The Right to P**s Off the French Becomes Constitutional

ER Editor: We edited the title. ‘Emmerder’ (‘merde’ means ‘shit’) is far stronger word than annoy.

The basic problem described below is that the seemingly noble principle of ‘protecting the health of the French’ rests on totally bogus science that deliberately never gets questioned by independent, non-political sources.

********

The right to annoy the French becomes constitutional

XAVIER AZALBERT and MOUNIR ABERKANE for FRANCE SOIR

TRIBUNE – So decided the Constitutional Council, with Laurent Fabius at its head.

The ruling handed down by the so-called “Sages” only clumsily hides from this, taking up the fallacious arguments that even President Emmanuel Macron and his Minister of Health Olivier Véran no longer dared to use, recognizing for the former that it was a very strong desire to piss off the non-vaccinated, and for the latter a disguised vaccine obligation. The unconditional support to Emmanuel Macron of those whose mission is to be the guarantors of our Constitution represents a real danger for our democracy and it is not by the ballot box that we will save it: we must clean the golds of the Republic with a karcher (ER: powerful cleaning machine).

The 5th of August 2021 will have had its seismic aftershock on the 21st of January 2022. Democracy is no more. “Any society in which the guarantee of rights is not assured, nor the separation of powers determined, has no Constitution”: article 16 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789. So we no longer have a Constitution: the guarantee of rights is not assured and the separation of powers is non-existent in Emmanuel Macron’s France. Democracy is no more.

Political support for Emmanuel Macron is the only serious motivation that explains the two successive mass violations of the Constitution by the nine members of the Constitutional Council: Laurent Fabius, Alain Juppé, Claire Bazy-Malaurie, Dominique Lottin, Corinne Luquiens, Nicole Maestracci, Jacques Mézard, François Pillet and Michel Pinault.

Before demonstrating that this is nothing more than political support, which is necessarily unconstitutional in itself, we will review the foundations of this iniquitous decision that definitively buries our democracy.

The main argument of the members of the Constitutional Council to validate what it recognizes as being a highly liberticidal measure is that it is part of a pandemic context and that the protection of the health of the French people having a constitutional value, the law set up by the government does not violate the Constitution, and is proportionate in its infringements of the fundamental rights with regard to the epidemic situation.

It is difficult to know at which end to start with this celiac regurgitation. Let’s start with this notion of constitutional value of health protection.

First of all, this interpretation is worrying for the durability of our rights: if, in the future, a government considers that an epidemic of influenza, gastroenteritis, or bronchiolitis threatens the health of the French, it will be able to rely on this case law to condition our right to come and go. We could thus see QR codes being established to go for a bowel movement only if vaccinated against gastroenteritis. It is all a question of epidemic thresholds, and as it is the executive who sets the thresholds, the right to come and go will also be set by the desiderata of our rulers. Moreover, a little retrospective allows us to see the absurdity and the danger of such an interpretation of our Constitution: what could the government have done, on the eve of this ruling, for the last epidemic farce to date, the H1N1 flu, which was instrumentalized by the Fillon government and Roselyne Bachelot? Will it be enough for a large pharmaceutical laboratory to have a new vaccine to sell and to enlist the services of our institutional lobbyists for a new vaccine pass to be imposed? Since the Constitutional Council does not evaluate the reality of the epidemic situation and the sanitary and scientific responses to it, it will be enough for our leaders to trigger a few white plans, to close services and beds, to modify the thresholds, to call BFMTV to film a useless transfer, to ask the heads of the AP-HP to postpone a few operations, as Véran has done for the last two years, to have the right to condition the freedom of the French people to the taking of a risky treatment.

