French Create a right to housing

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
82,283
Reaction score
10,122
Points
2,070
Location
Minnesota
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070103/ts_afp/francepoliticshomeless_070103183244

I see nothing but problems here. Im not saying this will be the straw that breaks the camels back, but I can't see the French government surviving more than a generation or two if they keep pushing responsibility off the people and onto the government.

Also, since when can governments create rights anyway? They may be able to create an environment where those rights can be execised to the maximum effect, but rights arent state made. They are inherent.
 

padisha emperor

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2004
Messages
1,564
Reaction score
53
Points
48
Location
Aix-en-Provence, France
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070103/ts_afp/francepoliticshomeless_070103183244

I see nothing but problems here. Im not saying this will be the straw that breaks the camels back, but I can't see the French government surviving more than a generation or two if they keep pushing responsibility off the people and onto the government.

Also, since when can governments create rights anyway? They may be able to create an environment where those rights can be execised to the maximum effect, but rights arent state made. They are inherent.

I have quite the same point of view tha yours for the relevance of this right. Government can't help everybody, that's sad, but there is not enough money.
The right to have a home is not an opposable right, an invocable right into a lawsuit. This is just an aim for the government, the government do all of its possible to give home to all the french citizens. That's a goal, not an invocable right, to me.

But you're wrong for the last part of your post. The french government didn't creat this right, the government only propose a law to organize the invocation of this right for the citizens during lawsuits. The right was already here, but as I said, only as goal, what it should stay. In the preamble of the Constitution of 1946 (IVth Republic), the subparagraph 10 and 11 ground this right. This preamble has a constitutionnal valor (decision of the Constitutionnal Council of 1971), like the Declaration of the Rights of 1789, and of course like the Constitution of 1958.

This right is a "second generation" right : the 1st generation's rights are the liberal rights : the rights of the US independance declaration of 1776, of the french declaration of 1789... all the rights coming from the "Lumières" spirit of the XVIIIth c.
The 2nd generation's rights are the economical, social and cultural rights, after the WWII.
So, in France, the text with constitutionnal valor count 1st generation rights (Declaration of 1789), 2nd generation rights (preamble of 1946), plus some principes to whom the Constitutionnal Council gave a constitutionnal valor (called PFRLR). This can be possible because in the preamble of the Constitution of 1958 (the actual), there is a reference to the premable of 1946 and to the Declaration of 1789. And in the preamble of 1946, there is also a reference to the 1789's text and to the PFRLR.

this constitutionnal architecture is the result of 2 decisions of the Constutional Council, in 1971 and 1973.

So, the french government did'nt creat this right, it was already in.
 

trobinett

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Messages
1,832
Reaction score
162
Points
48
Location
Arkansas, The Ozarks
I have quite the same point of view tha yours for the relevance of this right. Government can't help everybody, that's sad, but there is not enough money.
The right to have a home is not an opposable right, an invocable right into a lawsuit. This is just an aim for the government, the government do all of its possible to give home to all the french citizens. That's a goal, not an invocable right, to me.

But you're wrong for the last part of your post. The french government didn't creat this right, the government only propose a law to organize the invocation of this right for the citizens during lawsuits. The right was already here, but as I said, only as goal, what it should stay. In the preamble of the Constitution of 1946 (IVth Republic), the subparagraph 10 and 11 ground this right. This preamble has a constitutionnal valor (decision of the Constitutionnal Council of 1971), like the Declaration of the Rights of 1789, and of course like the Constitution of 1958.

This right is a "second generation" right : the 1st generation's rights are the liberal rights : the rights of the US independance declaration of 1776, of the french declaration of 1789... all the rights coming from the "Lumières" spirit of the XVIIIth c.
The 2nd generation's rights are the economical, social and cultural rights, after the WWII.
So, in France, the text with constitutionnal valor count 1st generation rights (Declaration of 1789), 2nd generation rights (preamble of 1946), plus some principes to whom the Constitutionnal Council gave a constitutionnal valor (called PFRLR). This can be possible because in the preamble of the Constitution of 1958 (the actual), there is a reference to the premable of 1946 and to the Declaration of 1789. And in the preamble of 1946, there is also a reference to the 1789's text and to the PFRLR.

this constitutionnal architecture is the result of 2 decisions of the Constutional Council, in 1971 and 1973.

