The Senate examines in second reading the text strengthening the protection of minors against sexual violence, largely rewritten in the National Assembly.
This bill provides for setting at 15 years the age below which a child is considered not to consent to a sexual act with an adult.
Thus, any sexual act committed by an adult on a minor under 15 would automatically be considered rape and punished by 20 years in prison.
In the event of incest, this age threshold is raised to 18 years.
To read also: Sexual violence: the clause "Romeo and Juliet" disturbs
Thursday, at the Luxembourg Palace, the debates focused on two measures of the text highly criticized by child protection associations.
The first is the “
Romeo and Juliet
”
clause
which provides that the sanctions do not apply if the adult and the minor are less than five years apart.
Adopted by the National Assembly to "
protect adolescent love affairs
", the rule of "
non-consent
" would not apply to adolescents of 13 or 14 years who have sexual relations with young adults of 18 or 19 years.
Associations fear that this exception protects young adults who commit assault.
On Thursday, the High Council for Equality (HCE) was also worried about this age difference of 5 years, recommending that it be reduced to 4 years "
insofar as no symmetrical relationship is possible between a young person of 18 years old and a 13 year old child
”.
In the Senate, Marie Pierre de la Gontrie (PS) spoke out against “
an unbearable breach in the fight against sexual violence against minors
”.
“
Whether we like it or not, our teens have sexuality, it's life, it's their life.
Let us not become the censors of their sentimental life
”, defended the Minister of Justice, Eric Dupond-Moretti.
The Romeo and Juliet clause "
is not intended to protect sex offenders for the benefit of their young age,
" he said.
As a result of this disagreement, discussions became strained.
The Keeper of the Seals launched to Senator PS that "
venom does not take the place of talent
".
Debate on the delicate subject of incest
The second point of disagreement concerns the definition of perpetrators in two new offenses created by the text: incestuous sexual assault and incestuous rape.
If these offenses were not committed by ascendants but by other members of the family (uncle, aunt, great-uncle, great-aunt, nephews, nieces, brothers, sisters or spouses of the latter, stepfather or mother-in-law ...), their legal or de facto authority over the child must be proven.
The addition of this condition “
deconstructs the definition of incest
” challenges the association Face à inceste.
"
Incest with de facto or de jure authority ... It protects a bunch of incestuous aggressors."
This bill Billon is far from historic, it is only a half-law, unconscious and dangerous
", moved on Twitter Andréa Bescond, director of the film"
Les Chatouilles
".
The HCE also protested against this condition of authority for people "
de facto in a position of authority vis-à-vis the child
" and recommended its abolition.
"
Incest is not a crime of power but an anthropological crime
," said Senator PS Marie-Pierre de La Gontrie to defend her deletion amendment.
Read also: Isabelle Santiago, the PS deputy who takes up the issue of incest
"
We cannot, apart from the ancestors, automatically and without individualization, criminalize the sexual relation because of the blood tie, advanced the Minister of Justice.
In these situations, we must trust the discernment and appreciation of the situations of our prosecutors and judges.
(...) You know their commitment.
They are confronted every day with the inaudible, the unspeakable.
They know how to distinguish between what comes under criminal law
”.
An opinion shared by Marie Mercier (LR), rapporteur of the text in the Senate: “
In the event of incestuous relations, it is therefore necessary to examine the situations on a case-by-case basis - it is the role of the judge - in order to determine who imposed the sexual act, otherwise we would expose ourselves to a significant risk of judicial errors
”.
The deletion amendments on these two controversial points of the text were rejected.
Beyond that, the centrist senator Annick Billon, author of the original text, estimated that "
prevention and training must now be added to the law to eradicate this unacceptable violence
".
This text, “
presents unprecedented advances
, argued Éric Dupond-Moretti.
His historic ambition will allow us to solemnly say to the victims: there is a before and an after this law ”
.
/cloudfront-eu-central-1.images.arcpublishing.com/prisa/2C5HI6YHNFHDLJSBNWHOIAS2AE.jpeg)
