Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Thursday March 08 2018, @01:57AM   Printer-friendly
from the protecting-children dept.

France to set legal age of sexual consent as 15

France plans to fix the legal age of sexual consent as 15, meaning sex with someone younger than that would be considered rape.

Equality Minister Marlène Schiappa welcomed the move, which follows advice from doctors and legal experts. Currently, prosecutors must prove sex with someone under 15 was forced in order to bring rape charges. The change comes amid uproar over two recent cases of men accused of having sex with 11-year-old girls.

Under the existing legislation, if there is no violence or coercion proved, offenders may only be charged with sexual abuse of a minor and not rape. This has a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a fine of €75,000 (£66,000; $87,000).

[...] The government is to approve the new age limit as part of a package of other laws against sexual violence and harassment in the coming weeks. It had been discussing whether to set the age as 13 or 15, which is what groups fighting violence against children had campaigned for.

Les commentaires déplorables.

Also at The Local, NPR, and SBS.

Related: French Porn Star Hits Back at President Emmanuel Macron's Plans to Censor Online Porn


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by NotSanguine on Thursday March 08 2018, @05:57PM (3 children)

    by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Thursday March 08 2018, @05:57PM (#649585) Homepage Journal

    And I quoted what I did because the subsection was of a term I've never heard anyone use before in my life, so thought it would be useful to figure out what the heck it meant before reading a subapplication of it.

    Fair enough. But you didn't really figure out what was being talked about did you?

    All you did was do some hand-waving rather than pick up the (relatively simple) concept and make a reasoned argument.

    If you were unwilling or unable to make a reasoned argument, why dismiss it with:

    What is this, pretentious word day? What the heck are you talking about?

    And when it was explained to you, you still refuse to make any sort of argument *and* mod me down for explaining it.

    Is that how it is with you? If you can't muster an actual argument, you just respond angrily and mod others down to make yourself feel better?

    Not that I really care about the downmod, but apparently you do. Why is that? Does it make you feel powerful? More in control? If so, please go ahead and mod this down too, as I want you to be happy.

    --
    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   -1  
       Flamebait=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Flamebait' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday March 08 2018, @08:06PM (1 child)

    by tangomargarine (667) on Thursday March 08 2018, @08:06PM (#649677)

    And when it was explained to you, you still refuse to make any sort of argument *and* mod me down for explaining it.

    No, I modded you down because you called me a bunch of names and insulted me.

    --
    "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
    • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday March 08 2018, @11:23PM

      by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Thursday March 08 2018, @11:23PM (#649769) Homepage Journal

      No, I modded you down because you called me a bunch of names and insulted me.

      For the record (please go back and confirm it) I didn't "call you names."

      I suggested that you were being "deliberately obtuse." While that's unflattering, it's not name calling. Perhaps I made an incorrect assumption, but I drew a reasonable conclusion based upon your response.

      I also suggested that you were deluded. Again, that's not name calling, that's a judgement about your mental state. Whether it's correct or not (which I suspect is a matter of some debate in the medical community, but I digress), is another matter. But again, that's not calling you names.

      I also made an assumption that you didn't have anything worthwhile to say on this subject. Again, that's not calling you names. In fact, it appears (at least so far) that I was correct in that assumption.

      Apparently, you were insulted by what I said. That's the first reasonable thing you've said in this entire exchange. I guess we're making progress. Hooray!

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 08 2018, @08:18PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 08 2018, @08:18PM (#649684)

    If so, please go ahead and mod this down too, as I want you to be happy.

    Don't worry - I'll mod you down so whats-his-face doesn't have to bother. It'll make me happy!