Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Trick Used To Pass French "Three Strikes"

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the foul-ball dept.

Government 488

Glyn Moody writes "France's 'Loi Hadopi' — better known as 'three strikes and you're out' — was passed by the National Assembly late last night when only 16 deputies were present (the vote was 12 in favor, 4 against). Most politicians had left because it was expected that the vote would take place next week. In this way, President Sarkozy has sneaked his controversial legislation through the French parliament — and shown his contempt for the democratic process. So now what?"

cancel ×

488 comments

Shame (5, Insightful)

FredFredrickson (1177871) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445199)

While my initial thought is "Shame on those people who subverted the democratic process" I can't help but think.. "Shame on the faulty system with such a stupid loophole." Did they subvert the democratic process? Kinda. But did they do things within the boundries of their law? Apparently so.

So shame on those living in France expecting anything different from their dumb system.

It's like having an insurance policy, and when the insurance company decides to be assholes and use their technicalities to avoid paying you, well, shame on you for signing on to such an obviously flawed contract.

(Please note, I'm not claiming my country is any better.)

Re:Shame (4, Insightful)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445305)

And shame on those whom left early to have off, whatever the custom may be.

I mean, if I am involved in a meeting at work, and it is my job to attend the meeting, and even vote about the discussed subject, even if it's next week, I stay and do my job. Of course lawmakers have a special kind of work ethic.

Re:Shame (4, Insightful)

JCSoRocks (1142053) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445451)

Of course lawmakers have a special kind of work ethic.

Yeah... the kind where you only work for a few months every couple years when you're up for election. :-/

FREEDOM FRIES !! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27445455)

Get 'em while they're HOT !!

Re:Shame (3, Informative)

qoncept (599709) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445325)

What can an independent citizen do, other than vote for their representation? What politician has ever shown they wouldn't do their best to try to implement and than take advantage of such a system?

And you're right. It is like having an insurance policy, because insurance adjusters and politicians (and cell phone companies and cable companies and banks and.. you get it) ARE assholes. And individuals are kind of in the same boat here as with politicians -- you have to take what you can get.

Re:Shame (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27445503)

What can an independent citizen do, other than vote for their representation? What politician has ever shown they wouldn't do their best to try to implement and than take advantage of such a system?

the most important freedom of a democracy or a republic is not the freedom to vote for the candidate (though that is important) -- it the freedom the freedom to run for the office.

that is easier said than getting elected (especially in my most-money-means-most-likely-elected nation-state), but without it, you live in a place where the leadership decides the candidate. and, that is just a rigged game.

Re:Shame (2, Insightful)

lymond01 (314120) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445757)

You can sue and let a judge decide. That's why they're there: to interpret the law and shove the loopholes up people's rears. There's the letter of the law, then there's what it's meant for -- you can't legislate out all human error, but when someone tries to exploit that error, you have courts to help you out.

Re:Shame (2, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445381)

Your line of thinking takes one down a fairly dangerous road. While it is certainly a good idea to build in safeguards where possible, and make sure that contracts are specific, and so forth, that isn't really sufficient.

For systems of real world complexity, it is virtually impossible to eliminate loopholes. Worse, the attempt to eliminate them tends to impose costs of its own(extra paperwork/procedure, onerous restrictions intended to prevent edge cases, and so on). It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to write rules restrictive enough to restrain actors in bad faith without horribly restricting actors in good faith. Furthermore, the more complex a ruleset is, the greater the risk of loopholes and/or internal contradictions emerging.

Rule of law is a good thing; but a society heading down the path of "All that is not strictly and precisely forbidden is licit" is too sick to survive.

Re:Shame (5, Interesting)

mea37 (1201159) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445573)

Ok, but let's focus on the situation at hand. Why should a legislative body not require a quorum of some sort to act?

