France to Make Insulting Your Spouse a Crime

Under a new law, France will become the first country in the world to ban "psychological violence" between married or cohabiting couples. The law applies to both men and women and covers such things as: repeated rude remarks about a partner's looks, false allegations of cheating, and threats of violence. French premier Francois Fillon said, "The creation of this offense will allow us to deal with the most insidious situations — situations that leave no visible scars, but which leave victims torn up inside."

Comments

Useless

[Locke2005]

Completely unenforceable, and every failed relationship is going to be seen as "psychological abuse".

Re:Useless

[Rene S. Hollan]

What proof? The allegation is enough. If someone claims to have been "insulted" who is to say they don't feel that way? Crimes based on how someone "feels" are absurd, but increasingly common.

Because of the false belief that men are inherently violent (why does the image bolster this stereotype?), allegations of abuse often result in fathers denied access to their own children, and having to fight for years to prove the allegations false, with no consequences for the accuser. In the U.S. such cases are heard in "family courts", courts of equity and not law, where the accused has no right to council if they can't afford one, and the bar of evidence is "preponderance" and not "beyond a reasonable doubt". This is supposedly "fair" since courts of law are only used when one is at risk of one's life or liberty: death or jail. Losing one's kids, money, home, does not qualify. Furthermore, the allegation is often believed on it's face since if it were true and NOT removing the accused, harm could result: better to deprive an innocent man of his home, retirement, and kids, than risk him being guilty. Bullshit I say. All this is an increasing attempt to "invent" violent men where there are none.

Re:Useless

[Rene S. Hollan]

Studies I've read suggest most domestic violence is mutual, followed by about equal numbers of unilateral violence against women by men, and men by women. The relationships MOST prone to violence are lesbian ones.

This goes against everything stemming from Steinem-era feminists who's mantra was that men must resort to violence to prop up a societal patriarchy. That's driven family legislation for decades: family courts are courts of equity where preponderance of evidence is the standard, and if a woman claims to suffer abuse, the "presumption" based on this patriarchy/violence lie is that she did: the man is guilty until proven innocent, and can't seek damages for the false accusation.

Another feminist of Steinem's era was Erin Pizzey. She opened the first shelter for battered women and observed that most violence was, indeed, mutual, without a great preponderance of men using it to maintain a patriarchal hold on the family unit. However, Steinem's propaganda won out over Pizzey's facts.

Now that the lie is in place, it must be "propped up". And, to this effect, we see increasing legislation including non-abusive things as "abuse". In WA, a woman is abused if she "fears" her domestic partner. How can you control what frightens someone? Traffic makes you late to arrive home, so she fears you went out drinking and will come home violent? Guess what? Under the law, you abused her, and a restraining order can be taken against you, and be removed from your own home.

This is nothing new: the popular lie carries the day while the contrary evidence is suppressed.

My fear is that when the tables turn, as they invariably will, and Steinem's lie is exposed, it will be twisted to argue that women have a propensity to lie and their testimony should never be believed without corroborating proof from a man. While such turnabout generalization might be fair play, it would not be justice.

Re:Useless

[Rene S. Hollan]

Well, yes, but the laws are based on the presumption that men have a propensity toward violence, where the evidence suggests such a propensity is about equal between the genders. to prop up this lie, things like "fear" count as much as a broken arm.

So: he asks if dinner is ready, she gets mad and stabs him, is afraid he will retaliate and so she calls 911.

Cop sees him stabbed, and her claiming fear. Under the law, BOTH are equally abusive. Often (and I've seen it happen, though it was a toolbox bruising his shoulder and not a knife), HE will be arrested because it stands to reason that if you stabbed someone, you should be afraid that they will retaliate. Further, her stabbing was "justified" out of fear: preemptive strike against a phsyically stronger opponent.

I've often thought that in case of doubt, arrest BOTH parties (this keeps false claims low), and let the courts sort it out, but the courts are so busy, that they prefer to be presented a "fait acompli" that props up justification for existing laws. It's nice to see that some police departments are acting with some sanity and less bias, but there's a lot more that is required.

Liberty? Wrong Culture

[andersh]

Did you notice that the article is about France? We Europeans have a different view of what liberty is and should be.

Your notions of "liberty" and "freedom from government" are *American* concepts, and they are certainly NOT universal!

Europeans in general have a more positive view of government and regulations, this is not just my opinion but the results of research

You call us "socialists", which is a half-lie at best, yet you don't understand how different we are from you, do you?

Godot

[andersh]

What is your problem?

I added a serious comment with relevant information about the cultural differences between the US and Europe, and you added an outrageously stupid reference to Nazis! You, sir, are an idiot.

Europeans in general don't view their government with hostility. That's a fact. So this law is viewed in a different light here, that might be news to some people in the USA, right?

While your own worthless post was neither factual or relevant. It says nothing about the sentiments that exist here in many European countries (not all).

The German people never had a say in WWI, the country was ruled by the Kaiser! And the second time you are referring to involved a coup and conspiracy! The Reichstag fire was not an accident in case you have forgotten.

And the German people didn't trust their government, it was in fact the Nazi Party organzation that was the new power structure. Just details, but you don't care as long as you can spout your anti-Government propaganda, right?

Just in case you haven't noticed, your country is filled with fanatical facists with strong nationalist sentiments. Go America, USA, USA, USA! Flags hanging from every building. Any opposition is "unamerican", haha.

Your notion of "liberty" didn't get you involved in the WWII until the Japanese attacked you! You stood by on the sidelines while Germany rolled over Europe! Cowards and credit stealers! The British resisted alone and PAID the US for every piece of equipment the following sixty years!

Your people are totally ignorant of the major and decisive contribution the Russians made. It was Russians that saved my Western European country.

The Russians did far, far more to save Europe from the Nazis than the Americans. And I don't care if they wanted Europe for themselves, both Empires wanted to control Europe for their own benefit.

And just in case you throw out that stupid comment about "saving" us from speaking German today; we all learn German in school anyway. And, yes, even Russian. So, no thanks, America, we actually believe in government of the people for the people. It works.