Sectarian abuses: what you need to know about the offense of “provocation to abandonment of care” voted on in the Assembly, which is controversial

Ophélie Artaud / Photo credits: Xose Bouzas / Hans Lucas / Hans Lucas via AFP 2:17 p.m., February 17, 2024

This week, the bill on sectarian aberrations was voted on in the National Assembly. But one of the articles provoked heated debates in the hemicycle: that on the creation of an offense of "provocation to abandonment of care", first rejected by the deputies, then modified and voted on. Opponents pointed to a threat to freedom of expression. Europe 1 takes stock.

After an initial rejection, the National Assembly finally approved the creation of an offense of “provocation to abandonment of care”. This concerns the controversial article 4 of the bill to combat sectarian abuses. A measure which aims to oppose “gurus 2.0”, but which has caused controversy in the National Assembly. The Republicans, the National Rally and La France insoumise were particularly opposed to this article. While the first version of the text was rejected by the deputies by 116 votes to 108, the modified article was finally adopted by 182 votes to 137. Europe 1 explains to you what is contained in this article, contested by some of the deputies?

What does the article voted by the National Assembly say?

The aim of Article 4 is to fight against those whom the government describes as “gurus 2.0”. In other words, false therapists who put forward false promises of health to cure illnesses using so-called “miracle” but totally ineffective methods. These methods are opposed to traditional medical care pathways. For example, some promote “mistletoe injections” or “lemon juice” to treat cancer. Methods which can lead to sectarian excesses, and harm the health of the victims.

From now on, this article 4 voted indicates that "the provocation [...] to abandon or abstain from following a therapeutic or prophylactic medical treatment, when this abandonment or this abstention is presented as beneficial for the health of the person concerned then that it is, in the state of medical knowledge, clearly likely to cause for her [...] particularly serious consequences for her physical or psychological health" is considered an offense, punishable by one year's imprisonment and a fine of 30,000 euros. A penalty which can go up to three years of imprisonment and a fine of 45,000 euros if “the provocation was followed by effects”.

>> LISTEN ALSO - 

Bill on sectarian abuses: should we create an offense of “provocation to abstention or abandonment of care”?

Also, another paragraph indicates that in the event of "provocation to adopt practices presented as having a therapeutic or prophylactic purpose when it is clear, in the state of medical knowledge, that these practices expose one to an immediate risk of death or injuries likely to result in mutilation or permanent infirmity", false therapists incur the same penalty.

Nearly 40% of the reports received by the Interministerial Mission for Vigilance and the Fight against Sectarian Abuses (Miviludes) are related to health.

Why did this article 4 provoke the anger of several parties?

Before going before the National Assembly, the first version of this article 4 had been withdrawn by the Council of State. The latter considered that "neither the necessity nor the proportionality of these new incriminations have been proven", because current law represses a large part of these practices, and was concerned about "limitations to freedom of expression". "It is necessary to guarantee a balance between these constitutional rights, in order, in particular, not to call into question, by criminalizing challenges to the current state of therapeutic practices, the freedom of scientific debates and the role of whistleblowers. ", writes the institution.

Tuesday evening, during the first vote, the LFI, LR and RN deputies also denounced this article 4, considering that it represented a threat to "public liberties" and to "whistleblowers", particularly when the latter criticize Pharmaceutical industry. While the article had been rejected by the deputies, the announcement of a second vote caused an outcry from the oppositions.

Are whistleblowers threatened?

LFI deputy Jean-François Coulomme denounced this "too vague" offense, which "threatens our freedoms", for example for "criticizing pharmaceutical abuses". Some elected officials cited the example of Irène Frachon, this whistleblower who played a decisive role in the Mediator affair, an appetite suppressant drug which caused the death of numerous patients. "With this article, Irène Frachon would have been prosecuted or put in prison before even starting to express the slightest doubt about the Mediator [...] What is very serious is that if she had not been able to express these critics, the Mediator would still be on sale over the counter, there would still be thousands of deaths and there would have been no trial even though the laboratory was condemned", protested, for example, the MP for Essonne, Nicolas Dupont-Aignan.

For her part, Brigitte Liso, rapporteur of the bill, defended herself against any attack on the freedom of expression of whistleblowers. “This law absolutely does not concern whistleblowers,” she assured at the microphone of Europe 1, in the show

Pascal Praud et vous

.

>> READ ALSO - 

Pascal Praud and you - Sectarian excesses: "You are not in reality", challenged by a listener, the deputy rapporteur of the text responds

Whistleblowers are also legally protected, notably since 2016 and the Sapin 2 law. In 2022, a new law to improve the protection of whistleblowers was published in the Official Journal. It specifies the definition of their status, and also aims to protect those around them.

Why did this text revive the debate around Didier Raoult?

The vote on this article also revived debates around the controversial hydroxychloroquine treatment of Professor Didier Raoult, during the health crisis. In the hemicycle, Olivier Véran and Marine Le Pen argued on the subject. The former Minister of Health castigated the “quasi-messianic delusions” of the “charlatan de la Canebière”. “Are the criteria for sectarian excesses met? At a minimum, there is a subject for debate,” asked Olivier Véran. “There will be other health crises in our country, there will be other gurus, some will manage to shake the confidence of our fellow citizens on a large scale,” he concluded.

Comments criticized by the leader of the National Rally. “If there is one person who should not speak today it is Mr. Véran who said everything and the opposite of everything during the Covid crisis. He dared to speak about Professor Raoult,” said she said. Before asking "aren't there a few ministers who were treated by Professor Raoult?", referring to Sabrina Agresti-Roubache, who had been taken care of by Professor Raoult and had praised his treatment.

Once again, the question of freedom of expression and the possibility of criticizing vaccines was at the center of the debates. For the rapporteur of the bill Brigitte Liso, Professor Raoult's question "is not the subject, whether it is Olivier Véran or Marine Le Pen" who is talking about it. "My subject is the victims. A woman told me that she lost her 35-year-old daughter to breast cancer [which could have been treated, editor's note], but that she was taken care of by a guru who suggested that she stop her treatment and who replaced it with potato juice extract. That's what gurus do", she concluded at the microphone of Europe 1.