In France, several bills aimed at granting legal privileges exclusively to women in the family home have been presented and for the time being rejected.

These laws are allegedly there to "save" the 120 women who die each year from their husbands' blows. A ridiculously low figure in relation to all other mortality factors.

The purpose of these laws is to allow a woman to exercise "delayed self-defence" with her boyfriend.

The very principle of deferred self-defence is justified by the so-called permanent threat of the man against the woman.

Normal self-defence must be an immediate response to a danger and proportionate to the threat (in France).

However, in this bill, it removes the need for an immediate response but also for proportionality.

Thus, killing her husband with a gun in his back when he comes home from work would be legal and said to be in self-defense.

For this, she must also prove that she was mistreated.

However, a second law has been proposed to remove the need to prove the violence suffered and therefore considered it a presumption of self-defence. Thus it is no longer up to her to prove that she has been mistreated but to the husband to prove that this is not the case.

Do you see the problem? We ask a dead man to defend himself.

You kill, then you ask the questions.

Actually there is no need for the presumption of self-defence because the accused is still dead and therefore she can create false evidence that cannot be contradicted.

The presumption of self-defence or delayed self-defence are both even taken independently exclusive to the woman and allow her to kill without any problem.

And as in France a law can be proposed an infinite number of faiths if one changes a word by a synonym or moves a simple comma they are not ready to stop trying to pass this law.

Proposal