So, the french government did'nt creat this right, it was already in.
Thanks for clearing that up.:cool:

I've never seen a country go bankrupt, this should be particularly sad, but at least we know what the law is.:eusa_whistle:
 

padisha emperor

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2004
Messages
1,564
Reaction score
53
Points
48
Location
Aix-en-Provence, France
:D

Be sure that the french government won't put the right to have a home as the same level of some other rights, objects of invocation during lawsuits.

Government knows that it would be too expansive. Scotland tried to do it few years ago, and in fact, nothing has really changed, the scottish government doesn't give money to repair the prejudice everytime a homeless sue it.

France's budget doesn't need such lost of money. In 2006, we were at the lowest deficit level since 5 years, it would be not relevant to pull down this.

Things have to be made for the homeless, but not this way. As I said, the right claimed in the Preamble of 1946 is a goal for the State. Not a "real right" for citizens (like freedom of speach, of religion, interdiction of torture and slavery...)
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
:D

Be sure that the french government won't put the right to have a home as the same level of some other rights, objects of invocation during lawsuits.

Government knows that it would be too expansive. Scotland tried to do it few years ago, and in fact, nothing has really changed, the scottish government doesn't give money to repair the prejudice everytime a homeless sue it.

France's budget doesn't need such lost of money. In 2006, we were at the lowest deficit level since 5 years, it would be not relevant to pull down this.

Things have to be made for the homeless, but not this way. As I said, the right claimed in the Preamble of 1946 is a goal for the State. Not a "real right" for citizens (like freedom of speach, of religion, interdiction of torture and slavery...)

See, that's where we are different. Our 'rights' are natural rights. Some of them you listed. What aren't rights though are housing, food, education, driving, owning a car, having a job, etc.

Those are either privileges or things one earns. Not 'rights.'
 

padisha emperor

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2004
Messages
1,564
Reaction score
53
Points
48
Location
Aix-en-Provence, France
See, that's where we are different. Our 'rights' are natural rights. Some of them you listed. What aren't rights though are housing, food, education, driving, owning a car, having a job, etc.

Those are either privileges or things one earns. Not 'rights.'
Of course they are "rights". But not 1st generation's rights, those you call "rights", those who were the first to be claimed.

It is not only a specificity of France or even Europe : The Protocols of 1966 show it : the first one claims politic and civil rights (1st generation), the second the economic, social and cultural rights. These are international texts, ratificated by about 150 countries for both of them.

In the mind of the people, the "rights" are often, it's sure, the 1st generation rights. They defend the person against the State, the totalitarism, and assure to this person liberties. But with the evolution of societies, new rights had to be claimed.

For a lot of them, they are goal for the State, but not for all : the right to have an instruction at school can be claimed by a citizen during a proces (if the State refuses to put in school a french child).
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
Of course they are "rights". But not 1st generation's rights, those you call "rights", those who were the first to be claimed.

It is not only a specificity of France or even Europe : The Protocols of 1966 show it : the first one claims politic and civil rights (1st generation), the second the economic, social and cultural rights. These are international texts, ratificated by about 150 countries for both of them.

In the mind of the people, the "rights" are often, it's sure, the 1st generation rights. They defend the person against the State, the totalitarism, and assure to this person liberties. But with the evolution of societies, new rights had to be claimed.

For a lot of them, they are goal for the State, but not for all : the right to have an instruction at school can be claimed by a citizen during a proces (if the State refuses to put in school a french child).
No, they are not rights, not here. Yes, we choose to educate until the age of 16, but that could change. We do NOT provide for vacations, housing, etc. as rights. As a country that can currently afford to, we do subsidize. But not as a right.

You have a 'right' to hold and protect your property, after you've bought it. You have the right to speak your mind. You have thre right to worship or not. These were given to 'man', not by the state, but by 'Our Creator.'
 

Roopull

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2007
Messages
99
Reaction score
18
Points
6
Location
Near Atlanta
I have quite the same point of view tha yours for the relevance of this right. Government can't help everybody, that's sad, but there is not enough money.
Clearly, they just need to raise taxes... preferrably on the Rich. If the Rich go broke or move away, just redefine "rich" as anyone already having housing.:eusa_whistle:

There's a difference between a "right" and a privilige or entitlement.

Rights require no action of others. Priviliges & entitlements require something of others... in this case, it requires someone to build & maintain the housing - or at least pay for it.

In another time, that'd be called salvery.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top