"The State has instituted compulsory vaccination de facto, it must assume the consequences!"

● 

● Philippe Gosselin is deputy for La Manche, vice-chairman of the Laws Commission at the National Assembly and member of the overseas delegation.

Small steps in small steps, from denials to half-word confessions, the State will end up achieving its ulterior ends since the beginning of the Covidian sequence: to impose - but "on a voluntary basis" - a generalized vaccination - but "to optional - to the entire population, from the age of twelve (officially). The bill "reinforcing the tools for managing the health crisis" that it presents at the step of load between two New Years Eve has only one objective: to institute compulsory vaccination de facto. Why this masked will? This scribble health policy has many causes, like the calamitous management of the crisis since the "we are at war", but we will retain two concerning the vaccine issue:

1 ° The State does not want to assume before judicial human rights bodies, neither today nor tomorrow, the consequences for “the whole population” of the “compulsory” nature of being vaccinated against covid-19 and its variants, willingly or by force, that is to say under penalty of punitive sanctions. In the eyes of its legal experts like many independent university jurists, too heavy contentious uncertainties weigh, with regard to human rights, the point of life of individual freedom, interference with the right to respect for life private and freedom of conscience, to decree the vaccination obligation with a vaccine that does not offer all the hindsight of science or clinical experience.The fact that the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) rejected on August 24 a request from 672 Martinican firefighters against the vaccine obligation against Covid-19 which was prescribed to them by the law of August 5, 2021 does not change nothing, this inadmissibility being of a procedural nature, the applicants mistaking, through this Court, for a “summary judge”, which it is not. This is the first reason not taken up by the State before the French.

Any compulsory vaccination by law would have a consequence: the State would have to assume the possible prejudices which could result from it.

2 ° What the State fears in the international order, it then fears under the petty protection of its public finances. Any compulsory vaccination by law would have a consequence: the State would have to assume the possible prejudices which could result from it. It is the principle of both national solidarity, when a subjection is imposed on all by the authority of the law, as also the principle of responsibility of the State because of the laws. These main principles have found expression in the recognition, thanks to the legislative work under General De Gaulle, with Law No. 64-643 of July 1, 1964, of the principle of compensation for any damage directly attributable to a "vaccination". obligatory". Then, in 2004,this obligation assumed by the State was entrusted by it to the National Office for Compensation for Medical Accidents, Iatrogenic Affections and Nosocomial Infections (ONIAM). By making vaccination against Covid-19 "compulsory" for all, and no longer only for staff in health, medico-social or similar establishments (in the case of SDIS staff), the State would therefore be required, by application rules now codified in Article L. 3111-9 of the Public Health Code, to guarantee all French people full compensation for damage directly attributable to this compulsory vaccination through the intermediary of the ONIAM, if, unfortunately, a no one would experience side effects, either immediately or over time. This is what the State could not do other than to concede,by article 18 of its law of August 5, 2021, by extending the right to coverage by ONIAM but only to people vaccinated as, this time, "mandatory" against Covid-19 (case of staff of health and the like). Thus leaving on the side of the excluded about 70% of the population, vaccinated, but ... on a "voluntary" basis.

It is because the State does not want to assume this consequence, for reasons of pettiness of Bercy, that it discards by tinkering with the scabrous legal arrangement of a "vaccine pass" for all.

It is because the State does not want to assume this consequence, for reasons of pettiness of Bercy, that it discards by tinkering with the scabrous legal assembly of a "vaccine pass" for all, but only on a pseudo-title basis. voluntary for all those who want to continue to have potentially access to leisure activities, restaurants and drinking establishments, fairs, seminars and trade shows or even to interregional transport! In short, vaccination or social death, choose, voluntarily. This policy of shameful discrimination must be corrected by a measure of absolute justice: that the State assume the consequences of its de facto vaccination obligation by extending to all those who, since the law of May 31, 2021 instituting the "health pass" with diagram complete vaccination, as tomorrow with this "vaccination pass",have had or will have no other allegedly "free and informed" choice than to be vaccinated, by extending the competence of the ONIAM to any vaccination against Covid-19 carried out within the framework of one or the other of these "Passes". So the State, finally assuming before all the French its health responsibility instead of discarding on their constrained civility, will restore confidence to the Nation in the vaccine policy that it "leads". Unless the Government amends its ill-crafted text by guaranteeing this right for all to ONIAM, this is the meaning of the amendment that we will defend during the “debates” before the National Representation. We'll see if the mask falls.by extending the competence of ONIAM to any vaccination against Covid-19 carried out under one or other of these "Passes". So the State, finally assuming before all the French its health responsibility instead of discarding on their constrained civility, will restore confidence to the Nation in the vaccine policy that it "leads". Unless the Government amends its ill-crafted text by guaranteeing this right for all to ONIAM, this is the meaning of the amendment that we will defend during the “debates” before the National Representation. We'll see if the mask falls.by extending the competence of ONIAM to any vaccination against Covid-19 carried out under one or other of these "Passes". So the State, finally assuming before all the French its health responsibility instead of discarding on their constrained civility, will restore confidence to the Nation in the vaccine policy that it "leads". Unless the Government amends its ill-crafted text by guaranteeing this right for all to ONIAM, this is the meaning of the amendment that we will defend during the “debates” before the National Representation. We'll see if the mask falls.Unless the Government amends its ill-crafted text by guaranteeing this right for all to ONIAM, this is the meaning of the amendment that we will defend during the “debates” before the National Representation. We'll see if the mask falls.Unless the Government amends its ill-crafted text by guaranteeing this right for all to ONIAM, this is the meaning of the amendment that we will defend during the “debates” before the National Representation. We'll see if the mask falls.