Criminalizing Free Speech: The “Pfizer Article”

A Quick Note about France’s Big Brother Moment

Parisians protesting the government’s vaccine passport rules

A bitterly divided French National Assembly last week voted to approve sweeping legislation titled The Bill To Strengthen The Fight Against Sectarian Excesses And Improve The Support Of Victims. Article 4, derisively dubbed the “Pfizer Article” by critics, is the most controversial. It creates a new crime punishable by 1 to 3 years in prison and fines of €15,000 to €45,000 for speech or actions that causes others to “abandon medical care.”

Article 4 almost did not make it into the act. It was the subject of heated debate. It was removed from the bill, then reinstated, initially defeated, then amended, and finally passed by a small margin.

What constitutes criminal behavior under Article 4? This is its text.

( Article) - Provocation to abandon or abstain from therapeutic or prophylactic medical treatment shall be punishable by one year’s imprisonment and a fine of EUR 15000, where such abandonment or abstention is presented as beneficial to the health of the persons concerned, even although it is, in the current state of the medical knowledge, manifestly likely to result in a therapeutic or prophylactic medical treatment for them, in view of the pathology from which they are suffering, serious consequences for their physical or mental health.

The same penalties shall apply to incitement to adopt practices presented as having a therapeutic or prophylactic purpose for the persons concerned when, in the current state of medical knowledge, it is clear such practices expose them to an immediate risk of death or injury likely to result in mutilation or permanent disability.

Where the provocation in the first two paragraphs has been acted upon, the penalties shall be increased to three years imprisonment and a fine of EUR 45000.

Where such offences are committed by means of the written or broadcast press, the special provisions of the laws governing such matters shall apply as regards the determination of the persons responsible.

You are not alone if you had to read its provisions a couple of times and still thought it made no sense.  And it is not a problem of having translated it into English. It is as indecipherable in its original French. That’s the point, however. Article 4 is drafted in the broadest possible language, without any restrictions or objective guard rails to trigger its provisions.

Although the word Pfizer does not appear in the legislation, nor does the term mRNA, the often-raucous debate in the National Assembly was largely directed at the anti-vaccine groundswell that had taken root online during COVID. Pharmaceutical companies lobbied behind the scenes for its passage.  Supporters contended the law would ensure public safety in any national health crisis or a future pandemic. It was, said its sponsors, a “required tool to stop the spread of misinformation” that could otherwise undermine government public health policies.

Make no mistake, Article 4 is a template for other governments looking for a legal means of controlling public discourse when it comes to health and medical treatments. Arthur Delaporte, the Socialist Deputy of the National Assembly, celebrated its passage by declaring, “With this article, we are defending science."

The bills “explanatory section” is unambiguous: “The health crisis [COVID] has constituted an ideal breeding ground for these new sectarian excesses. New forms of self-proclaimed 'gurus' or thought leaders act online, taking advantage of the vitality of social networks to rally around them true communities.”

Article 4’s vagueness is what proponents like. It is a tool they can adapt as needed. It is also why so many legislators were vociferous in opposition.

Who decides what are “sectarian excesses?” Will the government health ministry compile a list of “self-proclaimed ‘gurus’” for possible criminal charges? Does the act criminalize the advice of naturopaths and holistic practitioners who advise patients not to follow allopathic physicians? 

The act’s sponsors say it exempts “alternative practitioners,” but laws often have a way of being enforced in ways their drafters never intended.  What about public figures? Would a French equivalent of Robert Kennedy Jr be subject to prosecution for his anti-Covid vax advocacy?

The bill now moves to the French Senate, where most observers predict it will pass. Emmanuel Macron has indicated his willingness to sign it into law. His party is the moving force behind the bill.

Many governments used the pandemic to test novel ways to exert control from mandatory lockdowns to vaccine mandates and passports. France is the first country to consider adding a post-pandemic tool to criminalize speech that runs counter to that government policy. It is the type of authoritarian power that the Party in George Orwell’s 1984 would admire. The rest of us should be appalled.