Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    06 Jan '10 05:04
    From the BBC:

    If you insult your wife or husband repeatedly, you could soon find yourself in court if you live in France.

    The charge? Psychological violence.

    That's what the new offence will be called if a bill backed by the government is passed by parliament.

    Once considered a purely private domain, rows between married or cohabiting couples could now prompt intervention from the state.

    The French government wants to take the controversial step of introducing a new law banning "psychological violence" between married couples or partners living together.

    But there are questions about how such an offence could be proved.

    Many people fear that courts might find it tricky to assess the rival claims of squabbling couples.


    The rest is here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/europe/8440199.stm

    I find thi sslightly baffling. In what circusmtances might an abused spouse be able to successfully resort to using this proposed legal protection?

    Thoughts?
  2. 06 Jan '10 17:00
    Originally posted by FMF
    From the BBC:

    [quote]If you insult your wife or husband repeatedly, you could soon find yourself in court if you live in France.

    The charge? Psychological violence.

    That's what the new offence will be called if a bill backed by the government is passed by parliament.

    Once considered a purely private domain, rows between married or cohabiting couples ...[text shortened]... d spouse be able to successfully resort to using this proposed legal protection?

    Thoughts?
    In theory I think this a very good idea, but I don't see how it could work in practice; its impossible not to have fights or arguments every now and then, people say stuff they don't mean, would these be considered "psychological abuse" as well?
  3. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    06 Jan '10 17:17
    Originally posted by FMF
    From the BBC:

    [quote]If you insult your wife or husband repeatedly, you could soon find yourself in court if you live in France.

    The charge? Psychological violence.

    That's what the new offence will be called if a bill backed by the government is passed by parliament.

    Once considered a purely private domain, rows between married or cohabiting couples ...[text shortened]... d spouse be able to successfully resort to using this proposed legal protection?

    Thoughts?
    Nanny state run amuck.






    See, whodey, aren't you proud of me?
  4. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    06 Jan '10 17:22 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sh76
    Nanny state run amuck.
    Yes, of course, I know that's one view. That's why I didn't ask "Is this just another example of the Nanny State running amok?" Let's say the law were on the books. Under what circumstances would an abused spouse be able to resort to using this kind of legal protection successfully - in reality? Or even theoretically, come to think of it.
  5. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    06 Jan '10 17:30 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by FMF
    From the BBC:

    [quote]If you insult your wife or husband repeatedly, you could soon find yourself in court if you live in France.

    The charge? Psychological violence.

    That's what the new offence will be called if a bill backed by the government is passed by parliament.

    Once considered a purely private domain, rows between married or cohabiting couples d spouse be able to successfully resort to using this proposed legal protection?

    Thoughts?
    They are required to document the abuse.

    Is being married or living together a free pass to insulting your partner? I don't see the problem. "Nanny state run amok" seems a bit weird when all French sources I find seem to require a complaint by the partner.
  6. 06 Jan '10 17:40
    Originally posted by FMF
    Yes, of course, I know that. That's why I didn't ask "Is this just another example of the Nanny State running amok?" Let's say the law were on the books. Under what circumstances would an abused spouse be able to resort to using this kind of legal protection successfully - in reality? Or even theoretically, come to think of it.
    This is certainly less of a nanny state than the execution of homosexuals (or even the lesser case of deciding who should be allowed to enter wedded bliss based on gender.) A wound is a wound however. Altho it occurs to me that this is really not so different than statutes that cover 'stalking' - and seem equally ridiculous until it is your wife or daughter that suffers.
  7. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    06 Jan '10 18:58
    One form of psychological abuse is bullying.
    If dossiers can be formed on schoolyards, then they can be formed in the home too.
  8. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    06 Jan '10 18:59
    Originally posted by sh76
    Nanny state run amuck.