Sure, sometimes you have to rely on people to act honorably. Sometimes your system can't be "good enough" to prevent abuse if someone's clever enough to abuse it. This doesn't look like one of those times; this looks like a case where the system is inexplicably broken.

Re:Shame (3, Informative)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445625)

Oh, I completely agree that the system is broken, I just wanted to note the danger in the "Well, the letter of the law wasn't violated, blame the system" position.

Re:Shame (5, Funny)

johnsonav (1098915) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445663)

Why should a legislative body not require a quorum of some sort to act?

Have you ever watched C-SPAN? Seems like every five minutes, they're having a Quorum Call. It's boring.

Quorums make for bad TV.

Re:Shame (2, Informative)

baegucb (18706) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445865)

Quorum calls in the US Senate can be called at almost anytime. That makes it functionally the same as a filibuster, but without the talking. Cloture is how to get around this iirc.

Re:Shame (1)

yacc143 (975862) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445789)

But in this case it's relative simple, and common, to require a minimum of deputies present.

Seems like the French national assembly does not have rules about minimum presence then ;)

Re:Shame (4, Informative)

Creepy (93888) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445891)

virtually impossible to eliminate loopholes

heh - understatement of the year... in America, for instance, where the elected President can issue National Security directives that are instantly law, only need to be viewed by 12 people (or less - the attendees of the National Security Council, whose members are mostly picked by the President), and bypass Congress completely. Clinton and Bush were huge fans of bypassing Congress that way (FEMA powers, warrantless wiretapping of US citizens, torture in foreign countries, etc) but the ramp-up of using this method really started with the Carter administration in the 1970s (and the best known abuse of this power was the Iran-Contra affair under Reagan). The US President can also issue normal Executive Orders, which just bypass Congress and are instantly law, but are public and can be viewed and removed by Congress or a judge.

If only we could force them to at least be reviewed by 16 people and public knowledge, like in France...

Re:Shame (4, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445419)

The problem in France is similar to some of the shenanigans we see in the U.S. The rules were put in place with the idea that the participants in the debate and vote were dedicated to democracy and the best interests of their respective nations. In the end, they're honor systems.

These days, that assumption just doesn't hold true often enough for the rules to work like they're supposed to. Too many in the legislatures have no honor.

We have much the same problem in contract law. Much of the law includes various 'reasonable person' tests. Unfortunately, corporations aren't real people (even if the law grants them a fictional personhood) and they are not reasonable (literally, ever tried to call up a corporation and reason with it?)

Re:Shame (5, Insightful)

notarockstar1979 (1521239) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445433)

Yes, shame on the faulty system. However, just because something is done to the letter of the law doesn't mean it's done with the spirit of the law in mind. Of course this may be EXACTLY the kind of thing this loophole was designed for.

Is there any way they can retract it during a vote next week when they thought they were going to vote for it? I don't know how French law works.

While I agree with most of what you're saying (even if I don't agree with where most of the blame goes), I don't know that I agree with the following:

So shame on those living in France expecting anything different from their dumb system.

If you are born somewhere, sometimes it is difficult to leave. Some people just don't have the resources or skills to leave a country and start a new life somewhere else (I know I'm finding it pretty difficult right now). What other choices do they have if the politicians don't listen to the people?

The EU will probably shut this down anyway. We'll just have to see.

Re:Shame (3, Insightful)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445883)

Yes, shame on the faulty system. However, just because something is done to the letter of the law doesn't mean it's done with the spirit of the law in mind. Of course this may be EXACTLY the kind of thing this loophole was designed for.

Perhaps it's time to recognize that contracts and the laws that support them are contrary to a free and democratic society. If we dominate each other through trickery and exploitative contracts, how is that better than dominating each other through violence and force of arms?

Power in the modern world comes from directing the efforts of the society of which we are a part. If that power that comes from leverage rather than the abiding support of the people that make up the society, it is tyranny. Contracts are the mechanism by which that tyranny is enforced. They are the mechanism that has been used to turn us against ourselves and cause us to labor relentlessly for arbitrary and wasteful things while the important things are being neglected and allowed to fall apart.

