From: Brett Paatsch (bpaatsch@bigpond.net.au)
Date: Thu Jul 24 2003 - 07:12:01 MDT
JDP writes:
> 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".]
Yes, sorry.
> 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.
I'd only heard it translated as "I may not agree with what
you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it".
which I guess, even if accurate might not be very useful
when death is itself part of the issue.
I'd not realised the restrictions on free speach went so
far in France. By "condemned" do you mean that it is
actually illegal or just politically incorrect? Australia
has racial vilification laws which restrict some speech
as well.
> 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.
My guess would be they wouldn't be. But I'd be
pretty surprised if there is not some sort of voluntary
organisation in France concerned with civil liberties.
Australia does not have a Bill of Rights like the US
and States can therefore theoretically pass laws here
to do just about anything to an individual (there
are no specific constitutional protections), our civil
rights are political rather than legal constructs. There
is a Victorian Council for Civil Liberties which
acts as a political lobby group and which has a
membership that is largely made up of lawyers.
> 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 mentioned), 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 think the pivotal figure in arguing cryonics through
the courts in the US was Greg Fahy. I'm not sure if
he could or would be able to assist. I'd be pretty
surprised if he had not heard of the case.
> (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".
Yeah, I've heard that argued somewhere too.
> 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 don't think the French are fools. I still drink milk
that's Pasteurised ;-) But French law comes from a
different tradition to Australian and US law which
were both based on English law. Unfortunately I
don't know enough about French law to help.
My questions below were really meant to be
rhetorical suggestions.
If I was going to try and resolve a similar legal
problem with cryonics in Australia I'd look to the
civil libertarian organisations as natural allies.
> 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.
Ah, now I understand, your name is French-Swiss I
was assuming you were French.:-)
<snip>
> 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.
Seem Australia is somewhere between the US and
France then with our racial vilification laws.
Regards,
Brett
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 24 2003 - 07:17:24 MDT