Re: Precisions on the Martinot situation

From: JDP (jacques@dtext.com)
Date: Thu Jul 24 2003 - 03:29:57 MDT

  • Next message: Hubert Mania: "Re: Transhumanism for Dummies'"

    Brett Paatsch a écrit (24.7.2003/10:15) :
    > JDP writes:
    > > I think so, too, and I sent a letter to that effect to
    > > the lawyer,
    >
    > > In any case, that strategy won't be very easy,
    > > either.
    >
    > > In particular, the judges need to somehow
    > > swallow that cryonics is not a mere symptom
    > > of pathetical delusion.
    >
    > As a matter of law, *why* do the judges need to
    > somehow swallow that? Is pathetic delusion or its
    > mere symptom itself now a crime. And if so which
    > are the minority religious faiths and how many
    > astrologers are there crowding French jails?
    >
    > Alas then, for the land of Voltaire and the birthplace
    > of *liberty*, equality, fraternity, when judges presume
    > to judge science or pre-judge scientific possibilities
    > and set aside the principle that even fools that harm no
    > one by their eccentric choices should be denied their
    > right to make such choices.

    Yes. [You mean "should not".]

    But, first, civil liberties in France are not as prioritary as they
    are in the US. You know the famous quote by Voltaire regarding freedom
    of speech: "I totally disagree with you, but I will fight so that you
    can express yourself."; well, in France you can be condemned if you
    say that the number of Jews killed in WW II is X, rather than Y.

    Second, they are considered dead. I am not sure about how the
    liberties of individuals are kept by "them" when they die in French
    law. In any case, there is an administrative law (which is probably
    not anti-constitutional) that says how dead bodies should be disposed
    with, and it offers the choice between earth or fire, but not ice. And
    such law settles the situation, seen from a magistrate. Again, it
    regards DEAD bodies; so framing it in terms of individual liberties,
    especially in a laic State (as Giulio rightly mentionned), may not
    make much sense.

    HENCE, though not a lawyer myself, and not an expert of French law, I
    think that one should show that cryonics has some plausibility, in
    order to show that the administrative law that says how corpses are
    disposed with is not the relevant juridical frame for the situation.

    (I add a post-scriptum on this, regarding the first point. Not being
    French, when I first came here I was all vibrant against the
    violations of individual liberties. Then I came to realize that there
    is a tension between "liberty", and "equality and fraternity". The US
    constitution is great on the first. The French is better on the two
    last. Some restrictions of individual liberties do make sense in this
    system, which has some good aspects.

    I won't debate that here, though. I just wanted to avoid a position of
    saying: "Yes! Of course you're right! French are fools! Everyone knows
    that!" I think they have followed a different path, coming from
    Voltaire and the Revolution, which makes some sense. Liberalism is
    good at redirecting competitive instinct into socially productive
    behaviour. But the ideals of the French Revolution go beyond that.)

    > Is there no organisation of civil libertarians in France?
    > Are there no philosophers or lawyers students that
    > wish to be famous and launch or rejuvenate their
    > careers in defence of an old principle of freedom even
    > when to do so would ensure that they would get
    > their names in the paper and a wealth of publicity for
    > free?

    Not a bad idea. In Switzerland, I could more easily make such
    connections (all the more so as my own father is a lawyer in
    Geneva...). However, not here. I'll have a try to target such
    population with such message.

    The problem being that points 1 and 2 above are obvious to anyone
    here, and getting enthusiastic about defending liberties at whatever
    cost doesn't make your audience shiver like it possibly does in the
    US. People understand that taxes, for example, is a restriction of
    individual liberty that is coherent with the last two thirds of the
    republican trinity. As are the restrictions on freedom of speech on
    the grounds of "incitation à la haine raciale" [incitement to racial
    hatred]. Different cultural path, different tradition, for best and
    worse.

    Jacques



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 24 2003 - 03:37:26 MDT