New Law in France Bans Psychological Violence

[Cowlesy]

Next time you get in argument with your spouse, just remember your significant other could call the cops, and have you electronically tagged.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1240770/France-introduce-new-law-banning-psychological-violence-marriages.html


France will become the first country in the world to ban 'psychological violence' within marriage later this year.
The new law, which would also apply to co-habiting couples, would see people getting criminal records for insulting their loved ones during domestic arguments.
Electronic tagging would be used on repeat offenders, according to the country's prime minister, Francois Fillon, who announced the law.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1240770/France-introduce-new-law-banning-psychological-violence-marriages.html#ixzz0bkqUfvUF

[coyote_sprit]

I have a feeling men will be effected by this much more then women.

[Danke]

Woman: Honey, does this dress make my ass look big?

Man: No, your fat ass makes your ass look big.

Woman: I'm calling 911!

[brandon]

http://jamie-online.com/random-jamz/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/facepalm.jpg

[Elwar]

So...they're going to put an ankle bracelet on a spouse...so that they can't leave the house because the spouse doesn't want them to argue?

That makes perfect sense.

[MsDoodahs]

How in the hell did humans this stupid get into positions of power?

Oh wait....steatorrhea.

lol...

[NYgs23]

Tagging people electronically isn't "psychological violence"?

[catdd]

Tagging people electronically isn't "psychological violence"?

+1

[heavenlyboy34]

How in the hell did humans this stupid get into positions of power?

Oh wait....steatorrhea.

lol...

It seems that they're too stupid to do anything else but government work. lolz :o:D

[angelatc]

Next time you get in argument with your spouse, just remember your significant other could call the cops, and have you electronically tagged.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1240770/France-introduce-new-law-banning-psychological-violence-marriages.html


DH and I don't fight really. Thats the only thing that would keep me out of the electric chair if this law were in effect here. I'm not violent, but I have a sharp tongue. Whats the point in fighting if you can't go for the kill?

thought police....

[MelissaWV]

There's a hidden aspect to this.

The whole thing is one step away from those shock collars they use on animals (the electric fence). Why can't a husband use that on his wife to keep her from nagging him? She starts nagging and *bzzzzt*. Oh, right, that'd be bad.

Now, if she nags him enough that he gets her tagged THIS way, well that's a good thing, right? What exactly does the tagging do? I would think it just gives the spouse something new to nag about.

You know, the State is bad enough just getting involved in marriage (and divorce), but they're even worse at solving arguments between spouses.

[dannno]

Whoa... 1:32, it's Borat!!!

[InterestedParticipant]

Next time you get in argument with your spouse, just remember your significant other could call the cops, and have you electronically tagged.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1240770/France-introduce-new-law-banning-psychological-violence-marriages.html
Notice, they are ONLY banning 'psychological violence' within marriage. That gives them a green light to perpetrate 'psychological violence' all they want.

I wonder what would happen if the public lobbied for legislation that banned ALL 'psychological violence'? What a pickle that would put the politicians in? How do they defend NOT supporting such a bill? But then, that legislation would make most of the establishment's activities illegal.

[tpreitzel]

Next time you get in argument with your spouse, just remember your significant other could call the cops, and have you electronically tagged.

[/URL][URL]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1240770/France-introduce-new-law-banning-psychological-violence-marriages.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1240770/France-introduce-new-law-banning-psychological-violence-marriages.html)

Hmmm. I can't wait for someone, ANYONE, to sue the life out of Hollywood for all the chaos, lies, and violence that Hollywood has promoted over the decades. Maybe, the French can put their love of stolen films to good use as a defense against spousal abuse. Hollywood made me do it! I can't stand criminalizing thought and words, i.e. "crimes" without immediate physical wounds, nor letting one of the biggest perpetrators of psychological warfare, Hollywood, go unpunished in the process.

[Mini-Me]

Notice, they are ONLY banning 'psychological violence' within marriage. That gives them a green light to perpetrate 'psychological violence' all they want.

I wonder what would happen if the public lobbied for legislation that banned ALL 'psychological violence'? What a pickle that would put the politicians in? How do they defend NOT supporting such a bill? But then, that legislation would make most of the establishment's activities illegal.

This isn't a problem for the establishment: Just selectively enforce the law to silence all opposition.

