A regulação contra a discriminação de minorias pelos meios de comunicação de massa está normalmente restrita na maioria dos países (incluindo o Brasil) ao direito penal e a algumas sanções administrativas. Menor atenção é dada ao esfera civil. O a imagem minorias pode reforçar estereótipos, limitados à estigmatização de grupo e, claramente, provocar danos para cada membro dessa minoria. Eu diria que, embora o direito à própria imagem seja reconhecido como um direito pessoal, ele tem tanto aspectos individuais, quanto coletivos. Além disso, defendo que a estigmatização grupal acarretaria danos muito maiores para minorias, e que merece proteção jurídica. No entanto, desenhar os remédios legais capazes de garantir esta proteção não é uma tarefa fácil, e pode exigir uma nova doutrina legal. Na verdade, tal desenho deve reconciliar a reparação por danos individuais e coletivos, contra a exigência de um desempenho específico que exige a restauração da imagem do grupo e, acima disso, lidar com a regulação das concessões de TV e de rádio e com matérias de censura. Defendo o uso de direitos de resposta ou de retificação como uma medida possível para fazer valer os direitos das minorias. Ao forçar os violadores a produzirem e transmitirem as respostas das minorias para retrato injusto, estamos dando a devida voz e compensação para elas. / The legal discipline for prejudicial depict of minorities by mass media vehicles is usually restricted in most countries (including Brazil) to criminal law and some administrative sanctions. Much less attention is paid to civil litigation. The portrayal of those minorities could reinforce stereotypes to the limit of group stigmatization, and clearly give rise to damages to each member of this minority. I would argue that, although the right to ones own image is acknowledged as a personal right, it has both individual and collective aspects. Furthermore, I claim the damages a prejudicial characterization could entail would be far greater for minorities, and deserves legal protection. However, to design the legal remedies able to assure this protection is not an easy task, and may require a new legal doctrine. Indeed, such approach should reconcile individual and collective reparation for damages, tradeoff the payment of such damages against the demand for a specific performance requiring the restoration of the group image and, on top of that, deal with public regulation of TV and Radio concessions and censorship concerns. I personally advocate the use of the rights of reply or correction as one possible measure to enforce minority rights. By forcing violators to produce and broadcast the answers of minorities to unfair portrait, we are giving appropriate voice and compensation to them.

A regulação contra a discriminação de minorias pelos meios de comunicação de massa está normalmente restrita na maioria dos países (incluindo o Brasil) ao direito penal e a algumas sanções administrativas. Menor atenção é dada ao esfera civil. O a imagem minorias pode reforçar estereótipos, limitados à estigmatização de grupo e, claramente, provocar danos para cada membro dessa minoria. Eu diria que, embora o direito à própria imagem seja reconhecido como um direito pessoal, ele tem tanto aspectos individuais, quanto coletivos. Além disso, defendo que a estigmatização grupal acarretaria danos muito maiores para minorias, e que merece proteção jurídica. No entanto, desenhar os remédios legais capazes de garantir esta proteção não é uma tarefa fácil, e pode exigir uma nova doutrina legal. Na verdade, tal desenho deve reconciliar a reparação por danos individuais e coletivos, contra a exigência de um desempenho específico que exige a restauração da imagem do grupo e, acima disso, lidar com a regulação das concessões de TV e de rádio e com matérias de censura. Defendo o uso de direitos de resposta ou de retificação como uma medida possível para fazer valer os direitos das minorias. Ao forçar os violadores a produzirem e transmitirem as respostas das minorias para retrato injusto, estamos dando a devida voz e compensação para elas. / The legal discipline for prejudicial depict of minorities by mass media vehicles is usually restricted in most countries (including Brazil) to criminal law and some administrative sanctions. Much less attention is paid to civil litigation. The portrayal of those minorities could reinforce stereotypes to the limit of group stigmatization, and clearly give rise to damages to each member of this minority. I would argue that, although the right to ones own image is acknowledged as a personal right, it has both individual and collective aspects. Furthermore, I claim the damages a prejudicial characterization could entail would be far greater for minorities, and deserves legal protection. However, to design the legal remedies able to assure this protection is not an easy task, and may require a new legal doctrine. Indeed, such approach should reconcile individual and collective reparation for damages, tradeoff the payment of such damages against the demand for a specific performance requiring the restoration of the group image and, on top of that, deal with public regulation of TV and Radio concessions and censorship concerns. I personally advocate the use of the rights of reply or correction as one possible measure to enforce minority rights. By forcing violators to produce and broadcast the answers of minorities to unfair portrait, we are giving appropriate voice and compensation to them.

