Shouting at your wife may get you a criminal record in France

Of course the chance of this new law being enforced against women is 0.00.

Not that I ever have before, but I would never even consider living in France while also living with a woman in the same house under such insane conditions. France, you are lost. Nothing left now for you but to be overrun by whatever is left of the decay. A man and woman can no longer have an argument without someone (ie, the man) getting ARRESTED and hauled off.

Still, this is the same country that used to punish (.pdf file) men who were victims of DV by parading them around seated backwards on a donkey. So it really comes as little surprise.

Matt I am cutting and pasting this from a comment thread at NP.
The French are amateurs compared to the Province of Ontario.

Are you not aware of Ontario Bill 117 from December 2000?

Dan Brown wrote in the Ottawa Citizen at that time:

"It's called the "intervention order" and is being fast-tracked through the legislature. ..... this ultimate weapon has been developed is part of a promise from Attorney General Jim Flaherty......The new law gives special courts powers that appear to circumvent the Criminal Code and the Charter of Rights.

.....officially known as Domestic Violence Courts, these special courts have now been given the power to temporarily strip a man of all he owns without him even being present to defend himself......There is already a zero-tolerance policy regarding domestic disturbances/violence. A major problem is the 911 call. Dialing that number means a life is at risk. Feuding couples don't realize until it's too late that by dialing 911 they are in effect reporting an attempted murder. Police no longer separate the battling couple and tell them to cool off. They take one of them -- 99 per cent of the time it's the man -- to jail......The definition of violence is now so broad that a raised voice, if it causes fright, is abuse, which translates to violence.

.....He appears in front of a domestic court judge the next day. If he agrees to plead guilty, he can go home by promising to behave and to take a series of anger-management courses. If he refuses to plead, he faces lengthy delays in the criminal system, large legal bills, and he can't go home because a restraining order is part of the program.

Under Bill 117, while he's in jail overnight, his opponent (wife, ex-wife, girlfriend or date) can appear in front of a judge and ask for an intervention order. He can wake up owning nothing, with no place to go......Written into the scheme are ex parte applications. The alleged abuser doesn't have to be present when the order seizing his property is made. Application for an Intervention Order can be made by anyone in a one-to-one relationship, including dating.

Literally without knowing about it, it will be possible for a partner, almost 100 per cent of them men, to lose freedom and property. The intervention order includes an automatic restraining order. Any violation of an intervention order will be a criminal offense. It will take precedence over any acquittal, dismissal or withdrawal of a criminal charge, or any order under any statute, including the Divorce Act. Transference of property will include leased property, even if she is only a date, and is binding on the landlord. If rent is in arrears, the landlord must collect from him. She will have no liability."

And what does the Bill define as behaviour so egregious that it would warrant this outrageous sanction? It defines as 'abuse', "any series of acts which collectively causes fear for safety,", including anything such as "contacting, communicating with, observing or recording the person.".

And in what kind of intimate relationships? The Bill "more broadly define domestic relationships to include dating relationships and family members who reside together..."

That's right. You've been dating a while and she interprets some of your communications to cause fear for her safety - she can, ex-parte, overnight, have everything you own transferred to her.

For the record it was initially introduced by the current Federal Finance Minister, Jim Flaherty, Red Tory and Feminist Sycophant when he was Ontario AG. For those who think this current federal government is right wing and the former Harris Ontario government was likewise this puts some doubt to that theory as the legislation was draconian and its inception had Marxist roots from an entrenched militant feminist bureaucracy in his then department (they still have undue influence of their political masters) and from other tax supported feminist groups, especially those feminist lawyers funded by the government and organized as law groups.

Flaherty, as do many men, take their marching orders from their wives. His wife recently ran for the Ontario PC leadership and thank goodness she lost.

Badger

manonthestreet

It's better not to shout at a woman. It's better just to cut to the chase and smack her bottom straight away.

Absolutely barbaric! Are we marching back to the day of blue laws of a different matter? Most verbal bullies I have ever encountered were female. France, the nationality of my last name, it is embarrassing! The gendarmes show up and arrest the "man" for hurling insults. Pretty soon the only thing a man will be able to say is yes dear. Viva France... Perhaps an enterprising person could create a partner kit for France stamped made in the U.S.A. including a tape recorder, hmmm I see blackmail in the horizon. Maybe I could add an hi, change it to DeLonghi, on the end of my name before it is to late? No, I was born here, supposed to be a citizen here, I'll just pitty those in France. Good day all.

David A. DeLong

These articles and comments should be preserved for those who think we're winning. Feminism merely seems quiet because they control the infrastructure.

We already have this in Minnesota. Lose your kids, house and all your assets based on the testimony of one person. Is it worth the risk?

There's a blogger over at Psychology Today's website named Steven Stosny who has been going on about this new law and what a Good Thing it is, both there and on NPR. He's evidently in the DV industry and is likening freedom from emotional abuse to a civil right.

I guess it's no surprise that many of his arguments and retorts to commenters at PT who won't get with the program come across as being slightly bullying, as he tends to accuse others of not being aware of the absolute truths he's proclaiming.

Anyway, because women are experts at this sort of abuse, while men are better at the physical variety, one would expect women to be dead set against any such law, but as some have pointed out here the chances of it being enforced against them is minuscule, which is why none of the opposition seems to be from women.

I can't wait for the first guy to get thrown in jail - excuse me, into counseling - for being a meanie by pointing out to his wife that it is, in fact, her fat ass which makes her ass look fat.

So, if people want to engage a wider audience than is found here...

* MB

*** Not All Men Are Fools - Some Are Bachelors ***