We will not see things improve until we rectify this situation. Though, realistically, chances are good we will die before our time in this bed we have made without ever having even tried, and protest how unfair life is.

Re:Shame (5, Informative)

Jurily (900488) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445461)

While my initial thought is "Shame on those people who subverted the democratic process" I can't help but think.. "Shame on the faulty system with such a stupid loophole." Did they subvert the democratic process? Kinda. But did they do things within the boundries of their law? Apparently so.

Hungarian law requires half of all MP's to be present to make any vote legit. I imagine it would have helped here.

Re:Shame (1)

Rich0 (548339) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445531)

While I agree that it is crazy that a parliamentary body wouldn't have some kind of rule on quorums and annoucement of decision making, I don't think you can compare this to insurance policies.

The last time you negotiated an insurance policy, how much of a negotiation was it? The last time I checked these documents are almost always take-it-or-leave-it propositions, and it isn't like just anybody can start their own insurance company to compete (it requires billions of dollars in reserves, and often political connections to get away with less reserves than are truly needed hence the CDS mess on Wall Street).

This is a legitimate area for regulation. So is democracy (in the form of constitutional controls).

Re:Shame (4, Insightful)

FredFredrickson (1177871) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445905)

Actually, the take-it-or-leave-it problem is very similar with countries.

I'd be hard pressed to change the country, in the same way I'm hard pressed to make an insurance company give me good benefits. But it seems all insurance companies are equally as scammy, and I'm having a hard time finding a country I want to live in that isn't just as much suck as this one.

So, yes, the government is like insurance. It never pays out, and no matter where you go, you'll get screwed.

Re:Shame (-1)

MouseR (3264) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445637)

Damn that's a trollish comment. Sad I dont have mod points right now.

If you think the US, or any other country for that matter, doesn't have such loopholes riddling their system, you're delusional.

Entire elections were stolen though that.
Entire civil liberties abolished the same way.
Constitutions built that way.
Trade laws are nothing but loopholes taken advantage of.
Lobbying became the foundation through wich government operate.

Be consequent to your own disclaimer. Your country is no better, and that doesn't mean you should be any less ashamed for living in such a country.

Re:Shame (4, Informative)

khallow (566160) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445819)

If you think the US, or any other country for that matter, doesn't have such loopholes riddling their system, you're delusional.

Actually most countries do not have this loophole. You have to have a quorum in order for the vote to count.

Re:Shame (1)

FredFredrickson (1177871) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445861)

I feel you may have just skimmed what I said. I will help you understand what I said:

So shame on those living in France expecting anything different...(Please note, I'm not claiming my country is any better.)

My country isn't better. I'm just not expecting better, I know how screwed up my country is. What I'm saying here is: shame on you for expecting something better out of that system. If you're honest with yourself and don't expect better, then you can poise yourself into a position to either escape the system, or try to change the system. The choice is yours. Please don't litter in the theater.

Re:Shame (1)

MouseR (3264) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445961)

Fair enough.

Re:Shame (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445735)

And this is why other countries require a sufficient number of legislators for a quorum. Hell, your average board requires a certain number of members present to proceed.

Re:Shame (5, Interesting)

inviolet (797804) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445777)

While my initial thought is "Shame on those people who subverted the democratic process" I can't help but think.. "Shame on the faulty system with such a stupid loophole." Did they subvert the democratic process? Kinda. But did they do things within the boundries of their law? Apparently so.

That's not what happened. When a vote on an issue like is needed, and everyone agrees with the new law but don't want to be on record saying so, an after-hours party like this is arranged. Everyone who agrees goes home with a wink, a nod, and plausible deniability.

