For the twelfth time since the start of the health crisis, the Senate met today at 2:30 p.m. to debate the bill establishing the vaccination pass. The general discussion opening the session ended following two hours, already revealing some points of convergence and fractures within the assembly.
“Everything has been done to ensure that this debate is disrupted by controversies”
Full of elegance, it is the rapporteur of the law commission Philippe Bas, who gave his voice first: ” You will excuse me for not having recourse to a shattering vocabulary to make myself heard, I have always thought that coming from their representatives, the French feel vulgarity as a humiliation and not as a mark of proximity. A clear allusion to the recent words of the President of the Republic.
« The Senate is committed to the fight once morest the epidemic by combining health requirements, respect for freedoms and parliamentary control », He then assures, to start a balancing act between the government opinion and that of the opposition.
Philippe Bas, in order to refocus the debate on what he considers essential, lists several illuminating facts. First, if the epidemic is soaring in terms of contamination, the Omicron variant is much less virulent than its predecessor Delta, which it “ oust ” step by step. Then, concerning the unvaccinated, he assures that he ” It is not fair to accuse them of the outbreak of the epidemic, since three quarters of French people currently infected are vaccinated. We can no longer blame them for saturating the hospital, because nearly half of the Covid patients hospitalized in critical care are vaccinated people. “Also he launches for Olivier Véran that” the unvaccinated have a good back “, in particular to hide the wear and tear of the health care system in France. ” The only medical argument must be that of protection, not that of punishment. We must renew the thread of the dialogue. Convince without pointing a finger “, He finally said, still convinced himself of the effectiveness of the vaccine, which” reduced severe forms of the disease to 90%. »
As a good representative, it is above all ” for their own good »That Philippe Bas finally invites the non-vaccinated to take the plunge. It is also for their own good that they must ” avoid places prone to contamination. He is therefore in favor of the vaccination pass, under certain conditions, however: maintaining the vaccination pass will not be left to the sole discretion of the current government (sunset clause); minors should be spared; companies must have control over the working methods of their employees without risking sanctions.
“The staircase of no return towards the restriction of freedoms”
It was Senator Loïc Hervé, of the centrist Union, who took the microphone following him to defend his motion of censure. So he took the opportunity to bring the debate to a more philosophical ground. He underlines the fact that historically the ” Senate has always fought for the preservation of freedoms. “After a few words on the vaccination strategy and identity control, he proclaims:” Where is the human rights left? Where is the right of freedom? Where are the great thinkers, the intellectuals? “
Opposing this initiative, Philippe Bas takes the floor once more to ensure that if ” freedoms are sacred, they are not absolute. They relate to limits and the restrictions must therefore be strictly proportional to the extent of the epidemic. The motion of censure was quickly rejected.
“We must vaccinate as many people as possible, as quickly as possible”
Shortly following, it was Claude Malhuret, president of the Indépendants, who indulged, once is not custom, in an unfiltered diatribe once morest the unvaccinated, thereby showing off his verve and his general knowledge. . If the qualities of speaker are undeniable, the capacity to advance the debate is perhaps a little less, since it is categorical that he advances: ” Today we have three certainties. The vaccine prevents the vast majority of severe forms. The probability of staying in intensive care is ten times higher in the unvaccinated. The emergency services are filled by the small minority who refuse the vaccination. The conclusion is of a biblical simplicity, it is necessary to vaccinate as many people as possible, as quickly as possible. »
As in previous discussions, Claude Malhuret’s number drew him the wrath of his detractors, who, while recognizing a certain verve in it, condemned this number of dogmatic cabotinage, starting with his colleague Alain Houpert, in the front row:
“The ideal would be compulsory vaccination.” Here is the acme of the speech of my colleague Claude Malhuret, fervent defender of the government and the President who multiplies the good words like so many bells on his costume of king’s fool. pic.twitter.com/A2jQ4BEqyZ
– Alain Houpert (@alainhoupert) January 11, 2022
“The safeguards are planned”
If it is difficult to guess the outcome of the final vote now, the senators seem to have found some points of convergence. With the exception of Stéphane Ravier who prefers to test himself regularly so as not to risk contamination, all the speakers seemed convinced of the benefits of vaccination, and only diverge on its modalities: free and informed consent, the vaccination pass, or the clear obligation.
However, many of them have warned once morest “ a permanent control company “, Relying in particular on identity checks which would no longer be the prerogative of the police.
Finally, the argument of the “sunset clause”, as Guy Benarroche, an environmental senator from Bouches-du-Rhône, called it, seems to have a lot of followers. Philippe Bas called for it, assuring that it was necessary to define criteria for evaluating the pandemic in order not to risk an unreasonable perpetuation of the constraints.
But Olivier Véran quickly came to answer this point: “ The thresholds in the law are rigid, and prevent us from acting. “He immediately assures him, wanting to be reassuring, that” the current provisions relating to the application of the vaccination pass refer to the concept of health emergency. If it turned out that the epidemic and health situation was no longer considered compatible with the maintenance of the past, justice would order that these devices fall. The safeguards are planned. We are reassured!
Once the general discussion has been concluded, consideration of the amendments will continue today and tomorrow.