Besides, what better example than the previous ruling of the Constitutional Council, that of August 5, 2021, which ratified the health pass: all the data that justified the introduction of this health pass by Emmanuel Macron after his martial speech of July 12, were fraudulent and corresponded only to alarmist projections that were never realized. July 11, 2020, Olivier Véran launches the alert on the epidemic situation in the middle of summer, explaining that we would reach 30,000 weekly hospitalizations at the beginning of August if nothing is done. July 12, Macron announces the law on the health pass. At the same time, the Parliament, under orders, votes the law. The law will be promulgated on August 5 and the health pass will become effective on that date. The peak of hospitalizations will be reached two days earlier, on August 3, while the health pass, not yet in force, could not have had any effect: there will be at most 10,000 hospitalizations registered in Covid-19, so much less if we consider all the patients treated for another reason, but tested positive. In fact, there was never a fourth wave, except for a wave of testing that artificially inflated the Covid-19 count. And even with that, 10,000 hospitalizations do not justify imposing such liberticidal measures. The Constitutional Council, basing its decision on Véran’s flawed projections, as they have been for the past two years, considered this measure to be proportionate.

Proportionally, this would mean that in the years 2014 and 2016, we should have accepted the lockdown and the sanitary pass in view of the severe flu epidemic that affected France.

So what about this argument already used at the time by the Constitutional Council, of health protection? Is everything allowed under the pretext of health protection, all liberticidal measures, all attacks on fundamental rights? Could we, for example, put people in prison without them having to be judged? This is not unconstitutional if it is done to protect the health of the French according to its current members. And what about the effectiveness of the measures introduced? Could the government, for example, forbid the entrance in bars to tall people, even vaccinated, under the pretext that sitting, they are as tall as short people standing? Because as the equation of Pr Delfraissy has shown, everyone knows that drinking a beer standing up endangers the health of French people. No more tall people! More seriously, we now have the hindsight to judge the effectiveness of the health pass: zero. And this was obvious at the time: we knew that the vaccinated people carried as much viral load as the non-vaccinated ones and that the experiences of the health pass abroad had in no way prevented the epidemic from coming back. Hence this crucial question: under the guise of health protection, the government can thus take all the measures it wants, even the most stupid, the most far-fetched, the most ubiquitous, even if they are totally ineffective as the health pass was and as the vaccine pass will obviously be? And this is constitutional. Democracy is no more. And it is not in the ballot box that we will restore it. It is necessary beforehand, to pass our institutions to the karcher.

Let us consider, in more detail, the meaning of this notion of health protection in the Constitution. Indeed, in its collective sense, the protection of health can lead to an infringement of individual liberties, even the most fundamental ones. This seems normal, since it is a question of giving priority to collective security over individual interests. We could discuss the validity of this interpretation of paragraph 11 of the preamble of the Constitution, but all the jurisprudence up to now has affirmed the primacy of this constitutional right, when it implies public health and a collective protection of Health. This is the problem with this paragraph and the mission conferred to the State to protect the population: the possible interpretations and the basis of such measures have no clear and precise legal framework, everything is a question of appreciation. It seems understandable that the State can have as an exceptional prerogative to take liberticidal measures from an individual point of view when the collective sanitary security is at stake. We can understand this; but this must not, and it now seems indispensable to frame this notion of health protection in the Constitution, allow a political instrumentalization of a minor danger to collective health. And even less when this danger is targeted, when it concerns only a category of people restricted in number and with a very low mortality. The collective health has never been endangered by Covid-19. Fragile people, most of them already in danger, should indeed be protected, but certainly not at the expense of the collective health of all French people.

If the Constitutional Council had really been interested in protecting the health of the French, it would have denounced the serious consequences for their health of the measures taken by Emmanuel Macron’s government.

The Council will then explain to you that it is not competent to judge the scientific basis of the measures taken by the legislature. However, this is exactly what it does when it gives a blank check to the legislature to estimate scientifically that the situation requires the promulgation of laws that the Council recognizes as liberticidal. By validating the health pass and the vaccine pass, the members of the Council, who are careful not to have a scientific analysis, nevertheless support their decision on a scientific analysis used by the legislator to base his law. We can see that this interpretation of paragraph 11 of the preamble of the Constitution is absurd, and that the argument on which the Council constantly bases its decision, namely that it is not competent to evaluate the scientific basis, is absurd, since by validating the lockdowns, the sanitary pass and the vaccine pass, the members of the Council validate untested scientific models used by the government, which moreover, until now, have always proved to be scientifically false, in the state of scientific knowledge of course.

