immunization record, so why has a COVID-19 vaccine passport received so much controversy and backlash? A lot of it has to do with misunderstanding what a vaccine passport actually is. It is not mandating or forcing anyone to get a vaccine; as is stated by legal expert David Fraser, the “vaccine passport” is simply saying what you cannot do if you are not fully vaccinated, which are non-essential services like going to the movies or a restaurant. While constitutional issues could arise if a province were to not allow exemptions based on religion or medical reasons, which is the case with Manitoba and BC, there is still little precedent for situations as drastic as COVID-19, and the provinces argue that this only applies to “discretionary” events. Another reason why the “vaccine passport” has garnered more widespread criticism could be because of the name itself. By referring to COVID-19 immunization records as “passports”, images of restrictions and control are planted, while referring to them as “certificates”, “records”, or “cards” leads to less harmful imagery. Additionally, calling them “vaccine passports'' leads to the assumption that this is a new creation, when in reality it is just another name for immunization records, something that has been around for decades. By not being careful about how we refer to COVID-19 vaccination proof, it can lead to miscommunication and the “weaponizing” of the message to get the vaccine. 

We have seen how much misinformation has spread around during the pandemic, and the misconceptions of vaccine passports is just adding fuel to the fire. Though these “passports” are taking various forms around the world, it is important to recognize that they do not force anyone to get a vaccine, nor are they forcing the unvaccinated to isolate themselves. In actuality, many of these certifications do not require the population to be vaccinated; as was previously mentioned, certification can be received if there is a negative COVID-19 test or if there has been a recent recovery from the virus. If there is an issue with constitutionality or a violation of rights, it has to do with the potential lack of exemptions, not the concept of passports themselves. Restricting certain people from activities is not a new concept. People under a certain age cannot drink alcohol or consent to sex, if you had a certain amount of alcohol to drink, you cannot drive, if your child has not received certain vaccinations and does not have an exemption, they cannot go to school. The government has not taken away your choice to decline the vaccine; it has just limited the number of activities you can attend and places you can go. But wording is important too, by not being careful in how we portray COVID-19 vaccination proof, we can further alienate the unvaccinated and perpetuate the fear and hesitancy surrounding the vaccine. COVID-19 may be a new challenge, but the solution of proof of vaccination is not.