1- It is not a law yet, it is a proposition.
2- Even if it becomes law it does not mean it will be sustained by the European Courts.
3- I did not say I like the idea. I am just saying I think the OP is stupid.
I would not vote in favor of such a law but saying France is a fascist state and similar things is just plain stupid. I disagree with certain laws in every single country I can think of and that does not make them immoral or fascist.
And sorry but these things are relative so comparisons are relevant. It is not like the USA has the greatest protection these days for individual freedoms. You can be jailed in the USA for many things which are very legal in France.
If you want examples of really stupid and backwards laws there is no shortage of them in the USA and that does not make the country fascistic or immoral.
Furthermore, unlike the USA, France does not feel its manhood threatened by submitting cases of individual human rights to international courts. I think that is admirable about France and the USA should follow suit.
In summary, I am not saying I like the proposed law in the least; I am only saying the way the OP is presented is really stupid and lacks any logic.
On the face of the quoted text, “offending the dignity of the republic,” the statute is the opposite of the rule of law. In the US, I’d call it “void for vagueness.” It sounds like the new laws create a new class of “status offenders” also. You can’t punish people for being poor and out in public, here.
Don’t get me wrong, it happens here. That’s why I’m sure the new French statute would not pass US legal muster. The European view of freedom is much more advanced than our own simplisme crap we call law. :dubious:
The flag-burning amendment will finally give us the power to go after all those people who dispose of old flags. MUHAHAHAHAHA! This French law is more like the PATRIOT Act. Our flag-burning amendment would do… Nothing, except add tarnish to the Constitution. Like the 3/5s Comprimise, Prohibition, or giving women the right to vote (just checking to see if you read this far) it will be a huge ass pustule on the supreme law of the land. Many courts will block the enforcement of legislation resulting from a flag-burning amendment, if the amendment ever passes, which it won’t. IMO.
The French law, OTOH, is designed to give the police sweeping authority to “clean up the streets,” you might say. That’s what the screwheads* always say.
*literary and/or a movie reference, don’t get your croissant in a malaise.
Don’t believe anything that particular source says about not paying taxes, BTW. That’s a nice summary of that particular area of law, where the cases rarely apply to tax statutes. I just did a quick search. Famous last words.
The OP is judging a whole country and its political system by one single proposal which is not law and I think this is ludicrous. The proposal may never become law or, if it does, it may be declared illegal. You can find plenty of proposals which are just as out there in the USA.
Written laws are only a part of a country’s system. The USSR and China had written constitutions which were models. . . except that they were not backed up by a judicial system and government actions which would make them reality. The UK on the other hand has no written constitution and the whole concept of the Monarchy is as backwards as you can get.
The USA has some pretty good laws on the books and its fair share of really stupid laws. Just like any other country. It is also true that the US government today is, in fact, infringing on human rights in much worse ways than the French government. I cannot see how the label “fascist” would apply to the US government and I do not see how it can reasonably be applied to France.
France has a culture and tradition of a very centralized and controlling government. Personally I do not like it but it is nonsense to say it is fascist. The French are quite more tolerant about other things which are penalized in the USA. It is a different culture and it is just very ignorant to judge them by American standards. When judged by general western/international standards I do not think the French are behind any other Western country.
I have to say I just watched Monty Python and the Holy Grail and my image of the French has gone up several points.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not defending the Sarkozy proposal, just trying to get some facts straight.
Beagle you say
This law is not aimed at controlling vagrancy or even pan-handling - what the law will forbid, is living off the proceeds of others’ panhandling. ie organized crime involving the exploitation of minors and illegal aliens.
As for comparison with the US, are there no longer any vagrancy statutes on the books ?
My personal take on this law is
going after organized crime, good
trying to solve social problems via repressive legislation, good luck !
The flag thing, well, I assume that was added in to try to capture the votes of some single-issue demographic. I sort of expect it to be dropped in the bargaining period before the law is passed.
The biggest issue in France with regard to personal freedoms (IMO) is the fact that those who are accused and/or indicted of crimes can be detained (within a certain legal framework) for surprisingly long periods of time (years) before coming to trial.
OTOH in the real-world French prison population is a lot smaller than US… Europe in general has considerably less law restricting personal freedom (drugs, sex, prostitution, abortion, gay rights etc) - but France in particular leans more towards the US situation, and is pretty politically “conservative”.
Still, even for France, this new legislation is pretty heavy-handed.
I have a friend in Baltimore who went to see a French band called Costes, whose claim to fame was that they had been “kicked out of France”.
After watching in disbelief as they covered themselves in feces and vomit and ran through the audience, simulating rape on dolls, she started crying and ran out of the club. God it just boggles the mind, I wish I could have witnessed it myself.
But anyway, apparently, they really have been kicked out of France cuz they’re so disgusting. Can that happen in America?
Not much like that. Those are derived from the Common Law, are supported by clear precedents, and voluminous legislative history. Moreover, those thing specify an actus reus that a citizen can easily apprehend. My cite was very specific. The analysis is airtight. Not mine, the USSC.
Asteroide,
Vagrancy and panhandling are very complex areas of the law. For example, in Orlando we have “zones” for those that panhandle. In San Francisco they distributed credit card machines. Is that right?