Re:Shame (-1, Flamebait)

RedStatePunk (1157265) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445831)

Does the Original Poster mean to imply that the U.S. Esteemed Imperial Legislature showed respect for democratic process with the "stimulus" bill that they slid through with insignificant time allotted for public debate? Or simply to page through the bastard looking for guaranteed AIG bonuses, for example? No government serves at the consent of the governed. Term limits or pitchforks/torches: take your choice.

Re:Shame (1)

FredFredrickson (1177871) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445957)

No, I actually disclaim any implications to other countries - specifically the one I live in (not france).

Re:Shame (1)

mrdoogee (1179081) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445935)

I've always thought that there should be a minimum number of representatives (Senators, partisans, MPs whatever your country calls them) present on a vote for it to be valid.
  It helps the process two ways:

1) The sneaky minority cannot railroad legislation through in a late-night session.

2) Legislators cannot just happen to be "absent" on the day that a controversial bill comes to a vote so they can avoid having to actually take a stand on something.

Can't they just pass a law repealing it? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27445203)

It's not the end of the world, probably.

Quorum? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27445219)

Ever heard of Quorum? The French should add that to their rules/constitution to prevent that crap Sheesh

Re:Quorum? (1)

kabloom (755503) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445431)

At least in the US, the house and senate typically assume the presence of a quorum unless someone calls for quorum and demonstrates that there isn't a quorum. However, any one congressman can do that. I wonder why one of the opponents didn't do that in France.

Re:Quorum? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27445483)

Because it is in the nature of the French to surrender.

Re:Quorum? (1)

squeeze69 (756427) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445849)

That's not fair (and it's untrue too). Notice: I'm not french but just in the neighborhood.

Re:Quorum? (5, Interesting)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445513)

At least in the US, the house and senate typically assume the presence of a quorum unless someone calls for quorum and demonstrates that there isn't a quorum. However, any one congressman can do that

Yeah, but that doesn't always happen. The Hughes Amendment [gunlawnews.org] was passed on a late night voice vote when the House Chamber was virtually empty and everybody who would have opposed it was gone for the night. Isn't Democracy grand?

Don't leave early. (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445237)

Shame on everyone. Shame on him for 'tricking' this into law. Shame on everyone that left early because they didn't care about anything else that was left.

Re:Don't leave early. (1)

DoctorPepper (92269) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445321)

I say shame on the remaining representatives for not telling the President to stuff it, we're waiting for next week.

Re:Don't leave early. (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445339)

Shame on everyone that left early because they didn't care about anything else that was left.

I have to say I agree. It's not like they had to leave to go to work or something, I suppose. They likely get paid to be in parliament and vote on things..

Re:Don't leave early. (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445355)

Oh, and shame on the system for allowing a session to go for 41 hours, guaranteeing that everything after the first 12 hours isn't thought about clearly.

And shame on the system for allowing only 16 members to vote something in.

(If I Google right, there are around 900 members of Parliament.)

Re:Don't leave early. (1)

Stile 65 (722451) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445489)

Seriously... isn't there some sort of quorum rule in the French parliament or something?

Re:Don't leave early. (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445445)

Don't forget: Shame on the worthless motherfuckers who stayed and voted aye. Sarkozy is a prick; but 12 people in that room last night were the ones who actually made a mockery of the process of representative democracy.

In a juster world, they would be hanging from the lampposts this morning.

Re:Don't leave early. (2, Interesting)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445807)

After almost 42 hours of continuous discussion (i bet most of it was around the same wrong and boring arguments repeated over and over by the proponents) and when the actual voting was supposed to be next week?

What you want? Robolegislators? The 12 that voted for it could had known of the sneaky move... the 4 that voted against should be treated as superheros.

Get a new government elected (2, Insightful)

Kaleidoscopio (1271290) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445247)

The fault is on the current elected officials. If they were present at parliament like they are supposed too, this would not happen. We vote for them to be at parliament, not for them to go only they feel like it. Even if the vote would only take place next week, its their obligation to be at parliament. Pity its never like that, not in Portugal and not in France it seems...

