79 MPs defend a "law of progress"



In light of criticism of the law against sexual and gender-based violence, in particular with regard to the protection of minors, 79 deputies and senators LREM defend a "law of progress" in a forum on Sunday newspaper . The signatories, first and foremost Alexandra Louis, rapporteur of the text in the Assembly, respond to another forum of associations and child protection professionals who denounced a "status quo" in the protection of minors in the previous JDD- delivery.

»READ ALSO – Sexual permission: the law does not set an age limit

"We do not regret and understand this position", say the parliamentarians, who list all the measures they believe make them a "law of progress": extension of the prescription of rape in minors, sanctions against "Digital raids" that are victims of children, stricter punishments for domestic violence in the presence of minors, etc … The elected delegates regret that critics of the law "hardly call for any of these measures, but focus their grievances on Article 2 of the law" on sexual abuse of minors .

Risk of unconstitutionality

The article states that when the facts are committed to "a minor of fifteen years", "the moral limitation or the surprise is characterized by abuse of the vulnerability of the victim who does not have the discernment necessary for these acts". This wording is far from the original intention of introducing a "presumption of non-consent", in which every penetration of a minor under the age of 15 was considered a rape.

»READ ALSO – Sexual violence: the text is controversial

LREM MPs recall that this proposal was "not retained" because it included a "real risk of unconstitutionality". And basically, they believe that & sus; & # 39; suspect & # 39; do not prevent the debate about the existence of a restriction or a surprise […] since it is characteristic of an assumption to be reversed. "According to them," the debates surrounding this suspicion seem to reflect a certain mistrust of the judge with a margin of discretion ".


Source link

Leave a Reply