Marc Salomone blog: madic50.blogspot.com / Book: The Two Forms, ed. Amazon
Paris, Tuesday, December 7, 2021
REFLECTION ON THE FUNCTION OF COMPULSORY VACCINATION IN THE COVID-19 EPIDEMIC IN DECEMBER 2021. The emptiness of oppositions and the strength of complementarities.
1. Preamble
Vaccination against the coronavirus appears to be the determining instrument for controlling and making the episode of Covid 19 socially bearable.
1- The strategies involved
This medical action is the subject of three public ideological strategies:
1- Anti-totalitarianism
Identify through the public practice of the Testimony the vaccine to an evil and an aggression against human rights.
2- Accountability
It is government policy. Appeal, then indirectly constrain, to the responsibility of each one to obtain the vaccination of the greatest number.
3- Compulsory vaccination.
The medical vaccination obligation to counter the coronavirus must be confused with a legal vaccination obligation or compulsory vaccination.
2- The purpose of the reflection
Examination of these three ideological strategies suggests that:
a- The stake of the debate is not an opposition of ideas but of primacy of the public administrative policy on the private or civil administrative policies.
b- Compulsory vaccination is first and foremost a democratic institutional function.
c- It is addressed first of all to representatives of the State to whom it offers the legal capacity for innovation.
d- The scarecrow of the so agitated sanction is already in action like the prose of M. Jourdain.
3- The plan
a-Anti-totalitarianism, p2
b- The new conditions for public debate, p3
c- Accountability, p4
d- State responsibility, p5
e- The stake, p6
f- The function of compulsory vaccination, p6
g- Conclusion, p7
2) - The anti-totalitarians.
An obscurantist political ideology is spreading which makes the Testimony of disease, death, misfortune, the critical lever and denouncer of the structural faults of the society in place.
Covid 19 becomes the punishment for these inexpiable crimes.
Covid is the other name for the hospital crisis, for chlordecone, etc.
It doesn't really have an existence on its own.
Vaccination is a mystification of the fault; even the aggravation of the crime.
At best, that's not the point.
The Testimony, the exhibition of the bruising of one's own body or soul, both identified with a collective body and soul, even identity, replace public political debate, democratic, and the elaboration of government strategies that elaborate questions , provide answers, build a policy and give the country the means to conduct it.
The alliance of anti-vax Witnesses and vaccinated Witnesses, united in the name of the defense of Freedoms, becomes a mass, public argument, based on blackmail against leading executives who bear de facto or de jure responsibility of the dissemination of the instrument of evil that is the vaccine.
The partisans of this ideology exhibit these testimonies, denounce the failings, riot, gather.
The invariant result is to place the person of these witnesses at the center of the spectacular public debate and to leave or marginalize the doctor.
Whether in the streets of Guadeloupe or on metropolitan television sets, these protesting or revolutionary petty masters, in jeans or corduroys, distribute the good and bad points of moral conscience.
In doing so, they block both objective analyzes and future actions.
Nothing is done, the show can go on and on again indefinitely.
With sound phrases of social criticism, which the ancients have known well since May-68, these Ladies and Gentlemen refuse to compromise themselves in vile distinctions between distinct realities.
It's hospital reform or nothing.
Vaccination is then only the sham of health totalitarianism which seeks to hide its wrongs by producing scapegoats which recall "the dark-hours-of-our-history".
The result is a head-to-head fight against scientific medicine and public health policy.
As for the Hospital and chlordecone, they will do as Capitalism, imperialism, etc., after May-68.
As soon as the national movement stopped, their uncompromising and uncompromising critics of the time postponed the transformation sine die.
Their critical vaccination successors will similarly forget the hospital if the Covid stops.
This ideological chestnut tree works like a canker in Democracy.
3) - The new conditions for public debate
Today, the public debate on Covid19 no longer has the same characteristics at all as it did a year or two ago.
1- The medical debate
For a year, it has been answered point by point, by word and by facts, to all the criticisms of vaccination.
Its qualities and limits have been very well established.
The medical damages were examined.
The pandemic is now that of the unvaccinated.
