Posted on 03/12/2018 6:35:56 AM PDT by Faith Presses On
...While French law does not include a fixed age of consent, it does recognize sexual minors. A sexual minor can still legally be considered able to give their consent—in this case, their perpetrator would be charged with sexual infraction, not rape. In the 19th century, the age at which children were considered sexual minors was 11; later, it was raised to 13, and since 1945, it has been 15. Meanwhile, the issue of consent—or the failure to establish a clear age of consent—festered. In 2005, spurred on by a case involving the sexual abuse of three children under the age of five, France’s highest court ruled that sexual “coercion is presumed to be present in cases involving children of a very young age,” and that lawmakers must establish an age at which it should be assumed that a child could not consent. Exactly what this age should be was left up to judges to decide. While a law was passed in February 2010 specifying that “moral coercion” could result from a “difference in age,” what that age actually should be was, again, left unclear. In 2015, France’s highest court reaffirmed that there is no set age of consent when it comes to sexual relations...
Why has the french legal system seemed reluctant to set a specific age of consent?
One prominent explanation stems from the attitudes that followed May 1968, when student protests against capitalism, consumerism, and other values and institutions considered elitist and unjust, led to massive demonstrations, strikes, and civil unrest...Salmona said that after 1968, attitudes began to shift: Children were viewed as having the right to be considered sexual beings—in Salmona’s words: “pedophilia was considered a sexual orientation … It was all part of a vision of freedom.”
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
As much as people want to believe that nations in Europe are run from the top down....I would suggest that most of the countries in Europe tend to have states or regions within the make-up of the country, and they dominate a great deal of the structure of the country.
In the case of France, I might suggest that they reviewed the various acts of ‘maturity’ and couldn’t come to one single conclusion....like buying cigarettes, drinking booze, getting a hunting license, getting a drivers license, and so on. Each wanted a different view of maturity and then this led onto public questions why you couldn’t have one single view or age of maturity.
I believe the UN is proposing 12 as he age of consent.....for homosexuals.
Well, their new masters have provided them the age of consent.
It is 9.
“Oh, brave new world that has such people in it!”...............
France wants to compete with Thailand for perv tourism dollars.
Remind me to move to France.
And in fact, it ISN'T TRUE. The wiki article about age of consent in France refers to the French penal code, which has (google translate) "The fact, by a major, to exercise without violence, coercion, threat or surprise sexual assault on the person of a minor of fifteen years is punishable by five years of imprisonment and 75 000 euros fine."
So, you CAN go to prison for having sex with a minor under the age of 16. It's just not referred to as "rape".
Muslim girls mature fast. So, when they about 6 they are ready for sex. They don’t beg for it like the goats do because of FGM, but they get it just the same.
Now, muslim boys are usually getting sex araound the same age too, but from a different direction.
To populate the New World back in the 1600’s the French, English and Dutch among others, set young “women” to the colonies basically to have children. The age of consent was not an issue then.
“France, Where Age of Consent Is Up for Debate (they’ve never established one)”
Everybody here in France knows the sexual majority age is 15 and frolicking with adolescents below that age (with their consent, that goes without saying) is pedophilia.
The notion of age of consent is in the law probably since Napolean. “Up for debate” my arse.
I know nothing about French law but what I read here in America in English, but I haven’t seen anything yet to contradict anything in the article. I wonder if you all read it? It goes into how France’s laws on age of consent differ from other countries and what’s missing, and that is a law on age of consent.
You mention, PapaBear, that someone can get 5 years in prison for sexual conduct with a minor. I believe the article mentions that possibility and explains it. Is a maximum of 5 years adequate for sex with an 8-year-old, or an 11-year-old? And it’s termed an infraction, not rape. The case mentioned in the story that provoked outrage in France was a man originally charged with an infraction for sexual conduct with an 11-year-old.
“The accusations were of an adult raping a child—a crime that, in France, can lead to a 20-year prison sentence for the perpetrator when the victim is 15 or younger.
“But it initially wasn’t charged that way. When the case first went to court in September, the man faced only charges of “sexual infraction,” a crime punishable with a maximum of five years in jail and a €75,000 fine.”
And this is how the article says that the man’s attorneys described the girl: “She was 11 years and 10 months old, so nearly 12 years old,” defense lawyer Marc Goudarzian said. Sandrine Parise-Heideiger, his fellow defense lawyer, added: “We are not dealing with a sexual predator on a poor little faultless goose.”
The article also claims this: “Under French law, a charge of rape requires “violence, coercion, threat, or surprise,” even if the victims are as young as the girl in the Montmagny case (this case of the 11-year-old).”
Then the article also says that the point about France not having a true age of consent law is that whether or not it’s rape is left to the discretion of the judge, with the lack of such an age of consent law feeding the notion that some children, at least, can consent to adults (the pedophile view). The article then says that because of the outcry over this case, the judge did decide to up the charge to rape, but only because of the outcry and at his discretion. So, the point the article makes is that sex with someone under 15, an 11-year-old or of whatever age, is not automatically statutory rape under French law.
From a French language site linked to in the article, translated by Google (there’s a paywall so that’s all of the article that’s accessible):
Sexual relationship at age 11: Pontoise prosecutor’s office does not prosecute for rape
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017BY MICHAËL HAJDENBERG
In Val-d’Oise, an 11-year-old child had sex with a 28-year-old stranger. She followed him, then underwent the act without protest, which makes the prosecutor say she was consenting. The man was to be tried for “sexual abuse” , not for rape. A French specificity.