Contempt? (-1, Troll)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445251)

Perhaps you should consider that he is completely within the rules of order here.

Maybe if the French were more like their leader instead of being shiftless, lazy bums who'd rather shirk work and live off the dole than to actually perform the duties they were hired for, perhaps they could have participated in the democracy.

I've got a bumpersticker on my car. It says "My right to complain is paid for with my vote". If you don't vote, and your representative doesn't vote, fuck you. If you can't be assed to take part in democracy, who the fuck cares what your interpretation of democracy should be.

Re:Contempt? (2, Funny)

Machtyn (759119) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445303)

I was thinking the same thing... How was anyone at work at 2200 hours? Aren't they all supposed to stop working after 6 hours and only have 4 day work weeks?

It's a joke, laugh.

Re:Contempt? (1)

ServerIrv (840609) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445629)

The vote happened at 22:45 (10:45pm). So, let's hypothetically walk through the events of the night leading up to this point. 41 hours and 40 minutes earlier (TFA doesn't actually give a start time), so they started discussions Wednesday morning at 3:05am. This seems amazing for Frenchmen. Anyway, after about 40 hours and 55 minutes, around 10:00pm the next day, everyone thinks it's late and this is getting a little over the top. So, everyone starts mingling around and leaving. By 10:40pm just about everyone is gone, so the decision to take the vote happens. The four who voted "no" were actually supposed to vote "yes", but were so tired at this point that they raised their hands at the wrong time. With marathon sessions like this, no wonder silly laws get passed. By the end they don't even know what they are voting for.

Re:Contempt? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27445333)

BadAnalogyGuy such a fitting name.
Seriously if there was only 16 people here, even the hard working people in that country could not fathom their elected body could be so complacent.
And since you're certainly from the USA, well in France they actually read what they sign >.>
Heck you didn't even follow the whole process and come on your high horse? WTF were you doing when DMCA was being voted? Where was your white horse when Patriot Act was passed?

Re:Contempt? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27445373)

You have no right to complain....period.
Democracy is about leading dumbfuck people (the majority) in order to screw them the more you can, cause there is no other reason to want to lead those dumbfucks in the first place....
Cause if you are intelligent, you know that either
a: you cannot change people to have them become smarter...
b: according to a, either you become a leader and fuck them, or you get screwed like all the other dumbfucks....except you actually know you are screwed.

conclusion: vote is useless to intelligent people cause they are the minority.

Re:Contempt? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27445435)

The Parent *is not* a troll.

Re:Contempt? (5, Funny)

Tx (96709) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445509)

As a Brit, I hate to have to defend our old adversaries, but I have to step in here, as I think you're being a little unfair. You say the French are lazy, but I can tell you that they are more than willing to work quite hard. As long as it isn't August of course. Or one of their many holidays. Or within 30 minutes of their official close of business. Or anywhere near lunch. And so long as they aren't on strike. But other than that, absolutely nose-to-the-grindstone tireless hard workers for sure.

Re:Contempt? (5, Informative)

Noryungi (70322) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445677)

Yeah right. Talking nonsense again, right?

European surveys have proved that French people actually work longer hours than Brits.

Don't believe me?

Check this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2009/mar/31/uk-long-working-hours [guardian.co.uk]
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/ewco/surveys/ewcs2005/index.htm [europa.eu]

I have seen Brits and Swiss jerks leave their office at 5:00pm while I stayed at my desk until 10:00pm past. So that kind of "joke" is truly lame.

And yes, I work in France.

Re:Contempt? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27445709)

Wait, wait, a brit joking about the french not being hardworking? Allow me to laugh out aloud in my best phony French. Ahahahahaha!

Re:Contempt? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27445551)

Yes, fsck us all. Angry mobs are democracy too. I'd be particularly leery of the French ones.