The medical profession has declared itself in favor of compulsory vaccination. Even if they leave the responsibility and the implementation to the politicians. Which makes sense.
In France today, the obstacle to controlling the pandemic is the lack of vaccination of six million French people and the vaccine coquetry of others with regard to the third dose.
As expected, the Health Pass has openly become an instrument of constraint to obtain vaccination for all.
2- The ideological debate
One of the qualities of public debate for almost two years now has been that it has addressed all the issues specific to voluntary and general state intervention.
All the risks run by the populations in these circumstances of national mobilization and united under the name of totalitarianism were mentioned.
Confinement and people's rights.
The vaccine risk.
the risk of being subjected to an irrelevant vaccination.
The health pass and population surveillance.
The formation of populations discriminated against, relegated, ostracized.
What is remarkable is the continuity of the debate and the use of all public means to conduct this debate.
No one can argue anymore that the vaccine and immunization are unnecessary and dangerous, both individually and collectively or socially.
3- People's freedom
1- There is no renunciation of a freedom when it is a formal activity which leads to the material destruction of the subjects who claim it.
It is the basis of Safety Codes, such as the Highway Code.
2- There is no discrimination when a particular obligation is necessary for the life of others or for
his own life.
The vaccination obligation of nursing staff is certainly discriminatory vis-à-vis the rest of the population and public service staff who are not required to do so.
However, this obligation does not constitute discrimination as to its object and therefore for the persons concerned.
The government is justified in wanting caregivers to catch, transmit, and circulate the virus only in an attenuated form.
3- The discrimination suffered by caregivers cannot therefore be resolved by their free choice of vaccination but by the legal obligation to vaccinate all populations over twelve years old, or even over six years old.
4- The opinion of the French
On the one hand, the French have overwhelmingly acquired the authority of Science.
On the other hand, the overwhelming conviction of the validity of vaccination is also an evidence-based procedure.
a- Or by trust in institutions and their representatives.
It is obvious that the French respond overwhelmingly to an order from the President, an opinion from their doctor, their relative, etc.
b- Or by the constraint of the facts:
The observation by those around you that the vaccine is safe.
Fear for the continuation of social activities.
The coming of a new Wave.
Very clever who will be able to distinguish conviction from constraint.
4) – Accountability
1- Politics
The government claims the general vaccination strategy on a voluntary basis by empowering the population.
As such, he reserves the right to force this free will by reducing it by the administrative means of the Health Pass to the choice between solitary life or collective life.
Success is there.
2- The fault
In doing so, he allows a population of six million unvaccinated people to thrive, which does not subside.
The first indication of mass vaccination is to show, in all countries, that hospitalized patients are all unvaccinated; apart from structurally weakened vaccines,
In terms of libertarian reasoning, the statements of these hospitalized patients are enlightening:
" I did not think about it ; I was afraid: I thought I was waiting, etc. "
Then follow the traditional whining of alcoholic drivers: "I want to tell young people not to be like me, do not drink …"
The state must guarantee the freedom of everyone to challenge their decisions and even to fight them.
On the other hand, nothing justifies that he participates in the legal construction of the sovereignty, the omnipotence, the omniscience, of an individual on the sole ground that he opposes his point of view or his person to the collective action.
3- The emergency
Of course, as all the direct or indirect opponents of vaccination point out, general vaccination would not make the pandemic disappear.
However, it would allow control by allowing the continuity of social life.
This possibility creates an increasingly unbearable contradiction between the lightness or even recklessness that governs the debates on the need for vaccines and the social urgency of controlling the epidemic.
Everywhere, governments are abandoning foolish nonsense about the right of everyone to question the most proven medical word in order to take expressly binding measures.
The sanitary pass that places the government in the middle of spiritual jumps and obligation becomes a problem.
The government is trying to resolve this hiatus by tightening the conditions for passing the tests, which become chargeable, then their validity, which goes from 48 hours to 24 hours.
We promise to renew the joke of free will for the vaccination of children under 5-11 years old.
The return of the logics of confinement, of these local suppressions of social life, illustrates the hold of this protest rage protected on the social body.