[InterestedParticipant]

This isn't a problem for the establishment: Just selectively enforce the law to silence all opposition.
If ALL psychological violence is illegal, then damages are incurred when the violence is perpetrated. Hence, a lawyer could take CBS, NBC, CNN & FOX News to court and prove that they are deliberately promulgating psychological violence against their viewers in a class action jury trial. I don't think the big boyz can take this kind of risk, because even a big "insider" lawfirm might risk certain relationships in order to go after that large of a payday.

[Mini-Me]

If ALL psychological violence is illegal, then damages are incurred when the violence is perpetrated. Hence, a lawyer could take CBS, NBC, CNN & FOX News to court and prove that they are deliberately promulgating psychological violence against their viewers in a class action jury trial. I don't think the big boyz can take this kind of risk, because even a big "insider" lawfirm might risk certain relationships in order to go after that large of a payday.

I don't really think this would be a risk for them at all. Considering the number and quality of lawyers any megacorp (or the government) can afford, they'd only have to fear a jury that's totally stacked with intelligent people who essentially already recognize establishment propaganda as "psychological violence." If randomly selected citizens were really that intelligent on average, hardly anybody would still be watching CBS et al in the first place.

[InterestedParticipant]

I don't really think this would be a risk for them at all. Considering the number and quality of lawyers any megacorp (or the government) can afford, they'd only have to fear a jury that's totally stacked with intelligent people who essentially already recognize establishment propaganda as "psychological violence." If randomly selected citizens were really that intelligent on average, hardly anybody would still be watching CBS et al in the first place.
Well, I'll disagree with you on the the class action lawsuit. I'm confident there a powerful group would arise and take a stab at the financial windfall.

But our discussion does not focus on the most significant point, and that is one of perception management, which is what keeps the Full Spectrum Simulacrum alive. Hence, an opening into the mass deception will never ever be allowed for the system that is being built is about total absolute power, and in this system, deviations of any kind are not only not allowed, they are never even discussed, contemplated, or imagined.

I suggest that we revisit the conversation between O'brien and Winston in 1984, the particular passage of interest is discussed in the following thread, which I am replication part-of below:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=183323




"There are three stages in your reintegration," said O'Brien. "There is learning, there is understanding, and there is acceptance. It is time for you to enter upon the second stage."
We are also in the 2nd stage.... right now.

Now here O'brien asks then explains Why society works as it does...

"And now let us get back to the question of 'how' and 'why'. You understand well enough how the Party maintains itself in power. Now tell me why we cling to power. What is our motive? Why should we want power? Go on, speak," he added as Winston remained silent.
.
.
.
"Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me? You are thinking," O'Brien said, "that my face is old and tired. You are thinking that I talk of power, and yet I am not even able to prevent the decay of my own body. Can you not understand, Winston, that the individual is only a cell? The weariness of the cell is the vigour of the organism. Do you die when you cut your fingernails? We are the priests of power," he said. "God is power. But at present power is only a word so far as you are concerned. It is time for you to gather some idea of what power means. The first thing you must realize is that power is collective. The individual only has power in so far as he ceases to be an individual.

You know the Party slogan: 'Freedom is Slavery'. Has it ever occurred to you that it is reversible? Slavery is freedom. Alone - free - the human being is always defeated. It must be so, because every human being is doomed to die, which is the greatest of all failures. But if he can make complete, utter submission, if he can escape from his identity, if he can merge himself in the Party so that he is the Party, then he is all-powerful and immortal. The second thing for you to realize is that power is power over human beings. Over the body, but, above all, over the mind. Power over matter - external reality, as you would call it - is not important. Already our control over matter is absolute. We control matter because we control the mind. Reality is inside the skull. There is nothing that we could not do. Invisibility, levitation - anything. I could float off this floor like a soap bubble if I wish to. I do not wish to, because the Party does not wish it. You must get rid of those nineteenth century ideas about the laws of Nature. We make the laws of Nature.

[Freedom 4 all]

Now THIS is a serious threat to the institution of marriage. At least the pro-family knights finally have something to do battle with besides gay windmills.

[MichelleHeart]

Guess they won't be showing Jeff Dunham reruns anymore.

[Mini-Me]

Well, I'll disagree with you on the the class action lawsuit. I'm confident there a powerful group would arise and take a stab at the financial windfall.

But our discussion does not focus on the most significant point, and that is one of perception management, which is what keeps the Full Spectrum Simulacrum alive. Hence, an opening into the mass deception will never ever be allowed for the system that is being built is about total absolute power, and in this system, deviations of any kind are not only not allowed, they are never even discussed, contemplated, or imagined.

