French court to rule on 'pork soup' case

French court to rule on 'pork soup' case

PARIS, Jan 5, 2007 (AFP) - France's top administrative court is to rule on a decision to allow an extreme-right group to hand out pork soup to the homeless, criticised as a racist ploy to exclude observant Muslims and Jews.

The group, called Solidarity of the French, has managed to have two decrees banning the handouts overturned in a Paris court, most recently on Tuesday, despite protests from the city's Socialist mayor Bertrand Delanoe.

<snip>

"When Muslim people refuse to eat pork, we offer them something else," he said, before adding: "Those who do not want to eat pork can always turn towards Muslim charities."

http://www.expatica.com/actual/article.asp?subchannel_id=25&story_id=35389

Geez. Not sure what to say. Can the government really dictate what a private charity can feed to the homeless? But on the other hand, it seems like the charity is making an effort to exclude Muslims, which is not very generous of spirit. But then again, it is the Muslims' choice not to eat pork. Beggars can't be choosers.

I am torn.

the hungry on a discriminatory basis? It may not be the same means, but it has the same results with a group of people going hungry when there is food available because of their choice of beliefs.

I see your point. But the charity is not saying, We don't feed Muslims. They're saying here is a yummy pork soup, eat up! As you say, from a practical standpoint what's the difference. Probably not much. The charity has the slight "out" to be able to say that it is offering the food to anyone who wants it, and that the Muslims are refusing.

As an avid cook, I can't imagine cooking without pork. How else do you season a pot of pinto beans? Or a big panful of green beans simmered in country ham? Or a nice BLT in the summer.

if they are starving and have no other recourse. It would seem to me that the people frequenting the soup kitchen might fit this criteria.

Thanks for the clarification.

God, this is stupid. Religious prohibitions on food are stupid. So what if they did it on purpose? Is pork stew now illegal in France? Talk about government micro-management. People have a right to be asses and religious people have a right to stupid prohibitions, but people do not have a right to force each other to conform to their particular beliefs, offensive or not.

:popcorn: Solyent Green is People!!!

I've been soooo good lately. Now, I'm ready to fight!
:evilgrin:

the Muslim is starving. Says so in the Qur'an.

some people often fail to read and understand their books of faith. They let other people do the reading and interpreting for them. Me, I generally don't mind religion, but I *hate* 'church'. It seems such a cop out to let others do the interpreting for you.

Interesting that you can eat pork if starving. Good to see there are sensible exemptions.

No one really has control over the actions of an individual, and if a person chooses to misinterpret the tenets of their faith, it's an individual choice. The sad thing is that so many see these actions (be they refusing to wash with alchol or become a suicide bomber)not as actions of an individual or a small group but as an action condoned and regularly practiced by all members of their faith.

Even the non pork items were only available to those who FIRST ate the pork.

It's anti-semitic bullshit.

I agree that it was done to be anti-semitic, but then freedom is freedom. I support the concept of freedom over politeness or inclusiveness, especially when dealing with religion as religion is a personal choice, unlike say creed, gender or sexual orientation. If you want to serve pork soup, whatever your reasons, so be it. If you can't eat the soup because of your religion, who's fault is that? The people serving the soup? The soup? Or the religion? Should Catholic mass not be allowed to serve wine just because Muslims can't drink wine? No, that's silly. Is it exclusionary? Hell yes. So why is that ok? Because people have a right to believe what ever stupid crap they want and do whatever they want so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. No rights were infringed here.

I'd kick the people who run the soup kitchen in the groin if I ever met them, but I would also support their right to exercise personal freedom.

But of course, while I like many things about Europe more, I prefer our more liberal freedom we enjoy here.

people to have the dessert if their religion forbids the main meal.

As to the permissibility, I would not say it should be prohibited. I think people should be free to be assholes.

Both for the homeless AND for the charities.

:crazy:

Do you?

If people didn't pay attention to the "pork soup only" people, they would have no impact on anyone.

Yes or No? If that is the intent, the heartfelt intent of this group, and this is all they can get or afford to feed the people with, then accept a charitable act.

If this is meant to separate the Muslim or Jewish religion from the rest of the hungry people, then this is atrocious and outright cruel...


Problem is, I don't know the intent of those running this charity... I do so hope it is a good one from the heart, that just wants to help and give.....

and they will go hungry, iirc. Their god doesn't command them to starve rather than eat pork! Also, the group sounds like they are offering other food choices - are Muslims and Jews saying that they can't even have proximity to food with pork in it? I don't remember that, especially if their other choice is to starve.

This French group is trying to offend but technically they aren't turning anyone away from the food, and it sounds as though they are making some kind of attempt to offer an alternative, so they'll win again.... :-(

What a horrible charity. But the separation of church and state is paramount so the private soup kitchen will get to do what it wants no matter how offensive. And religious idiocy again rears it's ugly head demonstrating it's own lunacy.

