Can the French be forced to get vaccinated?
October 6, 2009 –
October 11, 2009: A Contrary Voice
Below, I reproduce an email from a reader:
October 5, 2009
Dear Mr. PETIT,
I would like to draw your attention to the validity of certain statements made by Jane BURGEMEISTER. Can a democratic, rule-of-law state compel its population to be vaccinated?
Conspiracy delusion? Not quite.
Apologies for the length—I warn you in advance, this is legal text. All I’m trying to say is that the legal and regulatory foundations for this “delusion” do exist. Legifrance confirms this.
A brief legal reminder:
In France, there is a hierarchy of legal norms: the Constitution, which includes Article 16 granting the President exceptional powers in exceptional circumstances; laws, adopted by the National Assembly and Senate, capable of regulating individual liberties (e.g., theft punishable by up to three years’ imprisonment); and regulations—those issued by the government (decrees, ministerial orders), by the Prefect or Mayor (administrative orders). These latter do not permit physical coercion. Everything must conform to constitutional principles.
Thus, when one steals, one may be placed in police custody or even imprisoned; yet, when one exceeds 50 km/h in a city, one merely pays a fine.
With this reminder in mind, here is how mandatory vaccination could be implemented—and how our government has just granted the pharmaceutical industry a blank check, authorizing it to “break eggs.” The legal tools exist, as do those enabling one to escape unscathed.
Mandatory vaccination already exists in France. For example:
Article L3111-8 of the Public Health Code:
“In the event of war, public disaster, epidemic, or threat of epidemic, smallpox vaccination or revaccination may be made mandatory by decree or prefectural orders for all persons, regardless of age.”
Here we have a law (L) authorizing a regulatory authority to impose measures infringing bodily integrity. All that remains is to pass a law replacing “smallpox” with “H1N1 influenza.” Fortunately (or unfortunately), Article R3116-6 (regulatory) of the same code prescribes a fifth-class fine for refusal of smallpox vaccination.
However, recidivism (a repeated offense previously judged and recommitted) raises the fine to a maximum of €3,000. The legislature may further stipulate that such recidivism constitutes a criminal offense, making imprisonment possible.
Moreover, when children are involved—here referring not to smallpox but to diphtheria or tetanus—anyone with parental authority who refuses vaccination for their child commits a criminal offense punishable by up to six months’ imprisonment and a fine of up to €3,750 (Article L3116-4).
Yes, this is logically consistent. But is it reasonable in the case of H1N1? As you and I can clearly see, they are trying to sell us an epidemic and deaths. It is therefore entirely legitimate to suspect that H1N1 could be slipped into such legislation. It appears they have equipped themselves with a legal arsenal specifically tailored for H1N1—two years before the epidemic emerged.
Decree No. 2008-733 of July 25, 2008, establishing a Committee to Combat Influenza:
This decree creates “such a committee for a period of five years,” specifying its membership and missions:
“The Committee to Combat Influenza shall provide the Minister responsible for health with expert analysis on all measures to be implemented to control and reduce the impact of an influenza epidemic or pandemic.”
[...]
“The Committee to Combat Influenza shall pursue the missions listed above, including in the event of activation of the interministerial crisis cell provided for in the national plan for preventing and combating pandemic influenza risk.”
We have never seen such measures for seasonal flu. In 2008, creating a committee against the common cold would have been laughable. Beware—our government is playing seer: “for a period of five years.” If this committee is not for seasonal flu, then for which flu? Mutated H5N1? That seems far too serious, deadly, and contagious to warrant only a five-year mandate. The very wording of the article clearly suggests an extraordinary epidemic—except that it is July 2008, and swine flu had not yet been mentioned. Disturbing… and from here, it is but a small step to conclude that vaccine orders and fear-mongering were premeditated.
In 2007 (even better):
Article L3131-1 of the Public Health Code
Created by Law No. 2007-294 of March 5, 2007, art. 1 I, II, JORF March 6, 2007, effective August 29, 2007
“In the event of a serious public health threat requiring urgent measures, particularly in the case of an epidemic threat, the Minister responsible for health may, by reasoned order, prescribe, in the interest of public health, all measures proportionate to the risks and appropriate to the circumstances of time and place, to prevent and limit the consequences of possible threats to the population’s health.”
The Minister may authorize the competent state representative to take all measures implementing these provisions, including individual measures.
These individual measures shall immediately be reported to the public prosecutor.
Thus, the Minister himself and the Prefect (merely regulatory authorities) possess a sufficiently vague framework to impose “any proportionate measure.” In other words, since an unvaccinated person is inherently capable of spreading disease, forcing vaccination or detaining them “limits the consequences of possible threats to public health.” Is this reasoning exaggerated?
One must explain why terms such as “individual measures” and “reporting to the public prosecutor” are used. In criminal procedure, the public prosecutor is notified only when a measure involving deprivation of liberty has been taken or when a criminal offense has been committed.
Divination? Premeditation? Collusion with the pharmaceutical industry? Or extremely effective lobbying leading a government to prepare for an epidemic that does not yet exist? This arsenal of special powers, this quasi-committee of public safety, troubles me…
What follows is even more troubling regarding accountability, since our modified code addresses vaccine manufacturers. I quote:
Article L3131-3 of the Public Health Code
Created by Law No. 2007-294 of March 5, 2007, art. 1 I, II, III, JORF March 6, 2007, effective August 29, 2007
[...]