I suggest that we revisit the conversation between O'brien and Winston in 1984, the particular passage of interest is discussed in the following thread, which I am replication part-of below:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=183323




We are also in the 2nd stage.... right now.

Now here O'brien asks then explains Why society works as it does...

While this is a profound insight into O'Brien's mindset (and the mindsets of people like him), the fact that we are still alive and able to have this conversation over the net demonstrates why today's world does not exactly mirror 1984's rigidly enforced simulacrum. This could be entirely by design, since we see elements of Brave New World everywhere as well...but it could also mean that establishment actors simply haven't reached the level of complete 1984-ish control they may desire. I think both are the case, really.

The way I'm interpreting your post, it seems you're arguing that French legislators merely wrote this law as a capricious use of state power. They did it because they could, as an end in itself, much like Winston knew it inevitable that the Party would someday declare that 2 and 2 make 5. However, this isn't the only possibility. We live in a very different world from 1984, and either our establishment's methods are different, their success level is different, or both. Whereas plans and policies are constantly unfolding in the real world, the simulacrum of 1984 was basically constant, timeless, and unchanging. Because "new" methods are regularly introduced to control people (such as proposing that anti-government attitudes are a "mental illness"), the "how" question still hasn't been answered as finally as it was in 1984.

While it's quite possible that this law reflects the "why," as a mere capricious use of power, it may also reflect the "how," in the sense that it could be the precursor to [or testing ground for] further laws regarding "psychological violence." (Then again, it could also be nothing more than a reflection of complete legislator idiocy...along with capriciousness again, etc.) You believe the establishment wouldn't risk outlawing all "psychological violence" for fear of a table-turning lawsuit, and you recognize that I disagree. What's important to remember is that our risk assessments here don't really amount to anything, and it doesn't even really matter who is right: From the establishment's point of view, all that matters is what they think about the risk. It's their opinion, not ours, which drives their actions.

If the establishment had complete control over a perfect simulacrum, it may not need to pass "psychological violence" laws to further subjugate the populace and enforce "official truths," etc...but if the establishment had such complete control, it would also have no need to fear the verdict or publicity coming from a table-turning lawsuit. Therefore, since an establishment with preexisting complete control would have no reason to fear unintended consequences, it would eventually, given infinite time, someday pass arbitrary "psychological violence" laws simply to exercise power as an end in itself. ;) Now, an establishment without preexisting complete control - like ours - may still pass such laws for the same reason, for lack of restraint...or it might pass them after a consideration of risks, as a means to acquire more complete power.

[InterestedParticipant]

There is much that you have said that I could comment on, but I will focus this response on your single most important sentence.....




... since an establishment with preexisting complete control would have no reason to fear unintended consequences, it would eventually, given infinite time, someday pass arbitrary "psychological violence" laws simply to exercise power as an end in itself. ;)



But I would modify the concept of "fear," as used here, and replace it with the concept of "risk." These guys don't take unnecessary risks, hence, passing a law that outlaws all "psychological violence" is not going to happen. It's about making a perfect system even-more-perfect.

However, there is an opportunity for the public to gain territory, for by lobbying to extend the legislation from "just families" to "all psychological violence," the public can increase the operational risk to the system's propaganda arm, by opening up windows of attack by the public, albeit small.

P.S. By the way, the current system is far more comprehensive, sophisticated, and effective than the one portrayed in 1984. The fact that it is largely unseen and misunderstood is a strong testament to its overwhelming success (2+2 = whatever they say it equals). Further, we are ONLY having this conversation because anomalies exist within a perfect system, but the perfect system plans for these anomalies and designs adequate controls to render these anomalies inconsequential. In other words, the margin-of-safety in this system allows it to move forward on its current trajectory unimpeded by discussions such as these.

[BlackTerrel]

We have some dumb laws here, but the Europeans make us look like geniuses.

[Reason]

insane

[InterestedParticipant]

insane
They're just continuing the break-up of the family, creating more isolation for the individual, and increasing society's ponerization (ie lack of human empathy & compassion). Ultimately, we'll each all be alone in a system with no support infrastructure and a hostile and austere system.

[Reason]

They're just continuing the break-up of the family, creating more isolation for the individual, and increasing society's ponerization (ie lack of human empathy & compassion). Ultimately, we'll each all be alone in a system with no support infrastructure and a hostile and austere system.

:(