Sam and his sources, conservative critics, even the venerable BBC, are wildly off-base in his post on psychological violence laws.
We in the US have laws against physical domestic violence, thankfully, partly in consequence of the 20th century movement to give women more rights.
Prior to the development of domestic abuse laws, men were allowed to beat their wives with relative impunity. The “sacred privacy of a marriage” so vaunted by Sam, in the form of “spousal privilege,” combined with strict divorce laws to undermined the ability of women to escape from abusive situations.
The proposed French law is about emotional abuse, a very real but sometimes difficult-to-qualify evil. The Civil Code’s philosophical underpinning is the idea that through legislation, we work toward the codification of what a perfect society should be. Here, French legislators have decided that good marriages should not involve psychological abuse. Quel horreur!
As for the potential spread of similar laws, let’s have it! Domestic violence is an often-misunderstood scourge, and though the law may lack normative value, believers in the dignity and worth of human beings should promote laws against it. No-one doubts that murdering a spouse is wrong and should be against the law. 100 years ago, beating your spouse was okay, so long as it didn’t go too far. 2000 years ago, you could have your spouse stoned if you suspected her of cheating. That’s in the USA; in many countries, women are not so lucky as to have recourse to laws protecting them from emotional and physical abuse, or even death.
Finally, on “nagging,” insults, rudeness, and marriage. First, do Sam and his cited sources honestly think “nagging” is going to be countenanced by the police as a violation of the law? Second, should not we err on the side of caution? Finally, it would seem to me that the only men likely to be scared off of marriage from laws like this are those likely to break them. But, there again, the normative value of the law is nil. Its true value lies in the expression of society’s desire to give legal recourse to the powerless and abused. Sam and company are engaging in chicken-littlism at its worst.
I say, Vive la France! For once, at least, they’re on the progressive side of human rights.
