Not content to call for widespread denunciation, community activists demand that in cases of harassment, the legislator reverse the burden of proof, one of the cornerstones of our law and our freedoms.
To a counselor who asked him about the reimbursement of contraception, General de Gaulle replied: "The Republic does not deal with the trifle. " Times have changed, and nowadays the Republic does not seem to want to take care than of trifle.
State, sexually obsessed
Under the influence of multiculturalism, neofeminism and LGBT activism, sexuality has become the obsession of the state and its legislation. Giving reason to Philippe Muray, who saw in the envy of the penitentiary the normative twisting of envy of the penis, our right is every day more invaded by sexual norms: labor law, education law, health law, law civil law, commercial law, administrative law, the press and communication law and, of course, criminal law, there is no area of law that is not affected by this inflation. The "fight against" this or that societal scourge has become omnipresent in the legal discourse and it is not a project or a bill that, most often under the pressure of self-proclaimed militant associations representing "victims", does not include the words 'fight against' in its title or in its explanatory memorandum. The intersectionality of struggles is thus embedded in contemporary law to corrupt all republican principles.
It should be, indeed, that the French become aware that the laws of our country, as well as the European standards of which many national texts are only servile copying, are very largely dictated to our representatives by lobbies of all kinds. It is not only the economic and social interest groups that hold the pen of the legislator in France, there are also vindictive and sectarian militant associations defending purely categorical interests, or at least what they claim. to be the interest of the persons of which they unilaterally act as agents. We no longer count associations that claim to speak for women and defend their interests when their representativeness is nil and their leaders have obviously never been elected by anyone.
No, fix a person, give him a compliment on his physique or say "Miss, you are charming" is not harassment
The composition of the organs of these associations, which infiltrate into all the machinery of the state apparatus, often reveals sharp and edgy personalities, marked by a strong personal resentment or painful experiences that they cure by a militant fury tending to transform their subjective experience into objective combat. The processes used are often very questionable, even frankly dishonest: producing results of opaque and approximate surveys, false or clearly erroneous statements, distorted figures, biased studies, polls based on questions and fake samples, falsification of information by action or omission, abusive and unfair comments. The leaders of feminist associations who are in the media these days, to explain to us what is or is not sexual harassment, obviously take their desire for legal realities that they are not.
No, fix a person, give him a compliment on his physique or his outfit or say "Miss, you are charming" or "You live with your parents? "Is not harassment, contrary to what these activists indicate on their site or in the advertising campaigns that they diligentent. Who knows that the first definition of sexual harassment, censored in 2012 by the Constitutional Council, was written by a feminist association of perfect opacity? Who knows that the second definition, inspired by European law and still containing a wording very questionable in the light of the fundamental principles of criminal law, was proposed by the same association? Who still knows that the amendment prescribing the ineligibility of convicted persons for "Racist, sexist, homophobic and handiphobic", recently censored by the Constitutional Council, had been drafted by the Licra, which has harassed the public authorities for a long time to obtain this measure liberticide? The so-called law of "moralization" of political life has ignored this huge phenomenon of privatization of French legislation by interest groups that are certainly the main scourge of contemporary democracies. They generally take advantage of the media sounding board to exploit and exploit any news item by playing on the emotional, compassionate and sometimes stupid rope of an ignorant and totally devoid of political and legal culture, to which the it makes you swallow any storytelling extravagant and deceitful, like that of the Sauvage case.
The "Cafteuse fever agitated by the complaints rack"
Since the totally uninteresting "revelation" of gross sexual behavior of an American film producer (which would have been the subject of a so-called omerta that everyone agrees to qualify as "open secret"), we have the right to a surge of hatred breathtaking in all media. The "Cafteuse fever agitated by the complaints rack" (Philippe Muray) has taken proportions all the more terrifying that the harpies who devote themselves to it claim as they should speak in the name of "women" and therefore throw on the fair sex in general a disgraceful discredit. We should seriously fear that this hysteria will lead to the assimilation of all women to evil gorgonians just good to disgorge toads and vipers on their cell phones. We can not help but bring this torrent of mud closer to the case of the famous Femen who had simulated an abortion with a veal liver in the church of the Madeleine ... Militant violence and hatred have no bounds . A woman too, it prevents!
But above all, he is on the subject a delusional legal speech that worsens every day, while the political authorities are obviously completely overflow. It was possible to witness live the cathodic castration of the Minister of the Economy, Bruno Le Maire, summoned to swallow his moral scruples and to withdraw in a pathetic and pathetic way. Similarly, has the Keeper of the Seals been apostrophized by a hysterical fishmonger about the imprescriptibility of sexual offenses against minors and dare to answer timidly that invoking a "Risk of unconstitutionality" presented as a technical obstacle, while prescription is obviously one of the essential principles of liberal penal philosophy. The so-called "societal debates" take on the appearance of commercial coffee and shampoo containers, where one reads more the letters of the readers of the supplement "Femina" of the JDD that the treaty Offenses and penalties of Beccaria.
"Take care" men ...
The insistence with which women activists, still dissatisfied with the results of the repressive arsenal they have obtained, deplores the fact that women have "Afraid to complain" and that convictions are too rare "Lack of evidence", suggests that the next step in their fight will be to make the denunciation mandatory by the entourage and the hierarchy and, secondly, to simply condemn criminally a man without evidence. This is exactly the criterion of totalitarianism. The Constitutional Council had of course excluded in a 2002 decision that the burden of proof of harassment in criminal matters could be reversed, but the activists did not care about the liberal constitutional principles they used to circumvent. , not without insulting copiously the Constitutional Council in passing. Without yielding to the invocation of the "darkest hours", it will simply be recalled that the last legislation that reversed the burden of proof in our country was that of Vichy: it belonged, in fact, to persons reported to the administration. to prove that they were not Jewish according to the legal criteria ... to meditate. Lastly, there is a growing propensity to "heal" men who have been found to be sexually active in specialized institutions for the treatment of addictions. It's starting to smell the gulag!
The newspaper The world of the weekend of October 22 and 23 has reserved four pages to indictment without any contradiction or reserve of the mores of heterosexual males, while he devoted three other full pages to praise the happy "prepeurs", ie homosexuals using daily preventive medicine (400 euros the box refunded 100% by the Social Security in a perfectly discriminatory way) allowing them to multiply the partners and behaviors "at risk" in the shelter of any contamination. The article is accompanied by this medical commentary: " The mistake would be to think that the sexual act is rational. There is nothing more irrational; it is the evaluation of a risk in a situation of pleasure, and often the pleasure prevails. " Alain Finkielkraut is right: Pravda has selective indignation. To enjoy without hindrance is obviously not "for everyone". But the most serious is that the state puts his sword at the disposal of all this revenge by trampling on the fundamental principles of liberal democracy and yielding to the populism that is denounced elsewhere.