Healthcare professionals cannot be held liable for damages resulting from the prescription or administration of a medicine outside its therapeutic indications or normal conditions of use as defined by its marketing authorization or temporary use authorization, or of a medicine lacking any such authorization, when their intervention was necessitated by the existence of a serious public health threat and the prescription or administration was recommended or required by the Minister responsible for health under Article L3131-1.
Doctors need only invoke conscientious objection or hide behind this text.
The best part:
“The manufacturer of a medicine cannot be held liable for damages resulting from the use of a medicine outside its therapeutic indications or normal conditions of use as defined by its marketing authorization or temporary use authorization, or of a medicine lacking any such authorization, when such use was recommended or required by the Minister responsible for health under Article L3131-1. The same applies to the holder of the marketing authorization, temporary use authorization, or import authorization for the medicine in question.
The provisions of this paragraph do not exempt them from liability under common law regarding the manufacture or marketing of the medicine.”
Shocking, yes. Worse still, the final sentence—which should mean the manufacturer remains civilly liable—actually contradicts itself:
“The manufacturer of a medicine cannot be held liable for damages…”
I was taught that if one is not liable for damage, it is because one committed no fault and is not the cause of the damage, and thus owes no compensation…
But who cares? Because it is taxpayers (us) who will end up paying for the vaccine-injured, who may take years to establish a causal link between their illness and the vaccine:
Article L3131-4:
“Without prejudice to actions that may be brought under common law, full compensation for medical accidents, iatrogenic illnesses, and nosocomial infections attributable to preventive, diagnostic, or care activities carried out under measures taken pursuant to Articles L3131-1 or L3134-1 shall be provided by the National Office for Compensation of Medical Accidents, Iatrogenic Illnesses, and Nosocomial Infections, as referred to in Article L1142-22.”
One thing seems certain: two years before H1N1, the government knew pharmacists could be expected to sell poison. Disturbing. When one trusts a product, one applies normal liability rules. This is not the case. Hence, no need two years later to appear on the evening news to convince people the vaccine is harmless.
And what of the political dimension? As we have seen, it is explicitly covered. The politician is liable but not culpable (does this remind you of anything?), especially since 2000. In short: when you are liable (for involuntary homicide, for example) but are only an indirect cause (here, the direct cause would be the vaccine, then the nurse’s hand, then the physician, then the directives, and finally the government), you are not criminally liable (no prison, no fine).
Article 121-3 of the Penal Code
Amended by Law No. 2000-647 of July 10, 2000, art. 1, JORF July 11, 2000
“There is no crime or offense without intent to commit it.
However, when the law so provides, an offense is committed when one deliberately places another person’s life in danger.
Likewise, when the law so provides, an offense is committed in cases of imprudence, negligence, or failure to comply with a legal or regulatory duty of care or safety, if it is established that the perpetrator did not exercise the diligence normally expected, taking into account, as applicable, the nature of their duties or functions, their competences, and the authority and resources at their disposal.
In the case described above, persons who did not directly cause the damage but who created or contributed to creating the situation enabling the damage to occur, or who failed to take measures to prevent it, shall be criminally liable if it is established that they either manifestly and deliberately violated a specific duty of care or safety required by law or regulation, or committed a serious fault exposing others to a particularly grave risk that they could not have ignored.”
QED: since no law or regulation will be violated… = not culpable, yet civilly liable… meaning, within the scope of official duties, the taxpayer will compensate.
I hope I have not bored you too much. It seemed impossible to shorten further, and these legal texts take up space. Thank you for reading this far. You are welcome to distribute this commentary in whole or in part, but I do not wish my initials or name to be cited.
Sincerely,
Thomas L., lawyer
October 11, 2009:
A Contrary Voice:
Mandatory Vaccines?
We must face the facts…
In France, there cannot legally exist a mandatory vaccination requirement, as any such obligation would be unconstitutional:
-
Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (December 10, 1948): “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”
-
The new Civil Code recognizes “the principle of respect for the physical integrity of the human body.”
-
Article 36 of the Medical Ethics Code specifies: “Every medical act requires the free and informed consent of the patient.”
-
Court rulings of February 25 and October 14, 1997, concerning patient information, state:
“Practitioners must be able to prove they provided the patient with fair, clear, appropriate, and exhaustive information, at minimum regarding major risks, and as comprehensively as possible regarding minor risks. This information aims to enable the patient to refuse a proposed vaccination, believing the risks outweigh the anticipated benefits.”
- Law No. 2002-303 of March 4, 2002, Article 11, Chapter 1, amending Article L1111-4 of the Public Health Code:
“No medical act or treatment may be performed without the free and informed consent of the person concerned, and such consent may be withdrawn at any time.”
Thus, each individual must freely accept or refuse this medical act—contested by numerous medical professionals—that is vaccination.
Any mandatory vaccination requirement implies, for those opposing such “poisoning,” the concepts of
- Resistance to Oppression (a right recognized by the Constitution)
- and Legitimate Defense (which imposes no limits on the means used).
Return to the H1N1 pandemic page
New Arrivals
Guide (Index)
Home Page