France To Criminalize 'Medical, Scientific' Commentary That Disagrees With Gov't

P. Gardner Goldsmith | February 18, 2024
Text Audio
00:00 00:00
Font Size

Marching more in line with the fascist forces that invaded that nation during World War II, the French National Assembly Wednesday, February 14, approved a measure that seems almost unbelievable. In fact, initial X and Reddit posts about the shocking development might have inspired heightened skepticism on the part of users, but further investigation confirms their veracity.

Thomas Oysmüller on Wednesday reported in German for the Blog of Science and Politics, but a quick online translation offers the first details of the legislation and its threat to free speech and reason in supposedly civilized France:

“Without much attention, a law was passed in France on Wednesday that can criminalize resistance to mRNA treatment.”

Oysmüller notes that this “resistance” will be defined by the government, and it can include any expression of skepticism or suggestion that someone else might want to avoid a state-approved or state-promoted medicine, procedure, or protocol. It also criminalizes the act of recommending a therapeutic treatment that has not been officially embraced by the apparatchiks of the state. Quoting the actual legislation, he notes that a person can go to prison for up to three years or receive a fine of up to 45,000 euros if he or she:

“…advises against mRNA or other ‘medical treatments’ that are ‘obviously suitable according to the state of medical knowledge’ for treatment…”

Which might set off mental alarms for those of us who tried to warn people about the government-run, Fauci-flavored, politically-promoted, censor-favored, protocols and jabs about which many of us warned and wrote beginning in late-winter of 2020.

Even if one were not familiar with the immorality of their impositions, or if one were unfamiliar the pure hubris of their horrible edicts and lockdowns, their experimental gene-manipulating jabs, and their insane mandates, such a person might recognize the emptiness of the so-called “appeal to authority” fallacy inherent in this “government knows all” approach.

He continues:

“It was a hard-fought affair, but the (French President) Macron regime ultimately got its way. Article 4 of the new law, which was first deleted but then reinstated, is central. It creates a new criminal offence and criminalises the ‘request to discontinue or refrain from therapeutic or prophylactic medical treatment’ as well as ‘the request to use practices that are presented as therapeutic or prophylactic’. This means that any resistance to mRNA treatment (and other corporate medical methods) can also be criminalized in the future.”

And Oysmüller adds:

“The most explosive wording in the law, which can be applied to the mRNA critics, can be found in paragraph 2:

'The request to abandon or refrain from a therapeutic or prophylactic medical treatment is punishable by one year in prison and 15.000 euros if this abandonment or omission is considered to be is presented as beneficial to the health of the targets, even though they are is obviously suitable, according to the state of medical knowledge, for in view of the illness from which they suffer, serious consequences for their physical or mental health."

The legislation was introduced as an amendment to existing statute, and opponents almost beat it. But the Macron collectivists rallied, and, typical to collectivists who want to impose their will on others, utilized the classic gas-lighting technique of demonizing those who just want to be free and left alone:

“Initially, the government's plans failed and Article 4 could be removed from the law. This immediately led to polemics from the government. A politician from Macron's party, for example, spoke afterwards of an ‘alliance against science’ for which he was ‘ashamed’.

But on Wednesday, the government prevailed – in a manoeuvre typical of the Macron regime.”

And the result was the typical “follow the science – as defined by government, without real debate or choice” destination. New threats by agents of the state now will be legal, and free speech will be the target.

“Almost without debate, this slightly amended draft was then adopted at first reading by 151 votes to 73.

Florian Philippot, the leader of ‘Les Patriots’, a Le Pen splinter, had already warned of just such a manoeuvre by the government a week before this action. He called Article 4 ‘Pfizer amendment’. He wrote on X at the time: ‘With this amendment, you condemn anyone who expresses even the slightest doubt about mRNA injection and refuses to recommend it! The National Assembly, with the support of the Council of the Order (of course...), wants to reintroduce it, although even the Council of State classifies it as hostile to freedom, that's all!’"

NewsAddicts’ Trent Walker also notes that the new legislation removes previously extant protections for government whistle-blowers who might engage in warning people about the government-standard or the government-pushed “medicine.”

Related: Trudeau Administrator Demands LICENSING for All Canadian Websites | MRCTV

This is dangerous, infuriating, and, sadly, unsurprising.

Given the recent EU moves to censor social media, the UK integration of its new “Online Safety Act” censorship controls over social media with its already-existing “OfCom” censorship controls over broadcasters, and the Irish government creeping closer to allowing fines and possible imprisonment for what the government will claim is “hate speech,” given the vast array of backdoor US government moves to censor us, and the threat of Liz Warren-pushed legislation to make large social media platforms get “licensed” by the feds and conform to federal speech controls, this move in France is typical of the paternalist mindset that gives birth to absolute oppression.

One need not live in France to be alarmed and voice opposition to it and the overall political pathology it represents. It is worldwide and has been around for years. After all, Jean Jacques Rousseau espoused what he said was the infallibility of the government when the French Assembly issued edicts. He called it "The General Will" -- and, of course, it stood in total opposition to freedom or individual will.

Given the speech and intensity of the contemporary political marauders like him, we might not have much more time to speak up against this poisonous mentality. But we still have a chance to do so, and history will judge us accordingly.

Follow MRCTV on X!