Indeed, the intention to protect the health of the French people and to guarantee this right, which is the role of the members of the Constitutional Council, cannot be done without the decisions rendered being based on robust scientific knowledge. It is not for the government, nor even for the President of the Republic, even if he is a great epidemiologist, to tell the science. And science takes time to give its verdict, often longer than an election campaign. Also, by basing its decision on the protection of health by specifying “in the state of scientific knowledge”, the members of the Council violate the Constitution and their statute in several points.

This was already true for the health pass. We will never repeat it enough, so much this timing reveals the imposture of the members of the Council, better than we could do it: July 11, 2021, Olivier Véran announces the hecatomb in intensive care for the beginning of August with at least 30 000 weekly hospitalizations. On July 12, 2021, Macron delivers his martial speech to extort the consent of the 75% of French people who refused to be vaccinated. On August 5, the Constitutional Council validated the health pass even though the peak of this wave that was not a wave had passed two days earlier, on August 3, and had painfully reached 10,000 hospitalizations, many of them of very short duration. INSEE data validate the fact that there was no excess mortality during the summer of 2021. The Constitutional Council, by endorsing the health pass, validated a false evaluation of the epidemic situation and a liberticidal law that had no scientific basis “in the state of scientific knowledge”. Worse, at the time the Constitutional Council rendered its decision on the health pass, it had been three months since the American and Israeli authorities had recognized that vaccines did not prevent contamination, transmission, or even the disease. “In the state of scientific knowledge”, really? It seems more like a political strategy. This is evidenced by the enthusiasm (130,000 signatures) for the petition demanding the resignation of the members of the Constitutional Council.

A political strategy, inspired by the most authoritarian regimes, such as the one that consisted in locking up 67 million French people at home, again validated by the members of the Council, always on the supreme altar of health protection. It did not take a genius at the time to understand that people were contaminated inside their own homes: all clusters arose indoors, systematically. To confine people was therefore a great stupidity, based on absolutely nothing scientific, unless you cut them off from the world for a long enough time to let them expire. On the contrary, it would have been necessary to make people go outside and ask them to stay as much as possible outside, to open giant barnums and to offer a beer, sitting or standing, to all the French people during fifteen days: we would have already finished with the epidemic. Moreover, John Ioannidis at first, in an eloquent way, and today the Johns Hopkins University, have very well demonstrated that the confinements, but also all the other coercive and liberticidal measures, had no impact on mortality, but had caused serious economic, societal and psychological problems. Science takes time to give its verdict, and to pretext the state of scientific knowledge when it says the opposite or does not exist, is a forfeit.

In the state of scientific knowledge? Health protection? We saw a 15 year old boy throw himself over a bridge during these confinements, locked in between his alcoholic father and depressive mother. Health protection? How many suicidal children, divorces, family breakdowns and precariousness for a measure that will have had no effect on the evolution of the epidemic? On which state of science did you rely when you validated these liberticidal, even murderous measures? On the one presented to you by the government, which was at the origin of these measures and necessarily would not provide information against its provisions? It is not for the government to do the science. Not to its defense council either. Not even to its scientific council, which is mainly composed of lobbyists already responsible for many stupid things during the H1N1 epidemic, which was a beautiful farce and a huge waste.

What can we say then about the value of health protection when it ignores its most necessary corollary, the precautionary principle, which also has constitutional value? Here again, in the state of scientific knowledge, nothing, absolutely nothing, suggested that the vaccines selected to fight Covid-19, experimental vaccines resulting from a new technology never evaluated in humans in the context of vaccination, would allow to contain the epidemic. The only data available in the world were the manufacturers’ data, necessarily dithyrambic with a 98% efficiency on infections that was never observed in any country, and then the Israeli data, too quickly interpreted ignoring all the other parameters, far from the requirements of science. We know what happened next: Israel, where the vast majority of the adult population has already had three doses, experienced epidemic peaks that were identical to and even more violent than those during the waves when no one was vaccinated.