So, no, there are no constitutional “vagrancy” laws in the US insofar as you can rouse anyone off the street from anywhere. The “crime” of being poor and on the street cannot be legislated – even though nations, states, nation-states, and municipalities will continue to try to control the “negative effects” of panhandling as they always do. There is a legitimate state interest in doing so.
Trespassing, criminal trespassing, public urination, assault and the like are how the cops address the panhandlers that cause problems. Among other laws, I don’t really follow that much. This area of law is not as hotly contested as many others.
De facto, for the most part, panhandlers don’t get arrested for panhandling unless they threaten people or are clearly deranged or intoxicated. Those are always judgment calls at the street level, of course. False imprisoment in a civil sense is clearly at issue also. An aggressive panhandler cannot block the sidewalk and extort money like a toll taker. More judgment calls.
Punishing organized crime behind panhandling I don’t have a problem with. If you follow US law, similar RICO statutes or drug “kingpin” statutes seem to miss the mark a lot. If catching those guys was so easy, they would already be in jail. Exploiting beggars must be punishible by a number of existing French Code sections if you get creative.
I have more problems with well-intentioned, but IMO misguided and outdated, speech laws in Europe. Make Nazi jokes, name your dog “Adolph” (illegal) or “Stalin.” (legal?) Teach them to give paw. It does not mean you will divide then conquer Poland. Trust me.
BTW, my earlier post made it seem like I addressed the French flag statute. I didn’t. As I said, I don’t think those do much. I was addressing the “PATRIOT Act” argument to the “clean up the streets” legislation. One targets “terrorists” another the “bad people” that should go somewhere else.
The PATRIOT Act is most likely going to be abused (already has) by trying to expand the definition of “terrorism” all out of proportion to the common sense definition. Similary, a creative lawyer can play with “organized crime” all day long unless there is some specificity in legislative comments or a French substitue.
>> Exploiting beggars must be punishible by a number of existing French Code sections if you get creative.
Why would you need to “get creative” if you can pass a law targetted to what you want to achieve? Plus, it’s not like the USA is a place without redundancy in the laws. It is often pointed out that it has so many gun laws that they are over-redundant. That is what politicians do everywhere: pass laws which make them gain votes, even if the laws are unneeded and redundant.
>> [“crossing state lines for immoral purposes”,]
>> Not much like that. Those are derived from the Common Law, are supported by clear precedents, and voluminous legislative history.
That’s interesting. Can you show us that “crossing state lines for immoral purposes” was ever part of the common law? I do not think so. I think it is a very specific Federal statute of the USA. I am not saying I have any problem with that Federal Statute but I see a lot of opinions being given about a proposed French law when no one has any idea of what the proposal actually says. The article which forms the basis for the OP is so vague that it is worthless as far as forming an opinion about the proposed law. Add to that the fact that it has not become law yet. Add to that the fact that, even if it does become law, we would have to see if it is upheld. Even if it is upheld we would have to see how it is applied in practice. When we have a few people in French jails for having farted in the general direction of the French flag, then I will concerned and protesting but, for now, I feel a more urgent obligation to denounce the government of the country which already has dozens of people secretly imprisoned for months and years without the benefit of due process of law. They have not even been accused of so much as farting or begging and even the governments of the closest allies have denounced this.
How about the new law requiring all foreign visitors to the USA to be fingerprinted and photographed every time they enter or depart the USA? Not even the communist dictatorships do this. How would Americans have reacted if other countries had required this?
The reports of France being a fascist state are greatly exagerated and. for now, I am not much concerned about France becoming a fascist dictatorship which oppresses their own people.
While France has a somewhat authoritarian legal stance compared to its neighbors, you have to look at the way the justice system actually works.
For a population of about 50 Mio, France has a prison pop. of 50,000, (commonly quoted figures include parolees in state housing, bringing it to 100,000). This gives a per capita rate which is almost 10 times less than the US rate, and lower than average for western Europe. We have no death penalty, and relatively low and stable crime rates.
I believe the US currently holds the world record for prison population, coming in ahead of China even in absolute terms. And perhaps more alarming, US per capita rate of incarceration has increased by a factor of about 5 since the seventies (I think there are already threads about this).
While I agree that French free speech laws have room for improvement, I’m only aware of 1 case being prosecuted in the last few years - Jean-Marie LePen, Shoah revisionism, he was fined - whereas the US which has exemplary rights enshrined in the constitution, is constantly prosecuting for hate speech, pornography, sexual speech and harassment etc.
I guess what I’m saying is that the various democracies have had their ups and downs, and both philosophy and application need to be taken into account to get a clear picture of how authoritarian a country really is.
I’ll reduce this to one sentence: “offending the morals” as an actus reus is automatically “unconstitutional” on ANY bar exam in the US. I’ve seen similar constructions used as examples of unconstitutional legislation several (billion?) times.
You cannot reasonably know in advance what “offends the morals.”
The terms are founded in Common Law. “Corrupting the morals of…” – “encouraging someone to commit crimes, could include age specific offenses…” EX// you buy beer for a 13 yr. old. “Crossing state lines,” any questions? Though it has more to do with federal jurisdiction, the federal power is explicit in the Constitution.
