Pregno, a psychologist by profession, has been a member of the CCHR since its creation in 1999 and is its current president. He spoke with Delano’s sister publication Paperjam to mark 10 December, Human Rights Day.
Would compulsory vaccination, if introduced, be an infringement of human rights?
Gilbert Pregno: It would be an interference in private life. And therefore, it would restrict a right that enshrines a freedom. However, this freedom, like all others, is not unlimited. It can be restricted for a valid reason: it must be “legitimate, necessary and proportional” and limited in time, according to the appropriate legal logic. And in the reality we are dealing with, this would be the case since the collective health of a large number of people would be at stake. Therefore, in this case, compulsory vaccination would be a justifiable and legitimate infringement of human rights.
A judgement of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg along the same lines was handed down last April.
Restrictions on freedom … are conceivable if the underlying issue is more important than the restrictions themselves.
You are referring to the ECHR ruling that was issued following the request of several Czech families? These families did not want to comply with the general legal obligation in their country to vaccinate their children against nine diseases. As a result, they were fined by the state and the unvaccinated children were not accepted in kindergarten. This led their parents to start a legal battle that took them all the way to Strasbourg. Where they were not successful...
Yes, that's right. Many people interpreted the European Court ruling as a justification for compulsory vaccination. But this was not the case. The court did not rule on compulsory vaccination. Instead, it gave a thought to the restrictions on freedom. And for it, these are conceivable if the underlying issue is more important than the restrictions themselves. This would be the case here if compulsory vaccination were to be introduced.
Can collective health then be placed above individual freedoms?
Yes, but once again, it's a question of balance. And we must be sure that no other measure, which would be less restrictive, is possible.
This is why the government repeats that it will only opt for compulsory vaccination as a last resort and that other strategies are preferred for the time being?
That's right. The idea has always been to avoid imposing too strong a constraint. Instead, we try to motivate and raise the awareness of people who are not vaccinated. In order to try to make them feel confident about this vaccination.
At the Consultative Human Rights Commission, we receive a lot of messages. Some people really look desperate today.
Then again, there are always people who do not want to be vaccinated, who are afraid. And for different reasons. I also have the impression that there is a crisis of confidence in science. Alongside this, there has been a form of protest against authority and the political world for some years. That's what I feel, in any case. And all this means that today, if the political authorities put forward a measure, you no longer trust them. Even if it is a decision that could be good for you.
At the Advisory Commission on Human Rights, we get a lot of messages. Some people look really desperate today. They are not vaccinated, they have their backs against the wall and they feel they have to do something they don't trust. It's really hard to convince them. The success rate as it stands is really not very high.
The measures taken by the government in its latest bill already go a long way in my opinion. 2G for leisure and 3G for business is very demanding.
So how do we go about achieving a high percentage of vaccination among the population? We might end up with the last resort, which is compulsory vaccination, right?
The measures taken by the government in its latest bill already go a long way in my opinion. 2G for leisure and 3G for business is very demanding. You have to realise that. We feel that the government is really pushing for everyone to get vaccinated. Likewise, we at CCHR are convinced that the way out of the tunnel will be through this vaccination. But we remain cautious and vigilant about the effects of the measures that are taken.
It is difficult for someone who has decided that they do not want to be vaccinated to swallow their pride and go to a vaccination centre...
Yes, as a psychologist, I can assure you that it is indeed very difficult. And if you are put under pressure when you already have a feeling of fear, it may multiply. But, if I put my human rights defender's hat back on, I am obliged to note that there is a form of urgency that has taken hold. Society must succeed in moving forward. Because the longer the current measures last, the more harmful their consequences will be. So we really need to work towards a way out of this pandemic crisis.
I have to say that the government has very rarely provided the elements that would have allowed us to understand how it came to take the measures that were decided upon.
I must admit that this whole issue is of great concern to us at the CCHR. We are a kind of institutional whistleblower. Since the beginning of the crisis, we have supported the government to move towards vaccination. But we have also always been very attentive to the precision of the legislation, which left much to be desired. Moreover, we are above all the advocates of the discriminated people, the poor, the homeless, those with mental difficulties, refugees, children, etc.
Our commitment was to ensure that the law was applied in a way that would not only protect the rights of the poor, but would also protect the rights of the elderly. Our commitment was to make sure that we are not divided in our society so that we do not break up our living together. And I have to say that the government has very rarely provided the elements that would have allowed us to understand how it came to take the measures decided upon.
Understanding is important. The absence of these explanations has contributed to creating a climate of mistrust, or even rejection, among a certain number of people. This is a phenomenon that also exists in other countries, I must point out.
The CCHR has a double role: promoting human rights and advising the government. When your annual report was published last March, you explained that your opinions had not been followed by the government. Are we still in the same situation today?
Yes, and I believe that this is more or less the case for all advisory bodies like ours. The government and parliament want to know whether or not the Council of State makes a formal objection, because it slows down the procedures. But for the rest, they are looking for a quick decision, without recourse to opinions that could, however, be very useful. They're kind of flying by the seat of their pants. But I would be remiss if I did not add that the pressure on the political authorities is enormous with this health crisis. This is a bad time to have political responsibility.
They're kind of flying by the seat of their pants … This is a bad time to have political responsibility.
So you are clearing them a little?
Yes, a little. Please understand me: I deeply regret that they do not take our opinions into account more. But I don't want to fall into the logic of contempt that is so prevalent in our civilisation today. Not only towards politicians. This contempt scares me a lot, I admit it. Because if our society splits up because of the divisions, if it bursts into pieces, in what state will we come out of the crisis once we have mastered this virus? Will we be able to forgive the mistakes that will inevitably have been made? Will we be able to console all those who have been affected? At the beginning of the crisis, I thought we would emerge stronger, more united. I am not really convinced of this, but I want to remain optimistic.
How will we manage to repair all the mental damage caused by this health crisis?
The mental health damage is really impressive and widespread. I don't think the full effects are yet known. This is of great concern to me as a psychologist.
We really need to get out of this crisis as soon as possible.
And here, once again, it is the most vulnerable people who are most affected. I'm thinking of children, adolescents, people who live in difficulty, particularly in terms of housing or work. There is a lot of pressure at the moment to find places for therapy in order to be able to go and see someone. And this is despite the fact that the government has been dragging its feet for years regarding the reimbursement of treatment costs for psychotherapists who are not doctors. We really need to get out of this crisis as soon as possible.
A final word on the reform of the constitution, which you are also following?
Yes, this is another big issue for us. We are in the process of finalising an opinion which should be published in January. I don't want to say too much at the moment, but I know that it will be critical on certain points. And not the smallest points.
This story was first published in French on . It has been translated and edited for Delano.