:thumbsdown:

Is it horrible and bigoted to serve any beef because needy Hindus may not be able to partake? Horrible and bigoted to serve meat at all as many people are vegetarian from religious conviction? No shellfish because of Jews?

It's a charity that feeds people - it is neither horrible nor bigoted in ANY way because it chooses to offer one specific food over another. If people choose not to eat what is offered to them freely then they must find food some other way.

You mioght have a small point if the charity said "we feed only white Catholics" but even then, is that any worse than any other charity with restrictions on who they will serve? But they do not do this - they merely offer food that some believers do not want. Certainly there is no harm in offering food that does not conform to all possible social and religious practices.

to only serve beef if you're only intention is to offend Hindus.

This is like that guy in Texas who decided to hold pig races because they built a mosque next door.

"It's a charity that feeds people "

Charity, my ass.

It's not rocket science to extrapolate that their goal was exclusion by serving pork soup. It must have been pretty blatant since the court agreed that they were being purposefully discriminatory.

Your points are good ones, and frankly the separation of church and state is a big deal for me so personally it is a tad bothersome that the courts are interceding in what should be a private church decision, but I reiterate that the organization's intent to discriminate must have been so outrageous that the court had to step in.

I'm going to guess this case was somewhat akin to porn cases in our courts: they can't and won't define it specifically but they know it when they see it.

And possibly didn;t explain very well.

They may very well be horrible and bigoted people.

They may very well have some horrible and bigoted ulterior motives for what they are doing.

But what they are doing is not horrible and bigoted. If they are feeding any number - even just a few - hungry people then they are doing something intrinsically good.

Think of it this way. If I see a person on the street who needs food and I buy them a meal am I horrible and bigoted? Nobody would say so - wouldn't even occur to them. But I have selected, for whatever reason, ONE hungry person to feed and left all bar that one with no food. This group, at least implicit in the article, do far more than that - they hand out food to MANY people who need it. They may be doing it to make a point - they may be pissy little xenophobes while they are doing it, but I am a utilitarian above all else and what they are doing benefits the hungry who CAN eat pork - and they far outnumber the ones who cannot, I suspect. I would rather allow that beneift to exist than ban it because it cannot benefit those who choose not to eat pork.

Remember that to reduce benefit is to cause harm. Ban this and do you want to explain why to the hungry who DID get food before you banned it?

I believe all religions are whacked so I believe this lawsuit majorly blows. Closing soup kitchens is moving in the wrong direction....

I also believe the courts should have sided with the bigoted organization - frankly I'm pretty surprised they didn't, which leads me to believe the org was pretty egregious in it's food distribution.

As a Muslim concurred on this thread, even pious religious observers can eat the pork soup in this circumstance.

The intent of this charity was to indeed discriminate, and rightfully, the legal system saw that. Force the charity to serve halal, kosher, or chicken soup, or take their "charity" elswhere. There are a number of true charities willing to step in and serve food for everyone.

Sometimes, manufacturers donate food, sometimes individuals do. When Ted Nugent still lived in Michigan, he used to donate a great deal of venison every fall to Mother Waddles' mission, for example. If armor donates a bunch of ham or pork, is the charity supposed to turn it down?

I don't know about the deman for halal food at soup kitchens, but really, how many of the poor in Paris are asking for kosher food? In Michigan, I don't know a single jewish person who has ever been on welfare or ate at a soup kitchen, although I know many who donate money to soup kitchens. Don't get me wrong, this is something I admire about jewish people.

to get other food from them:



It's not a question of someone donating some non halal/kosher food, and whether that would be usable; the organisation was specifically making people eat pork, or get nothing from them.

Who gladly ratted out their Jewish neighbors to the Nazis.

This is no "charity".

Giving away something harmless should be legal, even if the motives are not good.

I would rather have the anti-muslims here doing sarcastic things like this than attacking muslims or the places they live, work or worship.

Since Saddam's execution, someone or ones has been attacking muslim businesses and a mosque in west Detroit and Dearborn. Nobody is sure whether this is Sunni vs Shia or just plain anti-muslim sentiment, except that the establishments attacked have been pretty much all Shia-connected.

Most of the iraqi immigrants in this area are chaldeans, or other groups that were enemies of Hussein's. There are a lot of more militant immigrants from Lebanon and Syria around, however.

So should be simply "giving away soup" not "'giving away soup'" in your title. They really WERE giving away soup.

Which is charity, not "'charity'".

Even doing so to make a political point with which we may all disagree does not make this charity false. Every single religious charity which displays their religious symbols, or which says they are doing so out of "Christ's love" etc, or which mingles proselytizing with food or aid, is doing something to make a point with which I disagree, and even a point which I think is harmful in many cases, but they are still doing charity and I will not minimize that with single quotes.

Should we ban all charity which is given under a Jesus-bearing cross (no worshipping of idols, no representations of the prophets)? Ban all charity which includes a pre-meal prayer to Jesus (infidel worship of gods other than Allah)?

Or should we let people feed the hungry even if they vote differently from us?

Sorry, I just could not pass on that one.