Pork soup illegal in France - part 2

[KrazyHorse]

First the baguettes, now this.

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

[Pekka]

So, a racist soup is given to hungry homeless person.

Who gives a rats ass?

Are you going to take away the soup from his hungry hands, because 'it's racist'?

Jeesh, so what if it's racist, I'm sure I will soon here why, and it's some super logical ideology driven argument, forgetting the point that you are taking soup away from a homeless person. Yes, people love people so much, that they'd take the soup away, in the name of a greater good

Practicality versus theory comes into play now. I'd rather feed the homeless, even with intentions of racist provocation, than sit home on my hands and get all fired up and see racism in my political opponents, called for or not. Practicality versus theory.

[Fake Boris]

Re: Re: Pork soup illegal in France - part 2

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.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
First the baguettes, now this.

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

You'll notice that the basis for the decision was the public disorder it created (protestors showed up at every giveaway). Not to say it was the real reason, but it still has to be made into a law, which it won't.

[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.

[C0ckney]

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.

[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?"

[Fake Boris]

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.

[Straybow]

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.

That's the usual language of political correctness. People need to be protected from themselves, lest they disagree with policy.

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.

Except demonstrations and counter-demonstrations are acts designed for confrontation. Soup kitchens are not, even if they are being selective as to whom they wish to serve.

[Fake Boris]

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.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Straybow
Except demonstrations and counter-demonstrations are acts designed for confrontation. Soup kitchens are not, even if they are being selective as to whom they wish to serve.

Way to miss the point. They've done everything to publicize their activity and turn it into provocation - the simple fact that they're serving pork soup, and only pork soup, all week long, shows it. As Cesare already pointed out, the FN and other right types are fully aware that their activities stir up **** and thus most of their militant rallies and events are placated with visible, armed thugs. This is the kind of dynamic specific to France that the Americans have missed so far in this thread.

[KrazyHorse]

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

[Heresson]

thinking of it, the French should ban serving meat. Serving meat is an outrgeous provocation against vegetarians and need to be stopped NOW.

[KrazyHorse]

Exactly.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
What a ****ing pathetic display of Frenchitude.

Boo hoo hoo. The fascists played a trick to be dicks, and the mayor reacted by being a dick too. They're always there to cry when the government restrict their free speech, but they're also first to push for the expulsion of imams as soon as one makes a radical discourse.