Should one be able to declare oneself a conscientious objector in order to escape the disguised vaccination obligation » What does the introduction of the vaccination pass represent? This is a hypothesis that has been raised in recent days, in particular by Senator Laurence Muller-Bronn, during the debates around the bill. This relatively unknown status would make it possible to circumvent this obligation by relying on the main principles of international treaties.
“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion”
Having often been required to avoid taking part in military activities, conscientious objection is characterized more generally by ” a refusal to perform certain acts required by an authority when they are deemed to contradict personal convictions “. It is a right that is enshrined, among other international treaties, in Article 9 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950.
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right implies the freedom to change one’s religion or belief, as well as the freedom to manifest one’s religion or belief individually or collectively, in public or in private, through worship, teaching, practices and the performance of rites .
2. The freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs may not be subject to restrictions other than those which, provided for by law, constitute measures necessary, in a democratic society, for public security, for the protection of the public order, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
In the present case, the use of conscientious objection would be made possible because we are moving to a ” disguised vaccination obligation », in the words of the Minister of Health, Olivier Veran.
Jurisprudence on a European scale with the Vavricka judgment
Concerning conscientious objection, a 2013 dispute has since made case law.
In essence, it was a dispute in 2013, between a Czech father who refused to have his children vaccinated once morest ” poliomyelitis, hepatitis B and tetanus », and the State of the Czech Republic. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled in favor of the Czech Republic for having imposed these vaccinations on children, while recognizing ” interference with the right to respect for private life “. Also, the institution justified its decision by emphasizing the seriousness of the diseases concerned and the proportionality of the penalties incurred.
The factors that the Court took into consideration in reaching its decision are:
• That the compulsory vaccinations imposed by the Czech Republic had existed for many years;
• That the illnesses in question were serious;
• That the side effects of the vaccines were known;
• That the consequences of non-vaccination were temporary (refusal of access to kindergarten) and limited (fine of 110 euros);
• Compulsory vaccination did not entail physical constraint;
• That the status of conscientious objector once morest these vaccinations was provided for by Czech law and also justified by the fact that vaccination coverage for these diseases was already high in the Czech Republic.
“A constitutional law is not necessarily conventional”
With the help of Me Diane Protat and the support of several associations such as BonSens.org, Reaction 19, or the free sailors, Laurence Muller-Bronn wrote and presented an amendment so that the statute of conscientious objector is inserted in the text of law. During the debates, he was brushed aside by the Senate, like others before him, for the sole reason that ” this would amount to deleting the vaccination pass ».
Today and until Friday, January 21, the text is in the hands of the Elders of the Constitutional Council. Although the institution has been seized by both Chambers, the argument of conscientious objection is used neither by deputies nor by senators. It is therefore a safe bet that the text will be deemed constitutional without mentioning it.
That said, Me Diane Protat underlines that ” a constitutional law is not necessarily conventional ». « The objective of this amendment, she tells us, was to breathe life, to highlight the existence of conscientious objection “. Even if it is rejected, it is a question of letting everyone know (mainly the non-vaccinated, here injured by the new pass) that they can appeal to the ” two eyes of Europe ».
Read also: Compulsory vaccination of caregivers: 268 requests deemed admissible by the ECHR
In view of the decision taken by the ECHR for the Vavricka judgment, if it is seized once more, it should be ensured that the health measures taken to fight once morest Covid-19 are proportional to the seriousness of the disease, this which is already widely questioned. Today, many are those who deplore that the introduction of the vaccination pass is done at ” setback ». « I see an increasingly obvious paradox between the toughening of measures and the reality of the epidemic. We should debate their relaxation, not their hardening “, confided to us the senator Loïc Hervé this day.
On the other hand, it is a matter of focusing more particularly on the “ right to secular conscientious objection “, mentioned by the ECHR in its judgment.
A procedure too tedious?
On the Courrier des stratèges website, Eric Verhaeghe writes: “ I will not wait for the pipeauty opinion of the Constitutional Council to declare myself an objector to vaccination. “He then makes available to the public” a model official declaration of conscientious objection », which should allow those who fulfill it to assert this international law with the various traders, owners of establishments or agents that they will come across.
Whether it’s for a simple drink on the terrace, or maybe tomorrow, to go to work, the procedure may seem too tedious. That said, Me Diane Protat points out that “ conscientious objection is made both to protect the customer, but also the restaurateur who has the courage to open his doors. » « In fact, it is regarding putting an end to the fear and resuming a normal life “, she concludes.
