In addition to its
Observatory of Confined Freedoms
, led by Vincent Delhomme, which monitors more than 50 freedom restrictions since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, GenerationLibre, a think tank founded by Gaspard Koenig in 2013, published last year two notes, each time crossing the varied perspectives of philosophers, economists, jurists and health experts:
a cost-benefit analysis of the first confinements
(May 2021) and
an assessment of the proportionality of the health pass
(December 2021).
The transformation of the health pass into a vaccination pass is in line with the direction taken by the executive since the start of the pandemic, that of a “health care whatever the cost”. It is triply problematic: it is not based on the evaluation of existing systems; it fails to balance the health effectiveness of the measures taken against the attack on individual freedoms; it comes once again to deal serious blows to the rule of law.
The existing sanitary pass has not even been the subject of an in-depth evaluation that it has already been decided to harden it. The CNIL asked the Government to provide data providing proof of its effectiveness, to no avail. One of two things. Either the objective of the measure was, as announced at the start, to limit the circulation of the virus and it was not achieved, as recognized by the President of the Scientific Council (because unprotected people are mixed with people that can transmit the disease). Either the objective was to strongly encourage vaccination and we can consider that the objective has been achieved at first, but we can doubt the effectiveness of a vaccination pass to convince the 5-15% of recalcitrants remaining (according to the slices ofages). The government announcement of a vaccination pass was not followed by a very significant increase in primary vaccinations. The transformation of the health pass into a vaccination pass, which therefore treats people who are vaccinated but potentially carriers of the virus more favorably than people who are not vaccinated but who test negative, completes the removal of the masks. It is no longer a question of protecting anyone from SARS-CoV-2 contamination but of excluding from social life and public space those who still resist vaccination.which therefore treats people who are vaccinated but potentially carry the virus more favorably than people who are not vaccinated but who test negative, completes the removal of the masks. It is no longer a question of protecting anyone from SARS-CoV-2 contamination but of excluding from social life and public space those who still resist vaccination.which therefore treats people who are vaccinated but potentially carry the virus more favorably than people who are not vaccinated but who test negative, completes the removal of the masks. It is no longer a question of protecting anyone from SARS-CoV-2 contamination but of excluding from social life and public space those who still resist vaccination.
Read alsoThe Constitutional Council validates the principle of the vaccination pass
It is necessary to hammer home what constitutes the health past and its new vaccine avatar: a hypocrisy which consists in leaving individuals the choice of vaccination while denying them the possibility of exercising it freely. It is not only detrimental to basic freedoms such as that of movement, even to work, but it introduces a distinction between citizens on the basis of their medical status. This is a historical regression towards a form of “biopower”, a tight control of the body, worthy of the management of the plague in the 17th century… with the new technologies of filing and tracing in addition! The health and vaccination passes mark the end of the little anonymity that we had left in the public space and signal an unprecedented reinforcement of the sanction by theState of non-compliance with the social norm. While the tax evader, social or the driver see their case treated confidentially by the competent administration, the non-vaccinated - who does not violate any law for the moment, remember! – sees his choice displayed for all to see, constantly summoned by his peers to justify or modify it.
All of these infringements of freedoms should be weighed against goals and passing efficiency. However, the way the pass was introduced, extended and now converted calls into question the principles of the rule of law. Broadly speaking, the rule of law involves a vast network of institutional attitudes guaranteeing that beyond a formal respect for the norm, the executive power genuinely respects the law, its letter of course, but also its procedures and its spirit. To believe in the correctness of the balances which underlie it, to believe in the inextricable usefulness of its safeguards, to believe in the definitive relevance of the separation of powers, to believe in the protective role of the judicial authority, to believe in the superiority of the parliamentary debate on any other form of deliberation.
The decision to extend and transform the health pass thus constitutes a double attack on the rule of law.
By the procedure framing its implementation, but also on the merits, by ratifying a decision which ignores the principle of proportionality of the measure in relation to the consequent restrictions of freedom.
Collective platform
However, since the introduction of the health pass, the executive takes full advantage of its institutional and expert advantage.
It does not respect the other institutions since they are not seen as places for improving the law in the service of the general interest, but as obstacles on the path to health salvation.
Parliament was
de facto
reduced to a registration chamber (despite some resistance from the Senate), under an accelerated procedure. The Council of State and the Constitutional Council had to check the proportionality of the bill for the extension of the health pass in the light of "data" produced by the Government itself and on which it has no real capacity to comment. assessment to balance the measure with respect for fundamental freedoms. The proportionality review requires strong independence from the executive power, and the correlative ability to disregard “objective” data, in this case scientific data, put forward by the Government. The decision to extend and transform the health pass thus constitutes a double attack on the rule of law.By the procedure framing its implementation, but also on the merits, by ratifying a decision which ignores the principle of proportionality of the measure in relation to the consequent restrictions of freedom.
It is not yet too late to get out of this liberticidal and dangerous logic for human rights and to consider the adoption of alternative measures in the management of this never-ending pandemic.
At least
, rather than imposing on our societies this certificate of virtue that is the vaccination pass, could we calmly, democratically and on the basis of the available scientific elements, debate the relevance of a vaccination obligation, in particular with regard to populations most likely to develop severe forms of the disease.
If there should be an obligation, it should be assumed and adopted in a transparent manner and its non-compliance should be sanctioned as any violation of the law is sanctioned.
Ostracism and public vindictiveness have nothing to do in our societies!
Tribune of the think-tank GenerationLibre and its experts:
Kevin Brookes, Doctor of Political Science
Vincent Delhomme, doctoral student in law
Nicolas Gardères, lawyer, doctor of law
Henri Leleu, PhD, medical expert in public health
Christophe Seltzer, director of the GenerationLibre think tank
/ with which parliamentarians are associated:
Loic Hervé, UC senator of Haute-Savoie
Aurélien Taché, EELV deputy for Val-d'Oise
/ as well as :
Marie-Caroline Arreto, Director of the Master in Public Affairs, Catholic Institute of Paris - Faculty of Social and Economic Sciences
Yves Bourdillon, journalist and writer
Victor Fouquet, doctoral student in law