French Senate Rejects Mandatory Vaccination, With Notable Speech by Laurence Muller-Bronn

ER Editor: And here is the list of the infamous 64 who voted FOR all of us to be vaccinated, notably from the Left and Ecology – http://www.senat.fr/scrutin-public/2021/scr2021-8.html

Senator Bernard Jomier, a Radical Left member and a doctor no less, proposed this compulsory vaccination measure, despite the medical feedback we have to date on the ‘vaccines’, despite the inability for people to provide informed consent.

********

Senate rejects mandatory vaccination, with notable speech by Laurence Muller-Bronn

FRANCE SOIR

This afternoon, the bill of the socialist group was discussed at the Luxembourg Palace that wanted to introduce mandatory vaccination against Covid-19 for all. It was largely rejected by the upper house of the Parliament: 262 votes against and 64 votes for.

Examined in first reading, the text – which was already in trouble after being rejected during its examination in committee – wished to add this vaccination obligation to the existing ones (diphtheria, tetanus…). Patrick Kanner, president of the socialist group, claimed a measure of “clarity” and “transparency”, aiming at “collective immunity” – let’s recall that the latter is now considered as a mirage by scientists and health authorities, the WHO itself having expressed its skepticism on the capacity to reach it. Bernard Jomier, rapporteur, highlighted the limits of the health pass, whose possible extension was decided earlier in the day at the Council of Ministers.

The government did not follow the Socialist Group, which was therefore left alone. The minister, like most of the speakers, defended the incentive, rather than the obligation, invoking practical, legal or ethical reasons.

Translation: the government has rejected mandatory vaccination – it’s good news! Except it appears that all that was, in reality, a smokescreen by the executive to justify the possibility of extending the health pass into 2022 … 

The debates were sometimes tense: the senator (LR) of Haute-Savoie Sylviane Noël was strongly criticized for having said that

“to make compulsory the administration of genetic vaccines whose experimental phase is still in progress, is thus politically imprudent and morally condemnable. It is even legally impossible in the current state of regulation for perfectly well-founded reasons related to the preservation of public health and the free consent of each individual.”

These words triggered the anger of the Secretary of State Adrien Taquet, Senator Bernard Jomier, but also his colleagues LR Alain Milon or Rene-Paul Savary.

The senators therefore chose wisdom and not the path of general obligation. But on the eve of the end of the reimbursement of the tests, except for medical prescriptions or updated vaccination status, the health pass is likely to be extended, and the senators who are opposed to it did not fail to emphasize that preventing its extension remained the fight to be waged:

Translation: By 262 votes to 64 against, the Senate has just rejected the Socialist senators’ proposal who wanted to impose mandatory vaccination. Now, it is a question of limiting as much as possible the health pass in time by preventing its extension until the end of July 2022

Laurence Muller-Bronn, senator of Bas-Rhin (related to LR), explained her “no” to this bill at the podium:

She deplored that “those who dare to doubt, to reflect, to make another choice [than that of generalized compulsory vaccination] would be obscure conspiracy theorists.” Stressing that among them are very serious institutions: Academy of Medicine against a generalized third dose, Alain Fischer (Mr. Vaccine) against mandatory vaccination, “the context does not justify it,” or the Council of Europe.

Recalling the decisions of the Nordic countries on the administration of the Moderna vaccine, the inclusion of the precautionary principle in the Constitution, the conditional nature of the authorization to market vaccines. Continuing on about the insufficiency of evidence on the effectiveness and safety of the vaccine, the effect on transmission, the effects on young people, pregnant women, as well as on “the psychological damage of health injunctions”. There is “no scientific consensus on mass vaccination”, she continues. Rehabilitating natural immunity, giving doctors the right to treat are some of the recommendations she makes.

“What legitimacy would we have to authoritatively establish a compulsory vaccination and a third dose”, while specialists “doubt”?

“We need a contradictory debate”, she concludes, “to nourish it with fair, transparent and independent information”. “We are not the recording room of the Scientific Council”, she says. “It is our duty, as elected representatives of the Republic, representing the French people, all French people, to restore common law and public freedoms, because their trust is at stake.” To make a rational assessment, by “getting out of the all-vaccine doctrine,” “rather than governing by fear and control.”

Five minutes of a common sense speech that was thought to have disappeared or almost disappeared in the parliamentary chamber, but which was heard this time.

************

Source

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*