Monday July 11 at 9:30 p.m., Parliament opened the debates on the 13th draft “Covid law”. Prevented by its relative majority, the government is forced to maneuver as much as possible to convince elected officials of the relevance of the text. If the discussions are to continue on the 12th, we can note that the opposition seems to have learned the lesson and is already giving voice.
A return to common law?
Filed on July 4 and immediately engaged in the accelerated procedure, this text is presented by the law commission as being “a return to common law”. From the start of her presentation, the rapporteur Caroline Abadie wants to be reassuring: “The government has no whim for restricting freedoms.” For his part, the chairman of the commission, Sacha Houlié, assures us that the measures established by the government over the past two years were “justified and proportionate”but now we need “think about a sustainable framework” putting an end to “exceptional regime”. For him, it is certain, we must prepare for future health crises.
Read also: The WHO treaty on pandemics, a “liberticidal and anti-democratic” project
To do this, this short piece of legislation can be summed up in two points: first, the extension of the SI-DEP and ContactCovid systems for the tracing of contaminations as well as the collection of medical information. Then, and this is especially where the problem lies, the discreet maintenance of the pass (at least sanitary), always according to the goodwill of the Prime Minister.
The emergency that does not say its name
Once again, it was the left that quickly stepped up. On behalf of insubordinate France and NUPES, Raquel Garrido took the microphone to defend a prior rejection of “this text so urgent”.
After taking the time to re-read the two articles to all the elected officials present, she did her best to explain how it was simply a “maintenance of an emergency law that does not say its name”. Regarding the extension of information tools – the data of which is kept for up to six months – she denounces neither more nor less than a “violation of medical secrecy”, without dwelling on the subject. On the other hand, it stops on article 2 relating to the sanitary pass, and more particularly on the following part: “[…] impose on people aged at least twelve years wishing to travel to or from France […]”.
Read also: The pass is back, our fight continues
Orally, the government promises that this article only concerns travel “extra-hexagonal”, in other words border crossings. But what the LFI deputy criticizes the text for is “to maintain the vagueness”. She wonders aloud: why not have marked the word “borders” ? Why did you refuse the amendments aimed at clarifying the point?
Some will see a touch of conspiracy, others a burst of common sense and welcome vigilance. Finally, the text escaped him: the prior rejection was voted 174 for and 192 against. If the government no longer has the blank check of the previous mandate, it does not seem about to change course.
“Vaccines save lives!”
If they do not appear in the text, other topics were discussed during the evening. Among them, the reintegration of suspended caregivers, which François Braun does not (yet) want to hear about:
“The reintegration of unvaccinated caregivers cannot be on the agenda,” says @FrcsBraun, to boos from the opposition. “Objective elements” will be presented on this question at the end of October under the aegis of the health authorities, he announces.#DirectAN #Covid19 pic.twitter.com/7RNyFgoz7D
— LCP (@LCP) July 11, 2022
Opinion shared by Sacha Houlié, who does not hide his own opinion: “Anyway, it’s not desirable. The law does require a clean criminal record for public service.” Fortunately, comparison is not right…
Finally, regarding vaccines, there is no doubt that the government is sticking to its positions. It was Sacha Houlié again who was screaming in the hemicycle: “Fed up with populists against vaccines! No to lies! Vaccines save lives!”