On April 24, 2017, 11-year-old Sarah, who was sixth in Val-d’Oise, agreed to follow a 28-year-old man who approached her in a square. He leads her to a building where they will have sex, the first in the stairwell, the second in an apartment. These facts are not disputed. But that’s the way you have to call them. Because the individual, will be tried in February (the case to be tried on September 26 was returned), in Pontoise, for “sexual abuse on minor 15 years” , despite the complaint for “rape” that had been filed. The prosecution considers that Sarah was consenting. Despite his very young age.
French law forbid any sexual relationship with anyone under 15 year old. Period. And no any journalistic claptrap about “consenting age” would change this fact. About the case you are talking about, translate a full news, eg here : https://www.20minutes.fr/paris/2139727-20170926-pontoise-11-ans-peut-avoir-relation-sexuelle-consentie-homme-28-ans
That made news scandal precisely because of miscarriage of justice by a rogue prosecutor who decided to qualify the 11 year old girl as “consenting”. But no matter the prosecutor said, the 28 year old perv is condemned anyway precisely because the consenting age is over 15 yo.
No, it wasn’t just one rogue prosecutor. As the article mentions, there was ANOTHER recent case in which a 22-year-old man was tried on the more serious charge of raping an 11-year-old, and the man was ACQUITTED because the prosecution couldn’t prove the sexual conduct wasn’t consensual (I include a link to Le Monde with the whole story at the end here). It ended up a he said/she said situation in court. The man had denied any relationship with the girl until he learned she’d gotten pregnant and gave birth. Then he said the sex was consensual, and her actions were scrutinized in court just like any adult rape victim’s would be. They said things like she wasn’t upset afterwards. They brought up she went with him willingly, though she said she had no idea what he’d do. She said he forced himself on her, but in the end, his claims that he didn’t and that she lied about her age to him (which she denied) convinced the jurors. He got off! The prosecution said perhaps they should have just charged him with the lesser offense, but they believed he forcibly raped her. And he got off just because sex between a 22-year-old and an 11-year-old ISN’T statutory rape in France today.
From Le Monde on how the case stirred outrage:
Suspended on the subject, Marlene Schiappa, Secretary of State for Equality between Women and Men, announces quickly that the government is working on a bill on “the irrefutable presumption of non-consent of children “ . Which means that below a certain age, an act of penetration of a minor would automatically be considered by the courts as rape. The irrebuttable presumption does not exist in criminal law.
About twenty associations call to protest in front of the Ministry of Justice, politicians comment extensively on the case - “to vomit” , seemed to summarize the president of the region Ile-de-France, Valerie Pécresse. The debate begins on the delicate question of the age of sexual consent. At what age is a minor mature enough to accept or refuse sexual intercourse with a person of full age: 13 years? 15 years? Can we really set an age limit?...
At the end of March, a bill against gender-based and sexual violence will be presented to the Council of Ministers. Among the measures planned, Secretary of State Marlène Schiappa proposes setting the age of non-consent for minors at 15 years . The public prosecutor, François Molins, suggests him, 13 years.
The current legal state in France is a pedophile’s dream. The present 5-year maximum sentence for sexual conduct with a child under 15 may seem like a deterrent for most law-abiding people, but it’s not much to a pedophile. He knows that to be charged with the actual rape of a child, with the long sentence, the prosecution will have to prove that the child didn’t consent.
And where it becomes really a pedophile’s dream is in not establishing straight-out that children can in no way consent, meaning things have been made very, very murky. They’re murky today between adults. Many children and their parents might be reluctant to even try to go to prosecutors since a pedophile would get at most 5 years, or the child would be put through the third-degree if the pedophile is actually raped, since prosecutors have to prove that an 11-year-old “didn’t want it,” like they failed to do in that one case.
This was an eye-opening, informative article which sheds some light on the claims by some of Roman Polanski’s defenders that people in “Europe” look at “adult-child sex” differently than Americans do.
French law is clear :
“code pénal-art 227-25 : “Le fait, par un majeur, d’exercer sans violence, contrainte, menace ni surprise une atteinte sexuelle sur la personne d’un mineur de quinze ans est puni de cinq ans d’emprisonnement et de 75 000 euros d’amende.”)”
It says that “the fact that an adult has sex [even] without violence, constraint, threat or surprise with a minor less than 15 year old is punished by five years in prison and 75 k€ fine”. It means there is penalty with or ***without*** the minor’s consent because the law has decided de facto that a minor under 15 can NOT consent (because if there were consent, the law above would have no use, right?), no matter any obfuscating legaleese tries to spin things otherwise.
So the law arsenal already exists against pedophilia. Sensationalistic miscarriages of justice don’t change the fact the law already exists, it would be like saying because OJ Simpson has been acquitted that there is no law against domestic violence and murder in the US. Adding more laws while the existing laws are not even enforced will improve nothing.
BTW, “le Monde” (dubbed l’Immonde) is as a lying leftist untrusworthy newspaper (but I repeat myself) as the NYT or the WaPoo. And Mediapart is headed by an unrepentant Troskyste. So anything from them should be considered guilty before innocent.
“The current legal state in France is a pedophile’s dream. The present 5-year maximum sentence for sexual conduct with a child under 15 may seem like a deterrent for most law-abiding people, but it’s not much to a pedophile.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.