Originally posted by shavixmir 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.
No; lawyers aren't "screaming abuse" when a nipple gets shown on TV. The FCC is "screaming" violation of specific FCC rules that over the air broadcasters agree to abide by when broadcasting over the air TV.
To compare that to legislating against spousal shouting matches (or whatever this rule would be used to legislate) is silly... if that's what you meant to so.
Originally posted by sh76 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 g spousal spats could do and I don't see how it would be enforced. Hence my snap judgment.
Another one who doesn't seem to have a clue about what is being legislated here but still feels the need to complain. 😵
Originally posted by sh76 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 ...[text shortened]... g spousal spats could do and I don't see how it would be enforced. Hence my snap judgment.
I don't quite get why you are characterizing psychological abuse with this quite clearly trivializing language. Do you recognize that there is psychological abuse that is way in excess of and much more systematic that mere 'spats' and 'arguments'? Of course you do. But if it's reasonable to you for them to "sue each other on a tort theory" then why is it unreasonable for there to be a clear and specific protection?
Originally posted by FMF Spousal arguments ... shouting matches ... spousal spats
I don't quite get why you are characterizing psychological abuse with this quite clearly trivializing language. Do you recognize that there is psychological abuse that is way in excess of and much more systematic that mere 'spats' and 'arguments'? Of course you do. But if it's reasonable to you for them ort theory" then why is it unreasonable for there to be a clear and specific protection?
As Palynka suggests, maybe we should look at the text of the proposed bill. Then we'll be in a better position to answer these questions and I'll be in a better position to rip it apart. 😛
Does anyone know of a site where the text of the proposed bill is posted?
Originally posted by sh76 As Palynka suggests, maybe we should look at the text of the proposed bill. Then we'll be in a better position to answer these questions and I'll be in a better position to rip it apart. 😛
Does anyone know of a site where the text of the proposed bill is posted?
It seems that for the moment, they only introduce the notion of "harcelement moral" (literally: moral harassment) within the couple, allowing divorce by fault of the offending party. I agree that it seems too vague, so this is will depend entirely on jurisprudence.
Originally posted by Palynka http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/11/propositions/pion2575.asp
It seems that for the moment, they only introduce the notion of "harcelement moral" (literally: moral harassment) within the couple, allowing divorce by fault of the offending party. I agree that it seems too vague, so this is will depend entirely on jurisprudence.
I don't suppose the text exists in English anywhere?
Originally posted by sh76 I don't suppose the text exists in English anywhere?
I learnt my French playing unsanctioned semi-professional boules in mid-sized Atlantic coastal towns. Played havoc with my vocabulary and my proclivity to let my fists do the talking. I'd ask someone else to dig out the original texts if I were you.
Originally posted by sh76 Well, would someone on this board who speaks French like to translate it (at least the provisions themselves, which are short) for us?
L'article 242 du code civil est complété par un alinéa ainsi rédigé :
" Il peut être également demandé par l'un des époux lorsque le comportement de l'autre époux manifeste la volonté délibérée de porter atteinte matériellement ou moralement à ses droits ou à ses conditions de vie et de travail ".
This is the main provision:
The article 242 of the civil code is to be completed by the following section: "It [divorce by fault - don't know the exact legal translation] can be also demanded by one of the spouses when the behaviour of the other spouse manifests the deliberate will to materially or morally undermine his rights or living and work conditions.
Originally posted by Palynka The article 242 of the civil code is to be completed by the following section: "It [divorce by fault - don't know the exact legal translation] can be also demanded by one of the spouses when the behaviour of the other manifests the deliberate will to materially or morally undermine his rights or living and work conditions.
Ah good. So this WILL apply to my relationship with whody.
Originally posted by Palynka L'article 242 du code civil est complété par un alinéa ainsi rédigé :
" Il peut être également demandé par l'un des époux lorsque le comportement de l'autre époux manifeste la volonté délibérée de porter atteinte matériellement ou moralement à ses droits ou à ses conditions de vie et de travail ".
This is the main provision:
The article 242 of the civ ...[text shortened]... iberate will to materially or morally undermine his rights or living and work conditions.
Oh; so that's not a criminal or even civil provision; but merely a ground for "fault" divorce?
Big deal? Emotional abuse is a ground for a "fault" divorce in the US also. That what this whole conversation is about??
French may ban psychological abuse by spouses
06 Jan '10 21:18
Back to Top