Lost in translation (1)

Anonymous Meoward (665631) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445277)

What's the French word for "quorum" ? Clearly the National Assembly should be using it here. Dolts.

Re:Lost in translation (2, Funny)

jaymzter (452402) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445711)

The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for quorum.

is this so hard? (5, Funny)

thhamm (764787) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445283)

So now what?

revolution!

Re:is this so hard? (1)

JCSoRocks (1142053) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445505)

Viva La Revolution!

Re:is this so hard? (1)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445507)

So now what?

Surrender!

FTFY

Re:is this so hard? (1)

Ronald Dumsfeld (723277) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445537)

So now what? revolution!

No. Just cut of their supply of garlic and snails.

Ah, yes Monsieur politician, we will put ze escargot back on ze menu when we will not get ze disconnection from the Intertubez.

Re:is this so hard? (1)

EvilIdler (21087) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445639)

I think many people would love to see Sarkozy's head roll :)

They keep the museum guillotines in good shape just for this sort of thing, right?

And Food Renaming (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27445799)

Homerun Fries and Homerun Toast!

Re:is this so hard? (5, Funny)

Joe the Lesser (533425) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445867)

But I'm le tired!

Re:is this so hard? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27445885)

If the French fought themselves, would anyone actually win?

Think about it...

"contempt for democratic process" (5, Insightful)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445285)

Sounds like sour grapes to me. News Flash: Politicians use these procedural tricks all the time, why do you think that said tricks exist? At someone point, some other guys slid laws through on the same deal. Look at the absurd things the US does - the Patriot Act, Obama's "bailout" plans, that nobody ever reads, but people vote on.

Re:"contempt for democratic process" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27445557)

Wish I had mod points for you... Insightful indeed.

Re:"contempt for democratic process" (1)

hattig (47930) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445823)

I just don't understand how something as important as a vote on new laws can be done on the spur of the moment.

I couldn't see a system any less than timetabling the discussion and vote for specific times in the future, with a certain number of voters required, and with adequate notice given to all members who can vote.

The sad fact there is no democracy, however much we're told there is and however much we go through the charade every few years of voting. The government exists as a buffer between the plebs (us) who want democracy and a say, and those (rich people and corporations) who want their own way. Their main aim is to distract us from the things that matter that aren't in our favour.

It's France... (0, Troll)

sureshot007 (1406703) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445291)

does anyone really care?

Re:It's France... (1)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445389)

Yes. I hate to break this to you, but people are people and should be respected as such. Governments like to get to get the people into an "us versus them" mentality. It gets folks to turn off their brains and follow blindly whatever they are told. Works for political parties as well. the repercussions of one nation's actions reverberate in all others.

Now, is the three strikes thing the biggest deal in the world? Probably not. But the moronic "Who cares about " is dangerous and a sign of a small mind.

Re:It's France... (1)

rgo (986711) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445515)

they invented fries, so yeah... i care.

Re:It's France... (1)

McGiraf (196030) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445767)

Belgium!

Sorry for the swearing, but fries were invented in Belgium.

Contempt of the democratic process (1)

MindlessAutomata (1282944) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445297)

-I- myself have great contempt for the democratic process, but I would actually point to these kind of shenanigans as part of the reason why!

Re:Contempt of the democratic process (1)

furby076 (1461805) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445745)

So as opposed to democracy you would rather have a dictatorship? You are right these shenanigans would stop if we had dictators then again a lot of things would stop.

Re:Contempt of the democratic process (1)

MindlessAutomata (1282944) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445785)

You're right, I'm obviously supportive of dictatorships because I dislike democracy for it resulting in less freedoms. OF COURSE...!

Truth is... (2, Insightful)

fredklein (532096) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445357)

The people who showed "contempt for the democratic process" were the people who left early.

Re:Truth is... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27445821)

After a 30 hour discussion? Bullshit.

Re:Truth is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27445897)

For not staying until 11 PM? On a vote nobody expected until next week?

