Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Thursday April 09 2015, @01:58AM   Printer-friendly
from the freedom-fat dept.

CBC Canada has a report on a law under consideration in France's lower house that would require models to meet a minimum body mass index standard.

The link between high fashion, body image and eating disorders on French catwalks may lead to a ban on super-skinny models.

Style-conscious France, with its fashion and luxury industries worth tens of billions of dollars, would join Italy, Spain and Israel, which all adopted laws against too-thin models on catwalks or in advertising campaigns in early 2013.​

Under the proposed legislation, any model who wants to work has to have a body mass index (a type of height to weight ratio) of at least 18 and would be subject to regular weight checks.

The law would enforce fines of up to $79,000 [US] for any breaches, with up to six months in jail for any staff involved, French Socialist Party legislator Olivier Veran, who wrote the amendments, told newspaper Le Parisien.

The bill's amendments also propose penalties for anything made public that could be seen as encouraging extreme thinness, notably pro-anorexia websites that glorify unhealthy lifestyles and forums that encourage eating disorders.

Body Mass Index (BMI) is is a measure of relative size based on the mass and height of an individual.

c0lo's random thoughts:

  • On one side: governments regulating the BMI... (large soda ban)... hmm?
  • On the other side: how is this different from laws against public indecency, laws which are well-knitted into the fabric of westernized societies?
 
This discussion has been archived.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: 2) by c0lo on Thursday April 09 2015, @03:10AM

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 09 2015, @03:10AM (#168138) Journal
    This doesn't mean it wasn't attempted.
    Anyway, my point was: Yes, it wasn't passed and I think is a good thing it wasn't: I don't want a nanny state. But on the other side, we still have a nanny state that governs already the acceptable level of "public in/decency", what are we to do with that?
    (I can't educate myself to hold two contradictory thoughts into my head on the same time)
    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday April 09 2015, @06:15AM

    by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Thursday April 09 2015, @06:15AM (#168199) Homepage Journal

    This doesn't mean it wasn't attempted.
    Anyway, my point was: Yes, it wasn't passed and I think is a good thing it wasn't: I don't want a nanny state. But on the other side, we still have a nanny state that governs already the acceptable level of "public in/decency", what are we to do with that?

    A reasonable point. I never expected the regulation to actually be implemented, as it was way over the top in terms of intrusiveness.

    This law seems a little less so. If I can play devil's advocate for a minute, isn't this kind of like banning cigarette ads on television, or restricting the tobacco companies from using kid-friendly (e.g., cartoon characters) images to hawk their wares?

    --
    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday April 09 2015, @06:30AM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 09 2015, @06:30AM (#168201) Journal

      This law seems a little less so.

      So you place yourself in "a little nannying from the govt is Ok as long as it's about protecting the kids"? (nothing judgemental, just asking what are your acceptable limits).

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday April 09 2015, @07:32AM

        by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Thursday April 09 2015, @07:32AM (#168210) Homepage Journal

        This law seems a little less so.

        So you place yourself in "a little nannying from the govt is Ok as long as it's about protecting the kids"? (nothing judgemental, just asking what are your acceptable limits).

        Actually, I don't see it as "nannying," as you put it. It's more like a busybody great aunt than a nanny. There are many ways to influence culture. One of those ways is through legislation/regulation (in the US, e.g. age of consent laws, the mortgage interest tax exemption, alcohol prohibition, the drug war or FCC regulation of television content). Is it appropriate? It's about as appropriate as MPAA movie ratings or boycotts of advertisers to TV shows that have controversial content.

        We all take steps to influence culture to meet our standards and expectations. Some choose to do so through legislation or litigation. If there's enough opposition to a particular idea (in this case, banning the presentation of emaciated, malnourished women as the apex of pulchritude), then such action will fail.

        As a general rule I agree with this:

        The correct way to punctuate a sentence that starts: "Of course it is none of my business, but --" is to place a period after the word "but." Don't use excessive force in supplying such a moron with a period. Cutting his throat is only a momentary pleasure and is bound to get you talked about.

        --RAH

        Since you chose to ignore it before, I asked:

        If I can play devil's advocate for a minute, isn't this kind of like banning cigarette ads on television, or restricting the tobacco companies from using kid-friendly (e.g., cartoon characters) images to hawk their wares? [Emphasis added]

        Yes? No? "That's a completely different situation?" "Joe Camel is my best friend?"

        Doesn't context (or the lack of it) make all the difference in the world?

        --
        No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday April 09 2015, @11:15AM

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 09 2015, @11:15AM (#168270) Journal

          Actually, I don't see it as "nannying," as you put it. It's more like a busybody great aunt than a nanny.

          Mmmmhh... beg to disagree. Usually, a great aunty doesn't have the power to see you grounded for the rest of the week or cut from your ice-cream money.

          Since you chose to ignore it before, I asked:
          ...
          Yes? No? "That's a completely different situation?" "Joe Camel is my best friend?"

          It's exactly the same nature. Does one need to come with all examples one can find?

          If I can play devil's advocate for a minute,
          ...
          Doesn't context (or the lack of it) make all the difference in the world?

          Note that the "devil's advocate" contextualization comes after the "This law seems a little less so." - a quite peculiar way to put a context into evidence.
          This being said, of course contextualization make a huge difference. In the context of your quote regarding the correct use of punctuation (which seems to indicate a special inclination towards formal languages), allow me to concur [xkcd.org].

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford