Pork soup illegal in France - part 2

[Dinner]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Sigh, I think weve been over that. The census data on national origin undercounts english ancestry, since so many with english ancestry, esp in the upper south, mention only "american" ancestry.

Yes, this has been reviewed in multiple threads. The Census just goes by last names and more men then women immigrate to new countries. They normally take a local wife though so the kids are half the father's family back ground but carry his name thus the census just counts them as 100% Italian (or what not) when in fact they are only half. This results in a systematic undercount of certain nationalities (mostly of British Isles origin).

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo

Is that a response to my post?

Yes. Specifically, it was a clarification to mine.

So theres nothing in mine you contest, you just thought I was misreading yours?

[LDiCesare]

I believe most French are probably opposed to both the ban and Le Pen's friends actions. I haven't made a census, but just talking around, mostly to leftists.

[C0ckney]

lotm, i described this group and their politics as 'nasty', i think that equates pretty well with 'bad', but bad people can still do good things. or to rephrase slightly, things which have some positive consequences.

someone handing out a cake with 'die ******s' written on it would be breaking the law over here, under incitement to racial hatred. i don't know what the situation is in the USA. so in that case it would be right and proper for the authorities to intervene. with the group we are talking here though, they aren't breaking the law, but the authorities are using a weak pretext to stop their activities, which i think is very wrong.

of course speech matters, and has an effect, but that's not an argument for restricting free speech. it's not absurd to say that this is a slippery slope to censorship, because it IS censorship, what else could you possibly call it? you may not support it, but that's what it comes down it.

[Az]

If some french nazis want to use their freedom of speech to bash religious jews and muslims by pointing out idiotic rules in their religion, I have absolutely no problem with it. They're still ****ing nazis, and I hate them.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Weed = leftist?

No ****ing wonder you have such a ****ed up view of ****.

No. Opener of the bar = chief of the marijuana party. If you hadn't noticed this is a leftist party.

But this is beyond the point. My example does work, as long as it provides an instance of trying to restrict free speech, whether it be leftist, libertarian, conservative or fascist.

The people's potato is up and running, if you hadn't noticed. That's a "lefty" restaurant. Possession of weed is still technically illegal in Montreal. Unless pork soup has been totally outlawed in France, the parallel falls flat.

Sound argument. According to you, the phrase "it happens all the time" means it happens to everyone, in everything they do? The point was that specific instances of using technicalities to hinder someone you don't like/is an enemy can be found everywhere, and I have succesfully demonstrated two cases of this already.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


What the **** are you talking about? I took part in a pseudo-pink demo in montreal. Nobody gave us any trouble.

Again, in the past five years, there have been two cases of Montreal's police illegally arresting hundreds of protesters. In one case they even won in a lawsuit against the city.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
b) It's a lot more honest to claim that it's difficult to provide security for a street demo than for a soup kitchen.

As it has been said NUMEROUS times already, French political events often degenerate into fights. I know personally a girl who had her arm broken by FN guys last year; and have heard MANY stories of this happening.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by C0ckney
lotm, i described this group and their politics as 'nasty', i think that equates pretty well with 'bad', but bad people can still do good things. or to rephrase slightly, things which have some positive consequences.

I however, believe that the actions of this group, in opening a kitchen giving out "identity soup" in a heavily muslim neighborhood, are net-net, negative. While im not in France, my guess is that the hatred they stir up probably outweighs the value of the calories they dispense. Thus they are not bad people doing a good thing, they are bad people doing a bad thing.

None of which implies that I support censoring them, a point people keep missing.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by C0ckney
of course speech matters, and has an effect, but that's not an argument for restricting free speech. it's not absurd to say that this is a slippery slope to censorship, because it IS censorship, what else could you possibly call it? you may not support it, but that's what it comes down it.

The slippery slope i referred to is from CALLING some speech bad, to censoring. Calling some speech bad isnt censorship, its just MORE free speech. Ditto protesting at such a kitchen.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Straybow

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?

B) Seeing A, it turns out that the whole thing is a simple case of a socialist mayor playing a trick on people who deliberately intended to be dicks and stir up **** in the first place. I just happen to be slightly satisfied by the fascists getting a royal pwnage.
Slow down and think, man: if they had to use a technicality to achieve their ends, it's because they couldn't have invoked an heavier, hate speech law.

Thanks for missing the point for the fifth time in a row.

Making "hate speech" illegal is itself an offensive form of political correctness.

1) The debate about hate speech laws is still open, and NOT related to this discussion, given that
2) the shutdown of the operation was not due to France's "offensively politically correct laws", because it was based on a technicality.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
None of which implies that I support censoring them, a point people keep missing.

QFT

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Straybow

Originally posted by Oncle Boris

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Actually, it sure seems happens more in France than it does either in the UK, Canada or the US.

I'd suggest you doublecheck your facts on this. Right in Montreal the police routinely outlaws demos because of alleged security risks, the municipal administration BSes its way out of blocking leftist themed or gay bars in "inappropriate" neighboorhoods, etc.

Quebec = France Lite. Self-pwnd.

That's grand coming from an American. Your country is probably, of the industrialized Western block, the one that is the least friendly to all kinds of demonstrations. What the Montreal police did is PEANUTS compared to what happens to American militants, all the time. And you don't even get to hear about it, thanks to your superb mediatic concentration laws that seek to expand "free speech" by allowing magnates to own more outlets.

[Dinner]

Bull****. Any time there is an interesting protest it's in the media both main stream and nonmain stream (blogs, community papers, what not). The US does demand that large protests get a licence first which require protest organizers to insure sanitation (prtapotties) concerns are meet and that enough police are on hand in the event that the protesters begin breaking laws and also to prevent protests from blocking roads which might be needed by emergency vehicles. These are legit public health and safty concerns though and few protests are not licenced. It's a good system.

[Arrian]

From fakeboris on page 1 of the thread:

The fascists played a trick to be dicks

Yeah, and the gummint fell for it. Helluva troll by the French righties, getting the government to overreact and do something very, very stupid. This has been covered well by my Anglo-Saxon brothers, so I'll just leave you with this:

Vincent: Want some bacon?
Jules: No man, I don't eat pork.
Vincent: Are you Jewish?
Jules: Nah, I ain't Jewish, I just don't dig on swine, that's all.
Vincent: Why not?
Jules: Pigs are filthy animals. I don't eat filthy animals.
Vincent: Bacon tastes gooood. Pork chops taste gooood.
Jules: Hey, sewer rat may taste like pumpkin pie, but I'd never know 'cause I wouldn't eat the filthy mother****er. Pigs sleep and root in ****. That's a filthy animal. I ain't eat nothin' that ain't got enough sense enough to disregard its own faeces.
Vincent: How about a dog? Dogs eats its own feces.
Jules: I don't eat dog either.
Vincent: Yeah, but do you consider a dog to be a filthy animal?
Jules: I wouldn't go so far as to call a dog filthy but they're definitely dirty. But, a dog's got personality. Personality goes a long way.
Vincent: Ah, so by that rationale, if a pig had a better personality, he would cease to be a filthy animal. Is that true?
Jules: Well we'd have to be talkin' about one charmin' mother****in' pig. I mean he'd have to be ten times more charmin' than that Arnold on Green Acres, you know what I'm sayin'?

-Arrian