Yes, truly evil, evil men. They should have known that this never-before-used-tactic would be employed.

Strike One against Sarkozy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27445385)

Two more and the grass mud horse is out.

Captch is "homers" What are the odds of that?

Re:Strike One against Sarkozy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27445669)

Captch is "homers" What are the odds of that?

Million to 1 shots work 90% of the time.

So now what? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27445511)

So now what?

Surrender [albinoblacksheep.com] .

After three strikes (-1, Troll)

daybot (911557) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445517)

The French will just surrender after the first strike, so I don't see a need for three.

Let them eat source code (0, Offtopic)

zapatero (68511) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445579)

This is /. not the Huffington Post.

To bring this topic back home; much better would be 3 strikes and you're assigned to a write man pages for the opensource X.org projects.

Reminds me of the DMCA (5, Interesting)

erroneus (253617) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445595)

Unpopular legislation is almost always passed in such ways. And now the blame for its passing is limited to a select few. I have to wonder if these loopholes and subversive means aren't there to protect lawmakers from having to make decisions that would get them booted from office? That is to say, while they support the legislation, they wouldn't want to be on record as having voted for it... so they "look the other way" while a team of patsies come in to do the dirty work for them.

Quorum (5, Insightful)

PMuse (320639) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445599)

A country with a 577-member body that allows 16 people to constitute quorum? If that's actually the case, that country deserves what it gets.

Say it ain't so.

Move to a country that respects freedom (4, Funny)

wiredog (43288) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445605)

Like the UK.

Re:Move to a country that respects freedom (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27445727)

"The UK" respects freedom more than a lot of countries on this Little Blue Planet. Perhaps you should think twice before making such snarky comments.

Re:Move to a country that respects freedom (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27445881)

Like the UK.

This needs modding as either troll or funny, I just can't decide which...

Re:Move to a country that respects freedom (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27445903)

Or China.

Subverting the democratic process? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27445623)

What, like proposing a bank rescue bill, and tagging on a clause criminalising the act of employers distinguishing between physical and mental health for insurance purposes?

Of course, Obama does not subvert the democratic process, because he is a Democrat and the epitome of virtue. If you are Good, you are not Bad.

I can't see this one standing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27445659)

I can't see this one standing. The French have shown a tendency to strike/riot on issues lately. Once the citizens get hold of how this went down they'll get good and angry.

12+4/577... (1)

GerardAtJob (1245980) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445665)

That's under 3% of all France's deputies... no more comments

Report 'em all... (5, Interesting)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445681)

If it's a three strikes law, use it to your advantage. Keep reporting all the incidents everywehere - Sarkozy hums a copyrighted tune? Report it. Flood the government or whatever bodies with reports on all potential copyright infringement by the members. After all, don't we already have proof that they do this? It should be trivial to just report that their children have broken the law as well. Keep reporting them and get their internet connections cut off.

Sort of like "work to rule" campaigns - you make the rulemakers suffer under their own rules as well.

Heck, bonus points for those who can get the Internet cut off at no only their personal residences, but also to government buildings also.

MGMT doesn't like his use of 'Kids' (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27445975)

Sarkozy has been using MGMT's wonderful song kids without permission. He did offer one euro to settle.

Similar to Federal Reserve Act of 1913 (2, Interesting)

cagrin (146191) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445687)

The US Senate(?) did almost the exact same thing in 1913 to get the Federal Reserve Act passed. We seem to learn little from history sometimes...sad :( ...if you haven't seen it yet, movie - Freedom to Fascism [youtube.com] , by Aaron Russo

More checks and balances needed. (2, Interesting)

oftenwrongsoong (1496777) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445721)

I do not live in France, but nevertheless in my own country, where there are supposed to be checks and balances, I believe there aren't enough of them. It is possible, if a single party gets more than 50% of the House and Senate, for that party to do almost anything with impunity. Sure, it takes effort to pass a bill into law since it must pass in both chambers of Congress and then get signed into law by the President. But because government is an entity that tends toward corruption and total control, I think the Constitution should have thrown a few additional monkey wrenches into the gears and added the following requirements to the mix:

1. A mandatory waiting period of one year from completion of the writing of a bill until it can be voted on by legislators. The bill must be made available to the public at the start of this waiting period. This forces a review and comment period. If the text of the bill changes, the waiting period restarts.

