Like in the children’s game Chinese Whispers, in which a sentence whispered by one player into the ear of another can become something totally different by the time it has gone around the table, so it is on X, in which an initial report can become something significantly different, and usually far more sensational, in its viral form. And this is even more typically the case when the initial report originates in a foreign language. Thus it is that by the time these words are published many millions of X users will already ‘know’ that a law has been passed in France criminalising opposition to mRNA injections.
But that did not happen, even if what did happen is troubling enough and could indeed have consequences both for freedom of expression and specifically medical dissent. Here are the relevant facts.
The legislation in question has prima facie nothing whatsoever to do with mRNA drugs, but is devoted rather to the fight against so-called “sects” or “sectarian tendencies”. It should be noted, however, that there appears to be no definition in French law of what constitutes a sect and indeed the legislative text does not even refer to religion. Hence, the application of the term “sect” could readily be extended to non-religious contexts, and this is precisely what occurs in the relevant passages of the law, where it is extended to medical contexts. Even if just limited to religious ones, incidentally, it is hard to see how an officially-promulgated ‘fight’ against sects or “sectarian tendencies” is compatible with freedom of conscience.
But, be that is it may, the controversy does not concern the law as such, which enjoys broad support in the French Parliament, but rather a single article, Article 4, which has been included in it. Article 4 introduces a new crime into the French penal code: incitation to abandon or refrain from medical treatment or to adopt a would-be treatment, if, “in the current state of medical knowledge”, doing so “clearly” may cause harm to the person or persons in question. This crime is made punishable by one year in prison and a fine of €30,000 (£26,000) or, if the “incitation” has effect, i.e. the medical advice is followed, three years in prison and a fine of €45,000 (£39,000).
Since the article refers to both therapeutic and “prophylactic” treatments, it would appear plausible that it could be used to criminalise opposition to vaccines, and this may well have been the original intention. However – somewhat contradictorily, it must be said – the relevant paragraph in the form passed by the French National Assembly clearly limits the application of the law to persons who are already ill or, per the language of the text, “suffering from a medical condition” (atteint d’une pathologie).
Hence, it is hard to see how any judge could interpret such provisions as applying to vaccines, whether mRNA-based or otherwise.
The full-text of the law as passed by French National Assembly is available here. Here are the relevant passages of Article 4 (the translation is mine).
Inciting any person suffering from a medical condition, by way of repeated pressure or manoeuvres, to abandon or refrain from undergoing therapeutic or prophylactic medical treatment is punishable by one year’s imprisonment and a fine of €30,000, when this abandonment or abstention is presented as beneficial to the health of the person concerned whereas, in the current state of medical knowledge, it may clearly lead to particularly serious consequences for his or her physical or mental health given the condition from which the person suffers.
The same penalties apply to incitement to adopt practices presented as having a therapeutic or prophylactic purpose whereas it is clear, in the current state of medical knowledge, that these practices expose [the person] to an immediate risk of death or of injuries of a sort which will result in permanent mutilation or disability.
When the incitation described in the first two paragraphs has had effects [i.e. the advice has been followed – RK], the penalties are increased to three years’ imprisonment and a fine of €45,000.
When the incitation is accompanied by clear and comprehensive information about the consequences for [the person’s] health and the conditions under which the incitation took place do not call into question the person’s free and informed consent, the offences defined in this article may not have occurred.
It should be noted too that the legislation has now to be sent back to the upper house of the French Parliament, the French Senate — which rejected Article 4 in its original form – and passed by the Senate before it becomes law.
As Mark Twain famously said, a lie has gone half-way around the world before the truth gets its trousers on – and X was not even available at the time! In this case, of course, it was undoubtedly more likely a mistake or misunderstanding than a deliberate falsehood. But the consequences are the same.
Robert Kogon is the pen name of a widely-published journalist covering European affairs. Subscribe to his Substack and find him on Bluesky.
Stop Press: Eugyppius basically agreed with Robert: the new French law is bad, but not quite as bad as its critics have been claiming.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
With respect to the author, I think the headline is misleading. Article 4 effectively criminalises the expression of any medically related opinion that the state does not like, which I am sure is the intention.
