In short a triple ban to be lazy or negligent

If a word characterize the policy conducted by Dominique de Villepin, "messy" might well summarize the impression that it removes. This is probably the price of improvisation and the tremendous insights delivered at trac to public opinion and the Parliament. Would the method, or the lack thereof be contagious The President of the UMP, number two of the Government, could well be be left there take.

At Périgueux, on 12 October, presumptive right presidential candidate promised to "the France from (its installation in the Elysee Palace)" to make "real" a number of already proclaimed rights, but remained "virtual", such as the right to the mother who works and who raises her children alone to keep, that for the elderly to rely on the support of their dependence, for the homeless and other homeless to be housed temporarily. Chicanons not here the Minister of the Interior on the question how it will reconcile this latter right by him finally consolidated with an additional influx of illegal immigrants attracted on our soil by this addendum to our legislation.

In the wake of the consecration of the right to emergency shelters, Sarkozy wants to create, as proposed by Lionel Jospin during his ill-fated presidential campaign in the spring of 2002, a "right to housing" in good and due form. To bring life to this set of old and new debts in white society, any legal, but also of course budget device, will be implemented. At each right be named public community. Rights holders will be able to translate in justice in the case where she "is would be not given the means" to meet its obligations.

To condemn this proposal, the guardians of liberal orthodoxy within the majority party did not fail to resort to the distinction that it is almost the rule in such a case. Sarkozy is guilty of having crossed the red line. Instead of sticking to the "rights of...". "that inspired the great and venerable statements of the human rights (including the French in 1789 and that of the United Nations in 1948 largely written by René Cassin), he slipped to the" rights to "multiplied infinite: rights to culture, wellness, clean air, drinking water and of course"to the marriage"(which means the right to marry when it did not fulfil the conditions posed by natural and matrimonial law). Short law risk being lost in these legally artificial constructions. This does not mean that most of the objectives and are not as objectives to be pursued by appropriate with the greatest determination.

What you would like to highlight here, it is two things. First, the concept concerned here is extremely difficult handling. An a contrario example will help to show. Happens that ultratraditionnalistes, the very opposite of the left and political liberalism, avail them as the "right to", of the right to life including to oppose abortion irrespective of the grounds and circumstances. The argument contradicts the convictions of those who brandish in that they have less objectionable! If I have right to life, I therefore have the right to dispose of it at my leisure. Here is the the most reactionary anti-abortion supporters of suicide! It departs not with impunity ancient wisdom of religious gasoline. As far as it depends on the men (and myself), my life is guaranteed by a negatively formulated command: "thou shalt not kill".

Then, every "right" is a special case, legitimate or not under the legal and economic reasoning. No one disputes the "right to education". In fact, it's a triple duty. Obligation for the State to maintain sufficient schools (given that the private sector to support partially); obligation for parents to send their children; obligation for them to obey their parents and their teachers. In short, a triple ban to be lazy or negligent.

But the strict censors of Sarkozy use a too easy mix. They observe that Marxist and Soviet Constitutions instead of talking about the "right to work (liberal principle of non-discrimination entirely legitimate, is need to say). make much of the "right to work". Implication: the State will create as many positions of activity needed to occupy the entire workforce. One half of the so-called French policy "of employment" derives from this terrible drift. These are jobs helped, presented derision as a "labour contracts". The other half, it is the reduction of working time in all its forms (retirement, 35 hours, etc.). That is why this pseudo-politique is from A until Z next to the plate. By contrast, the right to housing, despite its too actual ambiguities, is a minor skid. Remains the real weight of the process. Sarkozy, who claims "a culture of the result," has not sought inspiration in Scotland because the progressive generalization, by 2012, the enforceable right to the housing (as the case may be) before two types of distinct jurisdictions have produced positive effects. It is too early to know. He has chosen Scotland for model because it is there that the legislation is the most advanced. He would have done better in the case of the pragmatic second-best solution advocated by Alain Madelin: "Why not impose a duty of reserve 20 of their Park such as the SRU law first in the HLM intends to impose 20 of social housing in common the poorest" This would correspond to some 800,000 apartments.

In the speech of Périgueux, the presumptive but candidate who in the world political dare criticize on this point puts a finger in the gear in the guise of a so-called "professional social security", an idea taken to the CGT. He stated that "the persons receiving low wages" shall "receive unemployment benefits equivalent to their previous level of remuneration." The policy that was lost was built with good intentions of this kind. Would you open a new "trap poverty" that it does would not otherwise.