FOCUS ARTICLES

Frances New "Anti-Vax Law" Is a Vague Law, and Can Apply To More Than Just Speaking Out Against Vaccines

Why France’s New “Anti-Vax Law” is MUCH Worse Than You Think

OffGuardian | Kit Knightly

Last week France passed a new law, “to strengthen the fight against sectarian abuses and improve the support of victims.” .

This was widely covered in the alt-media as a “law criminalizing anti-mRNA vaccine speech”, but that is not quite true and was thoroughly “fact-checked” by the usual suspects.

(In fact the original misconception was probably deliberately cultivated so it could be fact-checked, that’s the way these things usually work).

Either way, by accident or design, there was a lot of talk about what the law doesn’t say, and not nearly enough about what it does say.

The law itself makes no specific mention of any health care treatment. The truth is it has almost nothing to do with banning criticism of vaccines.

…It’s potentially more dangerous than that. It’s a vague law, and vague laws are always the worst laws.

What is a “sect”?

The law is not about healthcare, that’s only covered by a couple of the articles, the actual focus of the law is “sectarian abuse” (read in French here).

However – as noted by Robert Kogon in the Daily Sceptic – a “sect” has no formal definition in French law.

Traditionally speaking, a “sect” is group linked by religious views or practices deemed heretical or extreme by the church, and the invocation of this religious language is troubling in and of itself (although this maybe a translation issue, it’s possible the word doesn’t have those connotations in the original French).

The more informal usage of the word sect in English tends to mean a group linked by strongly held philosophical or political ideas.

Therefore it could potentially mean almost anyone or almost anything.

It’s that vagueness which makes the law dangerous.

A Facebook group or email list could be a “sect”. A protest march. A political party. The readership of a website or newsletter. Hell, a family could be.

All it takes is one judge to rule that a “sect” can be defined as, for example, “any group of two or more people sharing political, religious or philosophical ideals and somehow acting in concert”, and the precedent is created.

Then it’s a free-for-all.

The Anti-Sectarian Taskforce

Article 1 sets out the “Implementation of the policy of prevention and fight against the sectarian excesses”, including the creation of an “inter-ministerial mission […] responsible for the implementation of the policy of prevention and fight against sectarian abuses”.

Both sentences positively tingling with dystopian horror vibes.

The responsibilies and powers of this mission follow a familiar playbook and are layed out as follows:

Surveillance: “observe and analyse the phenomenon of sectarian movements whose actions are an attack on human rights and fundamental freedoms, and, constitute a threat to the public order or are contrary to laws and regulations, as well as new forms these may take”
Propaganda: “promote […] the coordination of preventive and repressive action by the public authorities against these actions”
Monitioring financial activity: “develop an exchange between public services of information on administrative practices in the field of the fight against sectarian abuses, in particular with regard to the modalities of financing”
Propaganda, again: “inform the public about the risks and, where appropriate, the dangers to which sectarian abuses expose them”

Perhaps most concerning should be a focus on “training of public officials, in particular personnel of maternal and child protection and school health services.

Alongside that is the promise to “aid to the victims of these abuses, where appropriate in partnership with associations accompanying and assisting these victims”.

If that “aid” is in fact financial compensation this is suddenly verytroubling ground, especially when combined with the fact that the mission will “receive voluntary testimonies of victims of sectarian abuses or third parties wishing to testify such facts […] subject to adequate measures of anonymization.”

“Aid” for “anonymized victims” could quite easily be “paid anonymous testimony”, couldn’t it?

To sum up, here’s one (highly cynical) interpretation of how this “new mission” could function:

Financially compensating anonymous “victims” to testify in secret, then using that testimony to justify surveilling “members of a sect” and monitoring their financial transactions.

But I’m sure that’s just me putting a bad spin on it.

Health Care

Articles 4 and 5 deal with healthcare, or “protecting health” to be precise, but there is nothing here about mRNA vaccines, not specifically.

Rather there’s an invention of two brand new (again, very vague) criminal offenses:

provocation, by means of repeated pressures or maneuvers, of any person suffering from a pathology to abandon or refrain from following therapeutic or prophylactic medical treatment, or, when this abandonment or abstention is presented as beneficial for the health of the person concerned whereas it is, in the state of medical knowledge, obviously likely to entail […] particularly serious consequences for their physical or mental health.

And:

provocation to adopt practices presented as having a therapeutic or prophylactic purpose while it is manifest, in the state of medical knowledge, that these practices expose to an immediate risk of death or injury likely to result in permanent mutilation or infirmity.

Or, in brief, in France it is now potentially illegal to:

Discourage people from taking medicines that work (according to “The Science^TM“)
Encourage people to take medicines that don’t work (again, according to “The Science^TM“)

Both of those are potentially far more wide-ranging than just mRNA vaccines.

Think chemotherapy or radiation. Think statins or SSRIs or AZT.

Think brand-new treatment X for unknown disease Y.

So, does the law specifically outlaw criticism of mRNA vaccines?

Not at all.

Could it be interpreted that way?

Yes…but it could also be interpreted a thousand other ways, and it will be as needed.

This isn’t about mRNA vaccines, it’s about stifling dissent over anything they plan to do in the future.

Did The French Government Just Outlaw Itself?

The supreme irony here is, if you take the law at its word, the people most in danger of prosecution are Emmanuel Macron, his administration, the mainstream media and big pharma.

After all, clause states that it’s a criminal offense to…

[place or maintain] a person in a state of psychological or physical subjection resulting from the direct exercise of serious pressure’ or repeated or techniques capable of impairing his judgment and having the effect of causing a serious impairment of his physical or mental health or of leading this person to an act or abstention which is seriously prejudicial to him.

Which is just about the most thorough and accurate description of the Covid propaganda you will ever see.

And, of course, the “health care” section creates another crime:

provocation to adopt practices presented as having a therapeutic or prophylactic purpose while it is manifest, in the state of medical knowledge, that these practices expose to an immediate risk of death or injury likely to result in permanent mutilation or infirmity.

…which covers the Covid “vaccines” to a T.

The French government just a wrote a law which literally criminalizes their own behavior for the last three years.

But, of course, like all these laws, the abuses that fit the word of the law ill be ignored, but language will be tortured into pretzels going after dissenters and free-thinkers.

As I said, it’s a vague law, and vague laws are always the worstlaws.

Unless you’re a cabal of psychopathic anti-humans bent on absolute global domination, then vague laws are the best laws.

Image: Source

Original Article: https://off-guardian.org/2024/02/25/why-frances-new-anti-vax-law-is-much-worse-than-you-think/