As domestic violence survivors this is a great start and more countries should follow however i do believe their should be harsher laws regarding domestic assault. Often times they let go , scott free of any charges because of he said /she said even with evidence . Since they do not face any real consequences it can eventually escalate to femicide . They need to be stopped before it gets to that point .
this post was submitted on 27 Nov 2025
184 points (95.5% liked)
Uplifting News
17124 readers
318 users here now
Welcome to /c/UpliftingNews (rules), a dedicated space where optimism and positivity converge to bring you the most heartening and inspiring stories from around the world. We strive to curate and share content that lights up your day, invigorates your spirit, and inspires you to spread positivity in your own way. This is a sanctuary for those seeking a break from the incessant negativity and rage (e.g. schadenfreude) often found in today's news cycle. From acts of everyday kindness to large-scale philanthropic efforts, from individual achievements to community triumphs, we bring you news—in text form or otherwise—that gives hope, fosters empathy, and strengthens the belief in humanity's capacity for good, from a quality outlet that does not publish bad copies of copies of copies.
Here in /c/UpliftingNews, we uphold the values of respect, empathy, and inclusivity, fostering a supportive and vibrant community. We encourage you to share your positive news, comment, engage in uplifting conversations, and find solace in the goodness that exists around us. We are more than a news-sharing platform; we are a community built on the power of positivity and the collective desire for a more hopeful world. Remember, your small acts of kindness can be someone else's big ray of hope. Be part of the positivity revolution; share, uplift, inspire!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Meanwhile in France they'll label it a crime of passion and let you go scot-free.
Anyone questioning why this is necessary should probably take a minute or two to read up about femicide and how we tend to treat it as a society.
Crime of passion? That's still a thing?
Do you have sources for that ?
Because in not a lawyer or have any expertise in law but your comment got me curious and what I'm reading seems to contradict your statement.
Like here :https://www.savoir-juridique.com/crime-passionnel-mythe-realite-juridique-droit-penal/
It seems that there is very rare cases when passion was used to lower the sentencing but it's very anectoctical and the "crime passionel" is not recognized by French law
I had Bertrand Cantat in mind when I wrote the comment. The fucker got away (except a very minor prison sentence once) with murdering two of his partners, all in full view of a public spectacle. There's a Netflix series about him from this year that's well worth a watch. It's not that the crime of passion is explicitly used as a legal argument, but there is a romanticized idea that men will sometimes kill their partners out of "loving them too much" and that this is only tragic and not something that we should blame them too harshly for. So it's not recognized in the law, but French judges have more or less routinely shown themselves to be sympathetic to the argument.
The European Court of Human Rights has recently had a series of rulings in which it calls out France for being particularly shit with regards to women's rights.
Thanks, I'll have a look at these.
Edit: so, in the case of Marie Trintignant's murder by Bertrand Cantat, the whole trial happened in Lithuania under Lithuanian laws. The crime of passion is a legitimate defense in Lithuania but this has nothing to do with French laws.
For the fact that sexual attacks against women are often downplayed by justice in France, this is a real fact. The recent Pelicot trial really brought this to public light.
Yes, this is true - I forgot that the trial happened in Lithuania where crime of passion actually has a formalized role. But the french media nevertheless accepted the narrative and the French public largely followed suit.
As for the second murder/death which happened in France, there has been what is hard to describe as anything else than at best an active neglectance on the side of both the French police and justice system, both leading up to and following the death. I guess this is more symptomatic of the French tendency to simply not take women or their deaths seriously—ascribing the crime of passion to France was probably unfair of me.
A bunch of dudes were melting down when this was posted on another thread.
It's threatening our god-given right to murder our women, after all. The woke agenda has gone too far.
I been sitting over here on Parchment Farm Ain't ever done nobody no wrong
Oh Lord, I believe I'll be here for the rest of my life All I did was shoot my wife
As much as I don't mind this, part of me thinks this won't do anything... Men who kill their female partners don't care about any possible consequences. If they thought about those they wouldn't abuse their partner in the first place. There's a reason the TF2 Sniper in his Meet the Team video says blokes who bludgeon their wife to death with a golf trophy have too many feelings. They literally cannot fathom consequences, considering that if their abuse manages to get to that point, it's because NO ONE cared to fucking intervene.
I'd say it's about recognizing a fact of life that we have traditionally brushed under the carpet. By introducing femicide as a specific category it'll be easier to talk about (or rather, harder not to talk about) just how fucking common it is for men to murder women.
It's a huge problem in most if not all countries, and it doesn't receive nearly as much attention as it deserves. The attention it does get is primarily through folk songs or true crime podcasts, not actual attention as a systematic issue that needs to be addressed as a societal problem.
So it won't deter anyone from murdering women, but when it does happen it might make it easier for us to start actually doing something about it as a society.
Ah, I see it now. As someone who lives in Brazil with one of the highest rates of women being killed by their partners (or, usually, former partners), we had this classification for a long while, but I never understood as to why. Now I do!
(That's the reason the lawmakers gave too.)
It's a way to take the severity of the motivation into account when sentencing.
Someone who committed murder could have done so under all sorts of mitigating circumstances, classifying the crime as a hate crime speaks to the horrificly unjustifiable motivation, and is indicative of someone who should be less likely, or ineligible for parole.
Sure, we could just keep calling it murder, and take those things into account anyway, but I think it's ultimately good to have these distinctions, and there's plenty of other similar cases where we do distinguish between crimes based on intent, rather than outcome, particularly for crimes against people (you may, for example, apply your exact logic to the distinction between 1st and 2nd degree murder, or even murder and manslaughter. It's not like a murder 1 victim is any better off for their killers crime being called murder instead of manslaughter)
This is probably more for the victims than the killers.
And what does this do for them? They're still murdered, just like a woman murdered by another woman.
Maybe I should have specified that it’s for the survivors of the victims. I personally can’t relate, but I suspect some people would feel a lot better if the crime is specified as a distinct type of murder.
Beccaria is spinning in his grave.
Women don’t murder women, men do
Did they do the same for murders due to any gender hatred?
I don't think many countries are at the point of protecting trans rights specifically. At least, mine does classify it as a hate crime but it's lumped together with all the other hate crimes.
Where are you getting numbers that indicate women are killing their male spouses at rates even remotely comparable to men killing their female spouses?
No, please, I'll wait — I'll be adding to your 'Debatelord Incel' tag if you can't.
Edit: he downvotes me and says nothing, I'm adding 'Tiny Penis' to your tag.
Do the rates matter? Does covering everyone cost extra?
Law shouldn't discriminate for sex or gender or race or a bunch of other things (yes there can be rare exceptions where the biological sex does matter, e.g. abortion, but can we read a whole paragraph without whaboutism?)
People go through a ton of effort to explain how it's perfectly possible (and common) to write laws with sexist results even using neutral language.
And yet when we need to do the reverse, write laws that are meant to combat discrimination and and inequality without having to spell out and pick each specific group it's meant to protect the same people go "nope, sorry, can't be done".
Edit: Think of the so-called "pink quotas" argument. Does it make a difference to write that you need at least 30% women, or to write that you need at least 30% of each sex? Practical results is exactly. the same, but one of the two is written neutrally, and I think there is value in that. Don't you?
Dude — do you understand the etymology of homicide? It is a combination of homo (man) and caedere (to kill).
Fucks sake, I'm not arguing this with troglodytes — you are wrong.
Downvotes and doesn't answer to the point.
Class.
I quite literally destroyed your argument.
Why weren't you incels crying about homicide not being gender neutral? I'll wait.