5) - State responsibilities
The state does not respond to individual constructions so in itself legitimizes freedom. He answers questions of general and national interest.
1- The State
The state does not have to be satisfied with convincing intellectually.
Respecting public and individual freedoms does not mean for its representatives to put themselves on an equal footing with each individual.
The State is capable of forcing individuals to include their criticism of its action in participating in it.
This is what millions of citizens do every day.
2- The citizens
The fact of being against vaccination or of contesting the primacy of this one in the fight against the virus does not qualify the critical individual to contest the need declared by the State for this vaccination or the vaccination obligation when it is is established.
6) - The new conjuncture
The State cannot continue to renew the same hypnotic astonishment with regard to Marie-Chantal of the antivax or the electoral hypocrisy.
1- The scarecrow of the sanction
The recurrent argument of opponents of compulsory vaccination is that of the sanction.
General vaccination, that is to say compulsory, has been rejected for a year because there would be no laws without sanction and it would be impossible to apply.
So: What sanction? Are we going to send the police home? Can we send the gendarmes against an 84-year-old lady? Etc.
2- This argument no longer holds.
a- These people forget that the "old ladies of 84 years" who travel (there are some; my grandmother for example) present, like the young girls, their vaccination record to the customs officers and undergo, like everyone else, the possible quarantines .
b- Austria and Germany will soon give all of Europe the scale of sanctions applicable in a democratic country.
3- The law and the sanction
A law can be perfectly imposed without identifying with judicial sanctions.
a- The health pass
The sanitary pass has been applied for months and is perfectly accepted by the French.
It is all the less questionable that its social defects are duly exposed and scrutinized.
b- The vaccine pass
The vaccination pass may therefore suffice where the sanitary pass is declared sufficient.
The law or the decree may provide for the extension of its use.
4- It is therefore established that it is possible to control vaccination without using the gendarmes as uncle-macoutes against those over 80 years old.
7) - The stake
1- The equivocation
What is legally questionable is to organize durably the de facto vaccination obligation of people whose permanent right to vaccine choice is recalled.
This ambiguity establishes opponents of vaccination as equal partners in law with public health representatives.
2- State and citizen
A citizen has every right to think that vaccination is unnecessary, dangerous, hasty, etc.
The State is in its role to assert that it is mistaken and that the general interest takes precedence not over its particular interest (it is not the war) but over its particular thoughts.
3- The two administrative policies
The debate on the opposition of thought is partly a false debate.
Opposition to compulsory vaccination is not intended to counter the thoughts of some and to reinforce those of others.
It aims to determine what administrative policy, what administrative subordination, French citizens subscribe to.
Are they citizens of the public administration or those of various private administrations, such as religions, sects, social coquetries, and many others.
8) - The function of the vaccination obligation
This reflection in fact questions the function of the decision of compulsory vaccination.
1- Against the population
Does it really and primarily serve to pit the state against the people?
Is its horizon that of dragonnades or infernal columns?
Of course everything is in everything and vice versa.
A train is a train, nevertheless, each one distinguishes the wagons of the deportation and those of theholidays. However, they are the same trains, the same company, the same tracks.
2- To serve the population
Today, the function of compulsory vaccination is first of all to give law enforcement officials the legal possibility to act precisely "in the name of the law" and no longer in their name alone.
For example, mayors, like doctors, are not friends who talk to girlfriends, even if they are 84 years old.
They are public officials who act only within the framework of the law.
Whether for the policy of "going to" or the implementation of vaccination of minors and children, the arrangements are not the same depending on whether their action is personal, consensual, moral, or legal.
The same goes for private or private executives. Knowing that the law is with you is quite different from acting in the name of personal opinion.
9) – Conclusion
Aligning vaccination law with compulsory medical vaccination is first and foremost a form of decentralization of the public health initiative.
Allow the mayor, doctor, school principal, etc. to have a word of authority to reach out, receive, engage, seems more productive than to make of them the mouthpieces of exclusion, closure, silence, by legal incapacity to speak of man to man.
Marc SALOMONE
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire