This afternoon was discussed at the Luxembourg Palace the bill of the socialist group which wanted to establish compulsory vaccination against covid-19 for all. It was widely rejected by the upper house of Parliament: 262 votes against and 64 votes in favor.

Examined on first reading, the text – which already had lead in the wings after being rejected during its examination in committee – wished to add this vaccination obligation to those existing (diphtheria, tetanus …). Patrick Kanner, president of the Socialist Group, called for a measure of “clarity” and “transparency”, aimed at “collective immunity” – remember that the latter is now considered a mirage by scientists and health authorities, the WHO itself having expressed skepticism about the ability to achieve it. Bernard Jomier, rapporteur, highlighted the limits of the health pass, the possible extension of which was decided earlier in the day during the Council of Ministers.

The government did not follow the socialist group, which therefore found itself quite alone. The Minister, like most speakers, defended incitement, rather than obligation, citing practical, legal or ethical reasons.

The debates were sometimes tense: the senator (LR) of Haute-Savoie Sylviane Noël aroused strong criticism for having defended that “to make compulsory the administration of genetic vaccines whose experimental phase is still in progress, is thus politically imprudent and morally reprehensible. It is even legally impossible in the current state of the regulations for perfectly founded reasons linked to the preservation of public health and the free consent of everyone. ” These remarks triggered the anger of Secretary of State Adrien Taquet, Senator Bernard Jomier, but also his colleagues LR Alain Milon or René-Paul Savary, outraged.

Senators have therefore chosen wisdom and not the path of general obligation. But two days before the end of reimbursement for tests, except for medical prescription or up-to-date vaccination status, the health pass is likely to be extended, and the senators who are opposed to it have not failed to stress that preventing its extension remained the battle to be waged:

We will note a remarked intervention by Laurence Muller-Bronn, senator from Bas-Rhin (related to LR), who explained her “no” to this bill from the podium:

She lamented that “those who dare to doubt, reflect, make another choice [que celui de la vaccination obligatoire généralisée] would be obscure conspirators. “Stressing that one finds among them very serious institutions: Academy of Medicine against a generalized third dose, Alain Fischer (Mr. Vaccine) against compulsory vaccination,” the context does not justify it “, or even the Council of Europe Recalling the decisions of the Nordic countries on the administration of the Moderna vaccine, the inclusion of the precautionary principle in the Constitution, the conditional nature of the authorization to market vaccines. many elements alerting to the insufficiency of evidence on the efficacy and harmlessness of the vaccine, the effect on transmission, the effects on young people, pregnant women, as well as on “the psychological damage of health injunctions.” there is “no scientific consensus on mass vaccination”, she continues. Rehabilitating natural immunity, giving doctors back the right to treat … are some of the recommendations she recommends. order. “What legitimacy would we have to establish in an authoritarian way a compulsory vaccination and a third dose”, while specialists “doubt”? “We need an adversarial debate,” she concludes, “to feed it with fair, transparent and independent information”. “We are not the registration chamber of the Scientific Council,” she blurted out. “It is our duty, as elected representatives of the Republic, representing the French, all French, to restore common law and public freedoms, because their confidence is at stake.” Make a rational assessment, by “leaving the all-vaccine doctrine”, “rather than governing by fear and control”.

Five minutes of a speech of good sense which one believed disappeared or almost in the parliamentary precinct, but which was heard this time.

By admin

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *