France’s Confusing New Law Criminalizing Criticizing The Science

My knowledge of French law rivals that of Fifteenth Century Congolese poetry. So I know I am on risky ground commenting on a newly passed law that many are saying, like this woman, “[The new law] will not tolerate any criticism of the therapeutic treatments which will be recommended or made obligatory by the state. Any person who dares to openly criticize these therapies will be liable to fines and imprisonment.”

Our point will be how this kind of law will become increasingly prevalent in those countries which have fallen into Expertocracies, or managerial states.

The new French law involves something called Article 4 (government link), which says in part this (I’m not certain if this the final or proposed text):

Provocation by means of repeated pressure or maneuvers of any person suffering from a pathology to abandon or abstain from following therapeutic or prophylactic medical treatment is punishable by one year of imprisonment and a fine of 30,000 euros, when this abandonment or abstention is presented as beneficial for the health of the persons concerned whereas it is, in the state of medical knowledge, clearly likely to result in them, taking into account the pathology from which they suffer, particularly serious consequences for their physical or psychological health.

Being French (the original), this is all one sentence and somewhat impenetrable. The number of modifiers make it unclear, at least to me, when somebody would be in violation of this new Expert health code.

The next paragraph calls for the same penalty for those who encourage practices which “cause mutilation or permanent disability.” I would interpret that to mean that quacks who slice and dice people in the name of “gender affirmation” should be jailed. One year is far too lenient, though. Yet I suspect the law will not be used in service to Reality, but to the whims of the bureaucracy and rulers.

Here’s the third paragraph:

When the provocation provided for in the first two paragraphs has been followed by effects, the penalties are increased to three years of imprisonment and a fine of 45,000 euros.

I don’t know what “effects” (d’effets) means legally. But I would think a young girl who has her breasts sliced off would be an effect. Given they are counting the psychological in “effects”, practically anything could be construed as a violation.

Caveats appear in paragraph four:

When the provocation is accompanied by clear and complete information as to the consequences for health and the conditions in which this provocation was made do not call into question the free and informed will of the person, the offenses defined in this article are not constituted.

Sounds like an out for doctors. Whether random internet personalities would be exempt for their analysis of Experts is another question.

Reports are that there was opposition to the law, but the government steamrolled over opponents. That report says that the law is “an a priori condemnation of so-called ‘parallel’ medicine” and that it poses “a threat to whistleblowers”, which sounds likely enough. The point about leftists embracing it is also expected.

A precaution that the Socialists group itself had proposed by amendment, allowing one of its members, Arthur Delaporte, to unreservedly praise the reinstatement in the text of the offense aimed at punishing incitement to abandon care. “With this article, we are defending science,” he also welcomed.

Suivez la science!

Many say this law is the result of people rejecting the vax. Remember when that was to be our savior? Not everybody believed it at the time, and opted out of the shot, like Yours Truly. Others embraced it, some developing what seems to be a habit of getting shot up.

Now I have said many times that Experts cannot countenance disagreement in those areas in which they claim expertise. Their degrees, credentials, positions, and funding guarantee, in their minds, their explicit superiority. In any argument between an Expert and a civilian, the Expert wins by definition. Even if the Expert disagrees with Reality.

We saw this so many times during the covid panic I don’t think I need to justify these contentions further. We see it in “climate change”; indeed, we see it wherever there are Experts.

An Expert, do not forget, is a person with expertise who has aligned his interests with the ruling class. This is why, for instance, doctors in the covid panic who advised against ruler-endorsed “solutions” faced various penalties. They were not Experts.

It is inevitable, as I say, for the managerial state, the expertocracies, to guard its Expert-endorsed opinions jealously.

Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card click here. Or use the paid subscription at Substack. Cash App: $WilliamMBriggs. For Zelle, use my email: matt@wmbriggs.com, and please include yours so I know who to thank.