This percentage of effectiveness was completely refuted by the biostatistician Christine Cotton, showing that it was impossible to conclude on this figure, and thus leading to an accusation against Olivier Véran and Jean Castex of endangering the lives of others. In Malta, a country where almost 90% of the general population is vaccinated, there have never been so many deaths in Covid-19. In the Canary Islands, in Denmark, in Iceland, in many of the most vaccinated countries in the world, there have never been so many contaminations, serious cases, deaths, with less lethal variants and better management. At the same time, there are tens of thousands of serious side effects, including thousands of deaths. Why is this so? To protect health? Given the state of scientific knowledge?

In the state of scientific knowledge, dear members of the Constitutional Council, you would have refrained from appealing to health protection to justify your support for Emmanuel Macron. Because at best, scientific knowledge, scientific in that it has been tested, contested, reproduced several times to be validated, did not exist, neither on the confinements, nor on the sanitary pass, nor on the vaccinal pass. At worst, the knowledge on which you based your decisions, namely that presented by the executive, or rather its hygiaphone, the National Assembly, was grossly fraudulent and had only one objective, quite political; to politically instrumentalize the Covid-19. To dare to evoke the state of scientific knowledge by validating scientific absurdities of this degree, one must be either stupid or complicit.

We cannot finish this constitutional reframing without evoking the confession of the President of the Republic: his wish, as he himself stated, was to piss off the non-vaccinated French. And there is no doubt about your deceit: at the time when you, the so-called wise men, validated the vaccine pass, arguing the constitutional right to health protection and invoking the state of scientific knowledge, there were 500,000 contaminations per day, with a vaccinated population of 92% of the eligible people, and our president admitted in a reflective way that he only wanted to do one thing: to piss off the non-vaccinated.

By validating this vaccine pass, you have just made the right to piss off part of the Constitution. Of course, screwing for the protection of health, screwing in the state of scientific knowledge, always… But to take the piss out of it constitutionally!

Nobody doubts it anymore in France and in the world: vaccines do not prevent transmission, so the vaccine pass has no scientific justification. Unless, of course, one relies on the state of scientific knowledge according to Emmanuel Macron, Jean Castex and Olivier Véran or BFM TV, who still explain with 500,000 contaminations per day that vaccines reduce transmission by twelve times.

The validation of the vaccine pass, even more than the other crimes denounced in this article, is an admission of political support for Emmanuel Macron, in total violation of the Constitution, the status of members of the Constitutional Council and fundamental rights. The resignation of the members of the Constitutional Council becomes a necessary prerequisite for any serious refoundation of our democracy.

The protection of collective health has constitutional value when it represents the objective pursued by the legislature. However, you, members of the Council, whose lack of wisdom is only equalled by their imposture, can’t get away from the very admission of the President of the Republic who recognized that his only objective was to annoy the recalcitrant, and of the Minister of Health who clearly stated that it was a question, with the vaccination pass, of setting up a disguised compulsory vaccination, thus with the objective of disguising the vaccination obligation in order not to have to answer for its responsibilities.

So, and you can defend yourselves, but the facts are stubborn and uninterpretable here, since in the state of scientific knowledge, the President of the Republic has the objective of pissing off the French people, that is factual, you, members of the Constitutional Council have made the right to piss off enter the Constitution. You will be accountable to history, because this is nothing else than a putsch and consequently, an abolition of our Constitution and of our democracy. The people must take back the power and this will start with your resignation.

“Any society in which the guarantee of rights is not assured, nor the separation of powers determined, has no Constitution.”

It is therefore up to the French people today to come together to build a new Constitution, which will hopefully take into account the failures and dangers that this Constitution of the Fifth Republic represents for democracy.

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

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.