    See, whodey, aren't you proud of me?
    Funny an American having problems with this.
    I mean, considering the amount of legeslating you have going on over there.
    You only have to show a nipple on TV and the lawyers are screaming abuse.
  9. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    06 Jan '10 19:00
    Originally posted by FMF
    Yes, of course, I know that's one view. That's why I didn't ask "Is this just another example of the Nanny State running amok?" Let's say the law were on the books. Under what circumstances would an abused spouse be able to resort to using this kind of legal protection successfully - in reality? Or even theoretically, come to think of it.
    They'd probably have to have a psychologist verify that they are emotionally traumatized.
  10. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    06 Jan '10 19:15
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    They'd probably have to have a psychologist verify that they are emotionally traumatized.
    Trauma can be diagnosed fairly easily. But its causes? It's got to be a complete swamp when you've got the possibility of clinical depression and so on, not to mention the possibility of deep seated feelings of revenge, resentment and rancour. Witnesses? Evidence? Corroboration? Beyond a reasonable doubt? I find wanting to offer legal protection to people who are victims of abuse admirable. But I find this proposal baffling and difficult to picture in action.
  11. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    06 Jan '10 19:21
    Originally posted by FMF
    Trauma can be diagnosed fairly easily. But its causes? It's got to be a complete swamp when you've got the possibility of clinical depression and so on, not to mention the possibility of deep seated feelings of revenge, resentment and rancour. Witnesses? Evidence? Corroboration? Beyond a reasonable doubt? I find wanting to offer legal protection to people who ar ...[text shortened]... tims of abuse admirable. But I find this proposal baffling and difficult to picture in action.
    So you like the idea but are sceptical because of the practical issues?

    So far, nothing practical has been discussed in detail, so I don't see where the criticism is coming from. Let alone the nanny state thing. The problem was a legal vacuum where a form of abuse did not have a legal answer. I don't see why wanting to change that is an issue in itself.
  12. 06 Jan '10 19:23
    Originally posted by FMF
    Trauma can be diagnosed fairly easily. But its causes? It's got to be a complete swamp when you've got the possibility of clinical depression and so on, not to mention the possibility of deep seated feelings of revenge, resentment and rancour. Witnesses? Evidence? Corroboration? Beyond a reasonable doubt? I find wanting to offer legal protection to people who ar ...[text shortened]... tims of abuse admirable. But I find this proposal baffling and difficult to picture in action.
    well, being American, I suppose a set of legs not properly shaven, would get to me after some years??
    :-)
    No offense, just my own liking
  13. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    06 Jan '10 19:29
    Originally posted by Palynka
    So you like the idea but are sceptical because of the practical issues?
    I am not sceptical so much as baffled. My sister is a QC lawyer in the U.K. and used to handle Actual Bodily Harm and Grievous Bodily Harm domestic violence cases before she got the QC thing and moved on to murders and serious fraud and the like. She said that husbands could beat up their wives, there could be wounds, there could even be 'ear'-witness testimony from neighbours, or police callouts - and it was still frequently not possible to get a conviction. So... the considerably more 'abstract' psychological abuse? Well. As I say, I am baffled. I hope it works out and that the proposed protection can protect people from the kind of psychological abuse that requires the legal system to protect people from.
  14. 06 Jan '10 19:55
    Originally posted by FMF
    I am not sceptical so much as baffled. My sister is a QC lawyer in the U.K. and used to handle Actual Bodily Harm and Grievous Bodily Harm domestic violence cases before she got the QC thing and moved on to murders and serious fraud and the like. She said that husbands could beat up their wives, there could be wounds, there could even be 'ear'-witness testimony ...[text shortened]... from the kind of psychological abuse that requires the legal system to protect people from.
    Wind River Indian reservation........... drunken beatings are a common call.
    Had an old friend take a shot, through the trailer door when called to a "domestic" problem.
    The most dreaded calls they get.

    Hey where's OJ ?
  15. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    06 Jan '10 21:15
    Originally posted by FMF
    Yes, of course, I know that's one view. That's why I didn't ask "Is this just another example of the Nanny State running amok?" Let's say the law were on the books. Under what circumstances would an abused spouse be able to resort to using this kind of legal protection successfully - in reality? Or even theoretically, come to think of it.
    I can't think of any way this kind of rule could be fairly or even sanely enforced. Spousal arguments are part of life. To tell one spouse "oh, you had a shouting match with your dear hubby? Call the police." doesn't make any sense.

    If the conduct rises to the level of intentional infliction of emotional distress (or whatever the French equivalent is), then let the spouses sue each other on a tort theory. Otherwise, let it be. I don't see what good criminalizing spousal spats could do and I don't see how it would be enforced. Hence my snap judgment.