Stick and Stones May Break My Bones, But Words Will Get You Three Years in France

And when everyone is in jail, then what?

@Kalel

Then don't be the first the drop the soap, that's what!

you mean i can't call my wife a whore now?

What a country full of weiners. "Now go away before I insult you again!" I hope they don't extradite me for hurting France's feelings.

I can't believe your (and the commenters') take on this. Verbal abuse is horrible and is absolutely not to be taken lightly. Neatorama has been going downhill as of late.

"Pesky?" Would an enforced 35-hour work-week be so horrific in the US? People wouldn't be working themselves to death, and more people would have jobs..

You have to love the cognitive dissonance in this post.

"Having solved the pesky problem of working too hard"

Those French have better work conditions than us! They MUST be lazy! Six weeks of annual leave a year! What a bunch of slackers!

As opposed to something to strive for, it's seen as something negative. What is wrong with people?

Well we learned in school that frogs are thin-skinned.

As someone who has witnessed abuse first hand, I can tell you that the psychological abuse is every bit as important to breaking a person down as the occasional violence that is used to back it up. I myself have been at the wrong end of a relentless barrage of degrading insulting language that was intended to break me down.

The thing is, that's harassment. It isn't about namby pamby "feelings," it's about creating a pervasive and inescapable atmosphere of ridicule and insecurity. I doubt it's as simple as calling someone an idiot in anger (note the use of the word "repeatedly").

I'm curious how they intend to distinguish it from other forms of anti-harassment laws and what the real world effects will be. Like the caption on the photo in the article says, "psychological violence" is a hard allegation to prove. Abusers are pretty circumspect, and unless it's recorded in some way, well. You know.

@Geoduck : "more people would have jobs", yes in theory... but then your cost of production is so high that you're not competitive enough and you don't have jobs anymore (passing to the 35-hour week was like a 10% hike on the payroll)! This solution of workload sharing is ok only if mandatory, such as in the 1950 USSR...

@Joe Jackson : we don't really have better work conditions (I worked in France and in the US). Workers are more protected though in lay offs, retirement and healthcare, but the system is highly in the red, so we're just making our children and grand-children pay for our confort...

The law that made working 35 hours the norm in France did NOT create jobs. That's what they SAID it would do. (I was living there when the Aubry Law was instaured.)

What it DID do was get a lot of young people spoiled, thinking that 35 hours a week was all they should ever have to work.

You don't need a law like this in the USA. If you want to work only part-time, you can, for the most part.

In France, on the other hand, if you WANT to work more hours in order to make money for a purchase, say, get a second job, you will find it difficult to do.

This already existed in most western countries. They call it their law against "hate speech," and most aggressively enforce it where it exposes the machinations of powerful minorities or the glaring genetic propensities of ne'er-do-well minorities.

@Emmers: Sure, it's horrible..and should be discouraged by all and rejected by anyone in a relationship.

What does that have to do with a third party stepping in, stealing 50,000 euros from you, and throwing you in a cage?

@buddhaflow:

Ever seen a woman that had to suffer years and years of verbal abuse at the hand of her husband? Those ***holes deserve more than just a cage, they deserve a ****ing hole in the ground with no food and water. And the 50,000€ are payment for the therapy the wife is going to need.

What a horrible stereotype, assuming that the woman is the victim of verbal abuse. This is one sort of abuse that is non-gender-specific.

About the 35-hours week: the thing is, the first project of law planned that employers would be able to "sum up the amount of hours made" only over, like, one month. The chosen plan (under the pressure of employers' unions) extended this to one year: somebody would even be able to work like 70 hours a week during 6 months, and never during the over 6 months.

The obvious consequence: this diminished highly the effect of the law over unemployment. After this, right-wing governments came and said, "look, this isn't working" ; they weakened considerably the application of the law, and now, the average worked time per week in France is, like, 37 hours a week.

However, the Jospin government (those who made the 35-hours law) claimed that it prompted the creation of more than 300 000 jobs.

Concerning what Joe Jackson said: unfortunately, it's deeply encrusted in the Protestant mind that working hard is a way to prove yourself that you are one of the "elected". The US government has to overcome cultural difficulties if it wants to share working hours, but given the political superiority of capital over labour since the 1970s, I don't think that they are even going to try.
This is too bad, because productivity decreases with working hours: the more you work, the less your work is productive. This is why France has the second productivity per hour in the world, after Luxembourg.
(But this is also a consequence of employers choosing more machines over more workers, indeed)

Actually, this is different from what's called "hate speech" in the U.S. This is more akin to a tort called intentional infliction of emotional distress.

To the writer of this post:

This post was a deception to me. I can't see anything wrong with this law. It's about harassment, not just "insults" ... Come on ...
The writter is obviously american, so, to keep on with the silly stereotypes : isn't America the land of the stupidest laws and lawsuits ? Duh ...

I won't make any further comments about the 35h/week. Please bring the quality of this blog up again.

To echo the other comments.. this post is ridiculous and insulting [note: the post is an insult, not psychological abuse -- they are different]. Mocking harassment? Obviously the writer comes from a position of privilege to not take verbal abuse seriously.

And the fact that this blog may edit or delete abusive comments? Way to double standard...

@Le Putsch : you're wrong. Aubry 1 and 2 limited strictly the amount of hours yearly done by a worker, with the monthly limit of 35 hours per week. This limits includes also the other pre-existing limiting laws, such as the max time in a day, of the max days without a day off.
So yes, you could work like crazy on a day but no more than 10 hours, you could work crazy on a week, but no more than 48 hours (44 hours on a 3 week average), etc.
It's ok to argue, but please get your info straight.

Another cultural difference : for example when you take the Mass turnpike, or the tunnel from the Logan airport in Boston you have a human cashier.
On another example I dare you to find any human on the French ASF highway (off season)... Increasing the cost of work works against our own interest sometimes.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Yes, abuse doesn't have to be physical to hurt the victim, but when you create a law that is so vague as this one, it is bound to create more problems.

Re: "insult" - please read the article. Nicole Kagan, the minister for family affairs who *introduced* the measure said "The judge could (also) take into consideration letters, SMSs or repetitive messages, because one knows that psychological violence is made up of insults" (emphasis mine)

There is a big difference between hate speech, verbal abuse, and insults. The point of the post isn't to trivialize those in abusive relationship (both men and women) but how do you prove "psychological violence?"

@Geoduck - actually, the unemployment in France remains at a stubborn 10% despite the 35-hour work week. The unemployment for young people is worse, at 20%. Presumably, it's because businesses loathe to hire new workers yet cannot fire the old ones.

One should take the words of the judge in context. Yes, insults make up psychological violence, at least in part. Calling someone an expletive over and over again certainly doesn't represent harmony, that's for sure.

And much like protons, neutrons and electrons make up atoms, which in turn make up that which we know as "matter" I would consider this an elementary but not an exclusive part of the actual issue. And in that sense the stipulation is perfectly acceptable.

Some countries don't write "This medication causes drowsiness" as a warning label on sleeping tablets. So let's not mock France for laws that actually make sense.

I think that, though it has wonderful implications, it'll probably have a negative impact. Just like physical abuse laws have made the line somewhat unclear in disciplining children, this will make it vaguely illegal to jokingly insult someone. I think it'll ultimately do good.

As for the way the article is written: it's pretty shameful that they gloss over the issue with "OMG STOOPID EMOSHUNAL FRENCHIES." Taking things out of context is one thing, but blatantly misconstruing a law meant to protect and aid is entirely another.

^^ a *slightly negative impact. Whoops.