TRIBUNE – Mrs Sonia Backès, Secretary of State for Citizenship, announced on November 2 that the government will organize “foundations of sectarian aberrations and conspiracy”.
Sonia Backès (@SoniaBackes) announces that the government will organize “assizes of sectarian aberrations and conspiracy” pic.twitter.com/JeAry36QNC
— BFMTV (@BFMTV) November 2, 2022
This announcement shows the determination of this government to discredit or silence any expression that is not related to its own ideology. Now a minority within an Assembly that she bypasses with 49.3, she wants to go a step further so as not to lose the battle of ideas definitively. What could be better than getting your opponents out of the battlefield by associating them with the camp of evil?
Already, we should ask Mrs Backès what definition she wishes to give to these “sectarian aberrations”. On May 20, 1999, the Senate and the Ministry of the Interior specified that there was no need to legislate on sects as such, explaining that it was impossible to define them from a legal, no more than religions, since the Republic “recognizes no religion”. Consequently, only deviant behavior could be qualified as non-compliance with the law or the codes that govern the life of the community (health, work, social security, etc.). The Senate text can be viewed here.
To clarify a little more the concept of “sectarian phenomenon”, the Miviludes (State body in charge of this monitoring) reminds us of the articles of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789 (cf: see in the appendix to this forum Articles 4, 10, and 11), which recall the few rare restrictions on freedom of opinion and expression which, it is recalled, are “one of man’s most precious possessions”. In a few words: do not harm others, allow everyone to enjoy the same rights, do not disturb public order.
Miviludes also gives us a definition of “sectarian drift”:
“It is a deviation from the freedom of thought, opinion or religion which undermines public order, laws or regulations, fundamental rights, the security or integrity of persons . It is characterized by the implementation, by an organized group or by an isolated individual, whatever its nature or activity, of pressures or techniques aimed at creating, maintaining or exploiting in a person a state psychological or physical subjection, depriving him of a part of his free will, with harmful consequences for this person, his entourage or for society. »
Thus, by presenting these future foundations, Mrs. Backès voluntarily creates an association between sectarian drift and what she calls “conspiracy”, which itself becomes the equivalent of a sectarian drift.
Here too, let us focus on the definitions that are important for our freedoms and our democracies.
What does the Larousse tell us: Conspiracy – male noun: “Manner of biasedly interpreting events specific to conspiracy theorists”.
By extension, we can also say, and this was the subject of my last text on the subject, that any interpretation that diverges from the doxas in force is accused of conspiracy, because it calls into question media or government assertions, yet not always founded.
In reality, the term “conspiracy” henceforth used to discredit or prevent any serious democratic debate by refusing to listen to the arguments of opponents, today suspected of moral or psychological deviance, and perhaps tomorrow of sectarian deviance, is an invention astute to circumvent article 11 of the Declaration of the rights of man on the free communication of the thoughts and the opinions.
So where is the sectarian drift? Would it not rather be the State, by prohibiting the expression of certain opinions, or by censoring any divergent opinion, which would be sectarian, or even run the risk of a totalitarian drift, according to the definition given by Hannah? Arendt? Thus, when the French state voluntarily censors media such as RT France or Sputnik, does it not itself fall into the sectarian drift denounced by Miviludes?
From the moment the state refused to reinstate suspended unvaccinated caregivers on the pretext that they were likely to contaminate patients, which turned out to be a lie since it was shown that vaccines did not prevent transmission of the virus, the State itself undermines the safety and integrity of the suspended persons by causing damage to them and those around them, and this, for an unfounded reason. We can therefore apply to it the definition given by Miviludes of a sectarian drift.
When the French health authorities decree that there is no treatment for the Covid virus and prohibit useful and effective drugs up to that time over the counter in French pharmacies, which many countries have demonstrated to be effective , we can also speak of sectarian drift on the part of these health authorities, since these bans have caused significant damage to the health of our fellow citizens.
For example: Japan or Mexico, which used ivermectin from the start of the pandemic, in accordance with what Professor Perronne recommended, now cleared of any accusation, or countries like China, the Netherlands, Iran, Belgium, Italy (Lombardy), New York in the USA, Korea, India, Congo, Morocco, Romania used hydroxycholoroquine and ivermectin.
So let’s thank Mrs. Sonia Backès for this new “base” by asking her to start by applying it to the government in place and to ensure that real democratic debates can take place on all subjects, whatever they may be, without censorship. and without prohibition, unlike what is happening now.
Let us also remind him that no democracy can function without a minimum of debate, as well as divergent thoughts. And wanting to put in place systems to promote denunciation on subjects of opinions that are supposedly inadmissible since they are suspected of being the expression of sectarian excesses or conspiracy, amounts to wishing for an Orwellian society under the fraudulent pretext of serving the good. . For isn’t it always in the name of good that we have done the most harm?
Shouldn’t we rename his title of Secretary of State for Citizenship to Secretary of State in charge of the Single Thought?
Annexe
Art. 4. Freedom consists in being able to do all that does not harm others: thus, the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits other than those which assure the other Members of the Society the enjoyment of these same rights. These limits can only be determined by law.
Art. 10. No one should be disturbed for his opinions, even religious ones, provided that their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by the Law.
Art. 11 The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the most precious rights of Man: every Citizen can therefore speak, write, print freely, except to answer for the abuse of this freedom in the cases determined by the Law.