Violent French husbands 'may be tagged'

Delirium

Saw this over the weekend, and it stuck in my head due to the new threads that have started in here recently.

Men seen as likely to be violent towards their wives could be forced to wear an electronic tag under a law being debated by the French parliament.

The tag would have to be worn by men who have received a court order to stay away from their partner.

The proposal is part of a draft law on conjugal violence. It has cross-party support and is expected to pass easily.

According to the government, around 160 women in France are murdered by their husbands or partners every year.

Parliament is also considering outlawing psychological violence in the home, because it is seen by many as a precursor to physical violence.
It is rare for the left and the right in France to agree on anything, says the BBC's Hugh Schofield, so the near unanimity in parliament behind this law comes as something of a novelty.

Everyone agrees that domestic violence is bad and getting worse.
According to the government's figures, three women are being killed by their partners every week - not including many who are driven to suicide.
According to the proposed measures, men who have received court orders to stay away from their partners will wear an electronic bracelet and if they break the order and approach, police are alerted.

Another key clause has caused rather more argument - at least outside parliament, says our correspondent.

This is the creation of a new crime of psychological violence inside the home.

The bills' supporters say it is important to recognise that actual violence against women is always preceded by psychological bullying, and that this too needs to be outlawed.

But many lawyers and professionals in the field are nervous, our correspondent says.

They say it will impossible to say at what point verbal abuse - for instance in an argument - suddenly becomes a criminal offence.

Critics argue the psychological violence clause is unlikely to make any practical improvement to the lives of women who suffer domestic violence.
Source

My understanding is that the law that is being proposed that could make it a criminal offence for a man to verbally abuse his wife, but not the reverse.

Physical violence looks like it will be treated the same way, a man could be charged and tagged but a woman couldn't.

I don't see why no-one asked the question at the initial discussions of the proposal, 'what about a woman abusing a man?'.

OldGoat

koth wrote: »

I don't see why no-one asked the question at the initial discussions of the proposal, 'what about a woman abusing a man?'.

The source report dosen't link to a source of the preposed law change. I'd be interested in knowing how gender specific the original preposal is in comparrison to the BBC's interpertation of it.
I find it difficult to believe that in this day and age in France (one of the more liberal countries on gender issues) that a new law would be so one-sided.

Rebeller

OldGoat wrote: »

The source report dosen't link to a source of the preposed law change. I'd be interested in knowing how gender specific the original preposal is in comparrison to the BBC's interpertation of it.
I find it difficult to believe that in this day and age in France (one of the more liberal countries on gender issues) that a new law would be so one-sided.

For any of ye who understand French here's the text of the law direct from the French parliament's website. For those who don't, copying and pasting the text into the google translator will give you the general gist. Like most legal texts it's a ready made cure for insomnia:pac:

The relevant section is "Article 2 bis (nouveau)".

The language is gender neutral as far as I can see. Yes, it does refer to "son conjoint" (i.e. his partner/spouse) but, as far as I'm aware, all French legislation uses the masculine form rather than having to use his/her (son/sa) every time a person is referred to.

It's being promoted as a measure to protect women but I see nothing in the language that would suggest it couldn't also be applied to violent French women. In fact, any such law that would actively discriminate against either gender would be unconstitutional.

Most international media is reporting the legislation as a protective measure for women only as the general perception is still out there that the dynamic of domestic violence always always involves a male perpetrator and female victim.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Think tagging people with restraining orders is a good idea.

Outlawing psychological violence? That's insane.

Nevyn

Currently there is a proposal for the safety order in this country to be amended to include ex partners who are not living with a person any more. I think this is needed.

CDfm

Rebeller wrote: »

.

It's being promoted as a measure to protect women but I see nothing in the language that would suggest it couldn't also be applied to violent French women. In fact, any such law that would actively discriminate against either gender would be unconstitutional.

Except experience shows us that the application of the law is not gender neutral.

I mean -whats the point in saying the wording of a law does not discriminate when you go out and apply it in a discriminatory way. Getting the legal wording right is bollox and a futile exercise because you are just pretending. Its like having a bouncer at a club not leaving coloured people in for dress code reasons. Same dog different hair.

pickarooney

Rebeller wrote: »

The language is gender neutral as far as I can see. Yes, it does refer to "son conjoint" (i.e. his partner/spouse) but, as far as I'm aware, all French legislation uses the masculine form rather than having to use his/her (son/sa) every time a person is referred to.

