Fear is a bad counselor; the French would do well to meditate on this old adage. Since the Covid entered their lives, they have lived, as best they can, in an absolutely … astounding state of bewilderment! The media, politicians and health officials feed them day after day, hour after hour
with catastrophic information, each more alarmist than the next, so much so that a large part of the population lives in anguish, or even is terrified.
The state, always opportunistic, pulls out the big game for us to appear as a savior, as the last resort and it is on the strength of this easily acquired confidence that our rulers, under the pretext of protecting our health, for the good of
all of us, legislate to everything is fine. It does not matter if many of their decisions contradict each other, appear unfounded and if the measures imposed are seen by a section of the population as sanctions that are as unjust as they are unnecessary. The majority of citizens, willy-nilly, follow the instructions imposed, because when the boat sinks, we do not look at the color of the lifebuoys.
It should therefore come as no surprise if after 18 months of the Covid pandemic, polls affirm that 74% of French people approve the introduction of the health pass. The government to sell this measure claims that it is a temporary, exceptional instrument, made absolutely necessary by the violence of the pandemic, but we have all understood that it was through this means to assume by the population a decision which should nevertheless be made by the State.
In reality, things are a bit more complicated. A simple analysis shows that the health pass is much more than a simple measure of coercion. In addition to dividing the population into two opposing camps, without a well-founded health reason (people
who do not want to present their pass to enter a public place are not patients who require isolation …), it induces collective coercion unbearable: the role of the pass is not so much to control individuals as the
social body , by tracing the contacts of individuals between them, so as to establish the social map (the “mapping”) of each one, to know who contacts whom, when and where, so that we can follow each individual’s social network and ban it if necessary.
Big Brother dreamed of it, today’s technology does!
Of course, this attack on individual and social freedoms (and in particular the freedom of assembly) is done in the name of “the good of the community”.
However, many examples show that when it suits it, the state puts particular interests ahead of the health and well-being of citizens. Thus, despite the testimonies, studies and scientific evidence, it was necessary to wait more than 70 years
so that the French state decides to ban asbestos, the cause of hundreds of thousands of deaths. It is only very recently that the state has embarked on campaigns to combat the harmful effects of smoking, a scourge responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of people every year. When it comes to testing atomic weapons in Mururoa, the Polynesians’ health did not matter to the government of the day. Examples could be accumulated. The state only cares
about the health and well-being of populations when it suits it.
Conversely, many examples prove that citizens are responsible and demonstrate from the moment things are well explained solidarity and civic sense. Thus it has never been necessary despite the great needs
to resort to coercion in matters of blood donation, etc. Whenever necessary people donate their blood for free to save lives. If no French government since the existence of blood transfusion has
ever thought of legislating to make blood donation compulsory, it is because everyone owns their blood and by making it compulsory, the state would put itself in a thief position. So if the Macron government decided
to impose a health pass is because it pursues a goal other than the protection of our health.
Any coercive government measure involves an arsenal of sanctions and means of control. The QR code already used in some less democratic countries is a very effective means of controlling society. Thanks to the computing power of modern computers, associated with modern biometric instruments, it makes it possible to monitor in real time and permanently the entire population of a country.
The current pandemic provides an easy alibi for the government to set up this tool, test it, improve it and, above all, accustom the population to its use. A few decades ago, when the first video surveillance cameras were put in place, people were moaning, opponents were protesting and demonstrating. Today cameras are part of our daily life, yet they constantly violate our privacy. Laurent Wauquiez in the Rhône Alpes region wants to set up facial recognition …
When the Vigi-pirates plans were put in place, the government of the day swore to us that it was temporary. Everyone then agreed to denounce the liberticidal nature of these measures. A few decades have passed, counterterrorism measures are still in place, worse, they have been strengthened and we have become accustomed to being controlled, monitored, listened to, etc. In short, we live with … The government, the media keep telling us that we are free, that we live in a democracy. In fact, we are as if voluntarily submitted.