Délit pénal puis faute contractuelle, la grève est devenue un droit constitutionnel en France et au Bénin. Le législateur français a assorti l’exercice du droit de grève de garanties en optant pour le principe de la suspension du contrat de travail du salarié faisant grève, le maintien de l’emploi dès lors que la grève se déroule dans certaines conditions. Seule la faute lourde imputable au salarié rend possible la rupture du contrat de travail. Le législateur béninois n’a pas édicté expressément les mêmes règles laissant à la jurisprudence le soin de protéger et garantir l’exercice de ce droit constitutionnel. Pour exercer valablement le droit de grève, les grévistes doivent informer préalablement de l’employeur de leur revendication afin qu’il puisse y répondre et éviter si possible le déclenchement de la grève. Le droit de grève doit s’exercer dans la quête permanente d’une compatibilité avec d’autres libertés constitutionnelles (droit de propriété, liberté d’entreprendre, liberté du travail,…). Il existe dans les deux pays des procédures facultatives de prévention et de résolution de conflit. L’exercice du droit de grève s’incline devant l’invocation d’un intérêt supérieur tel que l’intérêt général ; ceci conduit à la prévision d’un service minimum, parfois à un ordre de réquisition. Par ailleurs, l’obligation d’observer un préavis tout comme la multiplication de recours préalable peut participer, singulièrement au Bénin, de stratégies visant à différer ou à rendre difficile l’entrée en grève. Enfin, de façon variable en droits béninois et français, sont interdits certains motifs ou certaines modalités de grève. Dans les deux pays, en cas d’exercice anormal du droit de grève, le gréviste peut voir mis en jeu sa responsabilité tant au plan civil que pénal. Respecter le droit de grève tout en limitant les débordements les plus nuisibles liés parfois à son exercice, conduit à voir affirmer une véritable démocratie sociale, adjuvant nécessaire de la démocratie politique. / Penal offense and then contractual fault, the strike became a constitutional right in France and Benin. This consecration comes in paragraph 7 of the Preamble of the French Constitution: "the right to strike is exercised within the framework of the laws that regulate it". Article 31 of the Beninese Constitution of 11 December 1990 states: "The State recognizes and guarantees the right to strike. Any worker may defend his interests, either individually or collectively or through trade union action, as provided by law. The right to strike shall be exercised in accordance with the conditions laid down by law ". As the formulas adopted by the French and Beninese constituents were almost similar, it was the legislator who had the task of clarifying the scope of beneficiaries. In common, apart from some variable legal limitations, the right to strike is found both in the public sector and in the private sector. The Beninese and French legislators have specified the conditions under which the right to strike can be exercised and the formalities or procedures to be respected before the strike begins. The French legislature imposed guarantees on the exercise of the right to strike by opting for the principle of the suspension of the employment contract of the striking employee and the maintenance of employment if the strike takes place under certain conditions. Only the gross negligence attributable to the employee makes it possible to terminate the employment contract. The Beninese legislature has not expressly enacted the same rules, leaving the case law to protect and guarantee the exercise of this constitutional right. The powers traditionally recognized by the employer are subject to scrutiny when disciplinary proceedings are instituted against strikers or in the event of a pay deduction for strike action. Protection is only in favor of a strike based on professional demands. In order to properly exercise the right to strike, strikers must inform the employer in advance of their claim so that they can respond to it and avoid the strike if possible. The right to strike must be exercised in the permanent search for compatibility with other constitutional freedoms (property rights, freedom of enterprise, freedom of labor, etc.). There are voluntary conflict prevention and resolution procedures in both countries. The exercise of the right to strike is subject to the invocation of a superior interest such as the general interest, but also sometimes to the obligation imposed on employees to observe a minimum service or even to respond to a requisition order. The system of requisitioning strikers differs in its implementation in Benin and French law. On the other hand, the obligation to observe a long notice as well as the multiplication of preliminary remedies is part of strategies to delay or make difficult the strike. In Beninese law, as in French law, certain grounds or methods of strike are prohibited. By way of indication, the requirement to call a strike by a representative trade union in the public sector constitutes a point of divergence between Beninese and French rights. On the other hand, in both countries, the "statute" of an employee's striker does not preclude the possibility that, in the event of an abnormal exercise of the right to strike, civil or criminal liability may be exercised.