As for the law overall enjoying broad support in Parliament – of course it does. Any tool which allows politicians to control what people are allowed to say is going to enjoy broad support among, er, politicians. It may even enjoy broad support in the country at large, as very few people believe in freedom of speech any more (if they ever did) – something that sadly applies to some people who write ATL and comment BTL here.
How many times during the Rona fascism did we hear about our ‘thriving democracy’ and if you didn’t wear a diaper or weren’t sufficiently quacked-up, you were a ‘threat’? Now everything outside the narrative is a threat to that ‘thriving democracy’ and ‘our values’.
So no one in France voted for this, they were never asked about it, it is just passed.
Thriving democracy. Vibrant participation.
Blah blah blah.
Next they will probably pass a law to shoot the unstabbed, or gas them.
Statism and its power brokers. That is what we have. They do whatever the hell they want to do.
So presumably this law will or could also be used against homeopathy?
Perhaps the author has forgotten that during covid, a positive covid test result was considered proof of illness.
Just a reminder, millions of people who tested “positive” were perfectly fine.
The definition of being ill was one of the many things that was radically transformed during the covid terror.
It’s not longer what a doctor decides, or God forbid the patient, but rather what the state and its bureaucracy decrees.
Didn’t even need a “COVID test” – negative or positive.
Simply the act of breathing in AND out was deemed a deadly threat.
“Act like you have it!”
“If you go out, you will kill!”
“Asymptomatic transmission!”
“Will you look [your very sick grandad at Death’s door] in the eye and tell him it’s just a cold?!”
“Asymptomatic transmission!”
Yes that fraud. So everyone is ill. That is what the ‘next law’ or the refinement of this junk law will state.
Everyone is partially ill because the scariant is just waiting in your cells, playing cards, watching videos, biding its time, until the hottest day evah forces it to act and make you ill.
The assertion that the law only applies to those “already ill” is partially reassuring. However, taking the assumption that the “refusal of medical treatment” specifically refers to a doctor refusing to prescribe a treatment (rather than a patient refusing to receive it) then what happens if a patient refuses treatment that a doctor recommends (a fundamental right afforded to all as per the rules of informed consent – as well as the right to bodily autonomy)?
This author is far too optimistic. Where has he been for the last 4 years that he did not see the abuse of laws and power. Laws seemed to be interpreted to whatever those in power deemed them to be. The judicial system was absolutely useless and politicized. Thank goodness we have “X” where an open debate can be held and many opinions expressed. This author’s opinion is far too kindly and naive, IMHO.
I share comments below that the title here is somewhat naive / misleading. Article 4 as reported here could for example include advising against a booster vaccine for someone already ill with an adverse reaction such as myocarditis. It could also affect an oncologist advising against covid vaccines for patients with immune compromise.
It certainly looks set to affect homeopathy and naturopathic medicine both of which are becoming increasingly popular in the current medical climate.
“when this abandonment or abstention is presented as beneficial to the health of the person concerned”
So if the abandonment or abstention is presented as having no effect, it is OK?
“in the current state of medical knowledge”
So this state of knowledge is fixed and can never be amended by recommendation to abandon a medical intervention?
“When the incitation described in the first two paragraphs has had effects [i.e. the advice has been followed – RK], the penalties are increased to three years’ imprisonment and a fine of €45,000.”
And what if the result has been to save a life?
If this monstrous legislation is implemented, I suggest campaigning with the attached.
“…il est nécessaire de renforcer notre arsenal pénal pour permettre la poursuite des individus les plus dangereux”
Lovely choice of language: “arsenal”…”poursuite”…”individus”… As a friend said to me just now, I can just hear Goebbels screeching this sort of stuff.
Got to wonder why on earth there are not more comments following this article. Seem mighty strange. Eleven comments, including my weak contributions? Telling me that not more than 10 people are concerned about something so worrying? The French government is manoeuvring in order to be in a position to lock the population up. Simple as. What’s going on Toby – where are all the other comments?