Just a clarification. The possessive pronoun agrees with the noun which follows, not the person to whom it refers, in any context.

On the other hand, 'conjoint' is the masculine form of the noun, as opposed to 'conjointe', but the masculine form is always used when referring to nouns of mixed or unknown gender.

OldGoat wrote:

I find it difficult to believe that in this day and age in France (one of the more liberal countries on gender issues) that a new law would be so one-sided.

I wouldn't agree with this at all. France is still far more patriarchal than pretty much any country north of its borders and sexual harrassment legislation simply didn't exist until about 15 years ago and prosecutions for it very rare until recently (and still more or less tolerated in the workplace to this day).

CDfm

pickarooney wrote: »

Just a clarification. The possessive pronoun agrees with the noun which follows, not the person to whom it refers, in any context.

On the other hand, 'conjoint' is the masculine form of the noun, as opposed to 'conjointe', but the masculine form is always used when referring to nouns of mixed or unknown gender.

Thats semantics - what matters is how the law is applied.

I wouldn't agree with this at all. France is still far more patriarchal than pretty much any country north of its borders and sexual harrassment legislation simply didn't exist until about 15 years ago and prosecutions for it very rare until recently (and still more or less tolerated in the workplace to this day).

I always turn off when I see words like patriarchy bandied about.

The french view on feminism as evidenced by its writings( like Simone De Beauvoir and others since) is more philosophical and less aggressive and political then other countries and that does not make it more or less patriarchal- it just means it is not radicalised along gender lines. Socially it is a lot more liberal. Look at Mrs Sarkovy. The French psychoanalyst Élisabeth Roudinesco is noted for her opposition to the more radical legal proposals, though I do not know where she stands on this.

metrovelvet

CDfm wrote: »

Except experience shows us that the application of the law is not gender neutral.

I mean -whats the point in saying the wording of a law does not discriminate when you go out and apply it in a discriminatory way. Getting the legal wording right is bollox and a futile exercise because you are just pretending. Its like having a bouncer at a club not leaving coloured people in for dress code reasons. Same dog different hair.

Not in France my dear.

pickarooney

CDfm wrote: »

Thats semantics - what matters is how the law is applied.

No, it's syntax and how a law is applied should depend directly on how it's written.

What am I supposed to see when looking at Carla Bruni and how does she tell us anything about how liberal France is socially? And what is the relevance of social liberalism to a discussion on spousal abuse? And why throw out a non-sequitur about Elisabeth Rouinesco if you don't know anything about her?

pickarooney

Actually, reading articles 11-15, added later, the amended text is laughably hypocritical, describing itself as promoting equality between the sexes by defending the rights of women and combatting sexual prejudice and violence against women.

It's like something Goldmember would write.

CDfm

Pickarooney - it does matter how a law is written -but how it is applied also matters.The debate in the parliment is focused on me.

Social liberalism means that the culture is lots different and it may be pigeonholed into something its not. What do you mean by patriarchy?

Why mention spousal abuse when the issues being discussed affect tagging men. I know nothing about french consitutional law but our courts when looking at such a law would take into asccount the intention behind the law and use the Dail Reports to do so.

So yes the context in which the law is put in place is important.

And why throw out a non-sequitur about Elisabeth Rouinesco

I mentioned her as she is an influential figure who often takes a different view on items surrounding gender based laws -so that if someone was looking up alternative views she is worth a look.

Also a reason was to act as a balance with Simone de Beauvoir with someone more contemperary. I also pointed out that I did not know what her stance was indicating that my knowledge of the womans views is not current.

The debate on feminism in france is much different to Ireland and the UK and draws on different writers.Its culture is different to.

Whats wrong with pointing those things out.

CDfm

pickarooney wrote: »

Actually, reading articles 11-15, added later, the amended text is laughably hypocritical, describing itself as promoting equality between the sexes by defending the rights of women and combatting sexual prejudice and violence against women.

It's like something Goldmember would write.

LOL