2. More eyes. After a bill passes both houses, it must be shelved until at least 50% of the members of both houses have changed. Once that happens, the bill must pass both houses a second time. Only then does it land on the President's desk. This means that the passage of bills into law requires the NEXT Congress to agree with the current one.

3. "One subject matter." In other words, you can't sneak a failed bill regulating commerce into the bowels of another bill regulating something else.

4. "Plain English," and "Reasonable length," meaning an eighth-grader should be able to read and understand the bill. As a bonus, instead of "Reasonable length," the Constitution should have defined a hard length limit of, say, 200 pages in a bill, where each page may only contain up to a maximum of a certain number of words. No more bills so long they need all of Google's storage capacity to store them and vote on them without reading them. Not to mention, if you can't explain it in 200 pages, it's probably too complicated to be understood by the public, which will be expected to abide by it.

5. A Constitution-defined ceiling on the total number of pages in law. Once that limit is reached, they can't add pages until other pages are repealed to make room. Repealing should be as complicated as enacting, by the way. Say, 100,000 pages total maximum number of pages in law. This is a HUGE number! To put things into perspective, the federal tax law takes up 70,000 pages. That's just ONE law. There must be millions of pages of complicated, convoluted law. This is ridiculous! You are somehow expected to know and abide by the law, but it is impossible for any person to actually know so much. Laws are misunderstood, and this allows lawyers and other corrupt people to take advantage of normal people. There should be a hard limit.

Stinking bad summary, as usual (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27445771)

What is it with the assholes who submit stories around here that they can't even be bothered to explain in a phrase or sentence what the story is about? Are pixels suddenly $1000 a pound?

Why should it be presumed that I (or anybody) knows what the hell the "Loi Hadopi" is? Why should anyone have to waste 5 minutes Googling just to read a Slashdot story? It turns out that the matter is quite important, but I'm quite sure that most people around here, or anywhere, for that matter, don't follow French politics closely enough to be on top of it. It never hurts to explain it again.

This is going to be like the drug war in the US. (2, Informative)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445809)

Obviously stupid, but a lot of people will lose internet access just like a lot of people sitting in jail could be living productive lives just like cigarette and alchohol vendors.

Three strikes and you are out is a ridiculously low standard, so you can be sure that it will not be enforced on the elite. If it ever is, the law will be revoked.

The European way... (1)

VShael (62735) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445855)

It's the latest thing in Europe, contempt for the will of the people.

We've seen in with the EU Constitution treaty, and with the Lisbon treaty, and this is just another example.

It'll continue until there's another blood drenched coup d'etat, but technology makes it harder for citizens to rise up without getting stomped on.

The next time the French people drag out the guillotine, it won't be for the monarchy or the aristocracy. It'll be for the politicians. And maybe the bankers.

More information (4, Insightful)

krappie (172561) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445895)

What this slashdot post needs is:
1. A description of the law that was passed. 'three strikes and you're out' isn't very descriptive. I'm assuming it has to do with file sharing and cutting off people's internet connections?

2. How many deputies were supposed to be there? 18? 100? 300?

French Political System (1)

Digitus1337 (671442) | more than 5 years ago | (#27445915)

In Comparative Politics, France is considered an odd country. The President has almost unlimited power; there is no system in place to remove him except for the next popular election. He does have the power to remove the Prime Minister from power, which is the opposite of how the system usually works in the case of a system with both a PM and a President. Russia acted like it had a similar system until Putin switched from President to PM.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...