[ulnanVti]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Well apparently, after a low instance court had ruled that the charity was legal, another comittee appointed by the Interior Ministry canceled the decision. The charities are now forbidden to operate. Couldn't find a link in English though, as the news was reported in the French media yesterday. It's not exactly a committee appointed by Sarkozy. It's the equivalent of the supreme court

Well, France has 3 judicial systems: one for general justice, one for the constitutional conformity of laws, and one for the legal conformity of administrative decisions. A low-instance administrative court overruled the ban in the past. The supreme administrative court overruled the decision, and made the ban valid again.

[SoftrermaBioniaSat]

Agreed. IMO, it gives much more opportunity to the identitarians of all sides.

[Preorbtat]

Idiotic. If muslims and jews do not want to eat them, nobody's forcing them. Dumb French and political correctness.

[qwerty1]

Originally posted by Spiffor

It's not political correctness that pushed for the ban. It's the fact that it is a deliberately racist provocation, which could lead to trouble in the public order.

I disagree with the ban, but I can understand that the police wants to prevent public trouble, by barring such behaviour. Just like the police can ban demonstrations (or channel them through specific streets), in case it violently clashes with a counter-demonstration. not racist, sectarian. non-religious Jew or a christian Arab may eat pork, after all
And it's not a matter of the state. They want to give pork soups - their buiseness. Bah, even if it was out of state money, I would be hesitant if You should resign of serving pork just to please some minorities, but at least it would make sense, because they are paying taxes as well. Unless it is of public funds, anyone can do with his money and pork whatever he wishes.

[Trikaduliana]

Originally posted by Heresson


not racist, sectarian. non-religious Jew or a christian Arab may eat pork, after all
And it's not a matter of the state. They want to give pork soups - their buiseness. Bah, even if it was out of state money, I would be hesitant if You should resign of serving pork just to please some minorities, but at least it would make sense, because they are paying taxes as well. Unless it is of public funds, anyone can do with his money and pork whatever he wishes. the business of the state is simply keeping the peace, and in this instance they seem to believe that riots would ensue if they don't ban it.

I hardly think that I or anyone else here on Poly is adequately informed to make THAT decision. However, I'd certainly rather see them not ban this and just let the public ridicule the morons doing this. I presume the French are capable of peacefully ridiculing morons like this?

[Tarrccrys]

It is not simply handing out food to the homeless, but doing it in such a way that provokes envy and hatred. It is also exclusionary.

The way to counter this is not to ban it, but to make it irrelevant, by giving out food that everyone can enjoy.

[bettingonosports]

Originally posted by Spiffor
It's not political correctness that pushed for the ban. It's the fact that it is a deliberately racist provocation, which could lead to trouble in the public order. You know, in free countries we restrain the people who are actually violating public order.

[flowersnewacq]

First the baguettes, now this.

And you people thought I was joking when I talked about a slippery slope.

[Ad0i89Od]

Originally posted by Spiffor

It's not exactly a committee appointed by Sarkozy. It's the equivalent of the supreme court

Well, France has 3 judicial systems: one for general justice, one for the constitutional conformity of laws, and one for the legal conformity of administrative decisions. A low-instance administrative court overruled the ban in the past. The supreme administrative court overruled the decision, and made the ban valid again. OK, thanks for the correction.

[sabbixsweraco]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
It is not simply handing out food to the homeless, but doing it in such a way that provokes envy and hatred. It is also exclusionary. that's all very well, but at the end of the day, as pekka says, it's taking away charity from the needy. that cannot be right.

The way to counter this is not to ban it, but to make it irrelevant, by giving out food that everyone can enjoy.

[space-on-s]

Originally posted by LDiCesare
This interdiction may be legal, but it's also really silly. They are banning the pork soup because hungry people react to it as a provocation, which it is. Still, it's very unlikely riots would have happened considering the soup givers, being who they are, probably have several "orderkeeping" thugs who would dissuade anyone from actually committing violence against them. This argument turns against you: commies too have their own thugs. This could have degenerated into a streetfight.

[arcaniagainee]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Let me get this straight.

French charities must give to all or to no one??

"Hi there. I have a free pot of soup that I'd like to give away to the poor."
"Sorry, it's got pork in it, so some of the poor would be offended."
"Then I'll just dump in down this sewer, shall I?"

That's not the problem at all. We've got a case of a right wing group deliberately choosing pork as an ingredient in order to send a discriminatory message and draw public attention.
Politicians have reacted to this obvious provocation by shutting down the activity using legal technicalities.

The problem goes much further than just being a case of "offending the poor". This is what makes it interesting.

[juidizHusw]

What a ****ing pathetic display of Frenchitude.

[FetMiddle]

Exactly.

[meridiasas]

Originally posted by Heresson
thinking of it, the French should ban serving meat. Serving meat is an outrgeous provocation against vegetarians and need to be stopped NOW. There are not 5 million buddhists in France, and no one yet has tried to serve meat to the poor claiming it's "traditional food for those respectful of our identity".

[tpJKhY8Z]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


There are not 5 million buddhists in France, and no one yet has tried to serve meat to the poor claiming it's "traditional food for those respectful of our identity". So it's okay to **** with minority groups as long as they're small enough?

Way to suck.

[letittbe]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Anglo-Saxon liberalism is quick to dismiss French methods on the basis of them being unrealistic or ideological, but see how it always turn back to its root principles like a Kantian crybaby, without room for balancing or discussion? Is anglo-saxon liberalism anything like the "anglo-saxon music" you were whining about a couple of months ago?

[Quiniacab]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


Thanks for being the fifth in a row to miss the point, again.

A) The operation was shut down on a technicality. Do you understand the difference between an administrative technicality and an actual free speech limiting law? Not when the technicality is used in order to limit speech, actually.

[seosoftseo]

I'm bringing up the point that calling the US, UK, Australia, Canada and NZ "anglo-saxon" is about as ignorant as me calling France, Belgium and Haiti "Norman".

[Unwiseevove]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I'm bringing up the point that calling the US, UK, Australia, Canada and NZ "anglo-saxon" is about as ignorant as me calling France, Belgium and Haiti "Norman". You're of those people who think that Saudis can't be antisemitic because Arabs are actually a semitic people?

And then you go on and accuse philosophers of hairsplitting?