The absolute numbers of a prison population is one of the more misleading statistics you can use. The conditions, length of sentence, due process, etc., are far more useful. Mandatory minimum drug sentences were, and are, a bad idea. Curtailing basic political speech smacks of fascism, though I’d quickly note that I’m not arguing for the OP. The French staute is clearly unconstitutional in the US. Period.
Fingerprinted and photographed? I had to get a French Visa. I’d do it to travel in another country, sure. I remember traveling before the Iron Curtain came down. Don’t make a wrong turn in Austria.
Beagle, your post is a succession of non-sequiturs and I am not sure what your point is or even if you have one. You say you are not arguing for the OP. You are not arguing against the OP. What is your point?
The USA has laws which rest on concepts such as community standards, judgment of a reasonable person and such concepts and the evaluation of whether certain facts fit or do not fit the indictment are left to the juries.
And your point is what? Did anyone here say it would be constitutional in the USA? Why would that be relevant? France and the USA are different countries with different laws. Some things are legal in France which are illegal in the USA and viceversa. Or is the USA the measure and balance of what is better and what is worse for the entire world-wide-world?
Neither am I arguing for the proposed law which, as I have pointed out, does not exist as a law and we do not even know what it would say if it existed or how it would operate.
I think the USA having a prison population way out of proportion with that of other developed, civilized, countries is a sign of something not being right. A sign of a failure. Something is wrong with American society when so many people end up in prison. I cannot see this as anything else than a failure. I am not blaming the American government as, clearly, criminals and violent people need to be imprisoned but something is wrong with a society which produces so many criminals and so many violent people. And then you have a lot of people in jails for non-violent drug offenses which would not be incarcerated in other countries and this is a failure of American law. I may disagree with laws which sentence drug users to prison but I would hardly call the USA a “fascist” country.
I also travelled to the communist bloc at that time. In no country was I fingerprinted and photographed upon entering and leaving. I have travelled to China often and they have never taken my fingerprints of photograph upon entering or leaving. France AFAIK does not do it either. AFAIK, the USA is the only country to do this.
You have said you are not arguing for the OP so we are just shuffling things around for nothing. It seems even the OP is not doing much to sustain the argument. But just in case there is anyone still willing to defend the notion that France is a fascist country i will condense my argument:
In France that law is, in fact, not a law at all. It is a draft of a concept of a proposal which may be, conceivably might end up being enacted with whatever changes are introduced. I cannot see how this is any different from all the loony proposals you see in the USA.
Even if it is enacted in the present form, we do not know that it would be upheld and it all points in the direction that it would not be upheld. maybe it would not even be enforced, just like there are many laws in the books in the USA which are not enforced.
The fact is that no person has yet gone to jail in France under this, non-existent, law and there are no prospects that anybody will be going to jail any time soon. So calls of “fascism” are, IMHO, quite alarmist and misleading.
OTOH we have the government of the USA which is already holding and has been holding for some time now dozens of people secretly, without recourse and without due process of law. Please explain to me how and why the government of France is more deserving of the adjective “fascist” than the government of the USA.
Except apparently it means more than that. The flasher who was recently beaten up by a gang of Catholic schoolgirls was charged with “corrupting the morals of a minor”, IIRC. I don’t suppose you’d argue that he was encouraging the girls to assault him.
No… now what’s the rest of the title? “For immoral purposes.” How is a person supposed to know which purposes are “immoral”?
Mens rea: the mental state required for a particular offense.
Definitions of actual objects or actions: usually required to formulate a criminal statues.
Yes, the pornography test comes the closest to mirroring a law like this. That’s a very astute observation. Before you get to any test of what “obscenity” is you have something like “distributing or selling sexually explicit material showing anal…” Whatever.
I’m against porno laws, but this French law is far more vague. I’d lay off the insults of my logic. Glass houses, etc.
Flashing: “corrupting morals of a minor” Exactly. I already explained, the actus reus involves some sort of conduct near, or contact with a minor. What could be clearer? I’m old enough to be a dad of an adult, but I don’t have any kids. Somehow, despite this handicap, I know not to go show my penis to the local children. This is explained in, I don’t know, a lot of statutes throughout history, and clearly defined by case law.
Communist countries made up for their friendly border admittance policies (?) with actual oppression and total surveillance when you were in the country. I know people love defending the Communists. It always makes me a little scared.
One more thing, US criminal law does not mirror European code law exactly. There are more similarities as time goes on.
Our federalism (meaning states having their own laws – especially in the criminal area) is not common in Europe if it exists at all. It should be noted then, porno is a multi-billion dollar a year business in the United States. It’s legal to sell in Florida and a number of other states. I’m not sure where it isn’t any more. I know that Larry Flynt would know.
For immoral purposes – for the purposes of breaking the law. Law often = morals in criminal statues. Things can “offend the morals.” “Offending the morals” cannot be that thing.
Moreover, where are the morals of the French Republic clearly spelled out for people like myself, who will probably never travel back to France, but would like to know the rules?
