"Pork or Nothing" : How Politics intervenes children's lunch

[Valystria]

When you're given a shitty choice for no real reason other than to be given a shitty choice, and expected by the likes of you that they're grateful that the still have "a choice", this is what we call the "illusion of choice".

There isn't really a choice. There used to be a choice. A perfectly amicable choice that was a problem for literally no-one. Now there isn't.
One viable option is not "choice".

There are a variety of side orders to choose from.

Ah but that's merely the illusion of choice.

[Aelex]

I hate the French right-wing movement with a passion.

Everyone does, don't worry...
Their real problem, apart from Sarkozy and even if he is the one who created such problem in the first place, is that they are trying to much to imitate the Front National just to steal some of their votes.
And the only thing which will result from such behavior is that more and more people will start voting for the "original" rather than the counterfeit.

[Kvatchdom]

I have a question for people who might be more familiar with French schools.

Do you charge your students for their food like we do here in the states, or are the meals free to students?

I was going to ask the same. If the meal is free, forcing Muslim families to buy their children otherwise free meals is quite straightforwardly simply racist.

[Galloism]

I have a question for people who might be more familiar with French schools.

Do you charge your students for their food like we do here in the states, or are the meals free to students?

I was going to ask the same. If the meal is free, forcing Muslim families to buy their children otherwise free meals is quite straightforwardly simply racist.

No, it isn't - because Islam is not a race.

It's bigoted.

[Aelex]

I have a question for people who might be more familiar with French schools.

Do you charge your students for their food like we do here in the states, or are the meals free to students?

Well, it's not free but it's not that costly neither even if it vary depending if you're in a private or public school.
In both case, you pay each month for the number of meals ate by your child (to which is added a "forfait" of between 40 to 100 euro, that you pay only once, if you eat in a private school); each meal costing between 4 and 6 euro usually.
To the total price of all the meal is substracted some percentage (between 5% to 50%) if your family is poor or big (more than 4 children) and, in the case of private schools, if some of your siblings are eating too.

This may seem a little complicated but I'll give you an exemple.

For a public school where the price of the meal is 4,70 euro.

Jean is eating Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday. He's part of a well-off family and is an only child.

4,70X4X4= 75.2

He thus pay 75.2 euro.

Joachim, him, is eating every day. His family is rather poor and he got two brother and one little sister.

4.70X5X4 = 94
94X(10% + 10%) = 18.8
94-18.8 = 75.2

He thus pay 75.2 euro too thanks to the cuts.

[Galloism]

I have a question for people who might be more familiar with French schools.

Do you charge your students for their food like we do here in the states, or are the meals free to students?

Well, it don't change much weither if you're in a private or public school.
In both case, you pay each month for the number of meals ate by your child (to which is added a "forfait" of between 40 to 100 euro, that you pay only once, if you eat in a private school); each meal costing between 4 and 6 euro usually.
To the total price of all the meal is substracted some percentage (between 5% to 50%) if your family is poor or big (more than 4 children) and, in the case of private schools, if some of your siblings are eating too.

This may seem a little complicated but I'll give you an exemple.

For a public school where the price of the meal is 4,70 euro.

Jean is eating Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday. He's part of a well-off family and is an only child.

4,70X4X4= 75.2

He thus pay 75.2 euro.

Joachim, him, is eating every day. His family is rather poor and he got two brother and one little sister.

4.70X5X4 = 94
94X(10% + 10%) = 18.8
94-18.8 = 75.2

He thus pay 75.2 euro too thanks to the cuts.

Ok, so if they don't eat, they don't have to pay. That's what I wanted to know.

Ok, not a big deal then - it's not acting as an additional tax on the family. If they had to pay for the food regardless of whether they ate or not (IE, monthly plan - seen some private schools do that) then this would constitute an additional "attendance fee" on muslim families.

Thankfully, that's not the case.

[Salus Maior]

Nevermind those who avoid pork for health reasons....

[Olerand]

If you find the French Republic oppressive, adieu! French courts, and European courts, don't. So better luck elsewhere.

Just when it comes to religion. They seem to want to make religion one of those dead-of-night things you don't talk about with your friends or you get shunned.

The EU court France down a few times for being oppressive to religion, although, I am sad to say, they let the burqa ban stand.

If your religious demands are banned in France (as maintained by French and European courts), bonne chance elsewhere. The world is literally so large and varied, adieu indeed!

No one deserves a single religious accommodation from the Republic, who recognizes no religion.

Also, yes, if a family can afford it, school meals are supposed to be bought, with exceptions for certain income brackets. It is a current issue in the regional elections today, I hear the Socialist candidate in Pays de la Loire has made it the center point of his campaign to make all school meals free, but he is set to lose, so meh.

[Galloism]

Just when it comes to religion. They seem to want to make religion one of those dead-of-night things you don't talk about with your friends or you get shunned.

The EU court France down a few times for being oppressive to religion, although, I am sad to say, they let the burqa ban stand.

If your religious demands are banned in France (as maintained by French and European courts), bonne chance elsewhere. The world is literally so large and varied, adieu indeed!

Yeah, fuck them people who just want to practice their religion in peace. We're a secular nation damnit!

No one deserves a single religious accommodation from the Republic, who recognizes no religion.

It's pretty clear it recognizes Islam, given the concerted attempts to fuck it over repeatedly with laser-guided precision.

[Olerand]

If your religious demands are banned in France (as maintained by French and European courts), bonne chance elsewhere. The world is literally so large and varied, adieu indeed!

Yeah, fuck them people who just want to practice their religion in peace. We're a secular nation damnit!

No one deserves a single religious accommodation from the Republic, who recognizes no religion.

It's pretty clear it recognizes Islam, given the concerted attempts to fuck it over repeatedly with laser-guided precision.

Not our problem. Your human rights are not judged to be violated, so goodbye. We, unlike America, are not open to all religious demands, cults, exceptions, special treatments etc.

That Islam is the most proselytizing and demanding religion today is not the fault of the Republic. The ban on religious symbols, for example, applies to all religions.

[Galloism]

Yeah, fuck them people who just want to practice their religion in peace. We're a secular nation damnit!



It's pretty clear it recognizes Islam, given the concerted attempts to fuck it over repeatedly with laser-guided precision.

Not our problem. Your human rights are not judged to be violated, so goodbye.

So you don't really "do" freedom of religion. That's monstrous.

We, unlike America, are not open to all religious demands, cults, exceptions, special treatments etc.

There's no way allowing a person to wear clothing they want in public is a special treatment.

That Islam is the most proselytizing and demanding religion today is not the fault of the Republic. The ban on religious symbols, for example, applies to all religions.

And it's a stupid ban.

However, the ban on religious clothing doesn't apply to all religions. That ban was put in place with Islam specifically in mind.

[Dazchan]

I have a question for people who might be more familiar with French schools.

Do you charge your students for their food like we do here in the states, or are the meals free to students?

Well, it's not free but it's not that costly neither even if it vary depending if you're in a private or public school.
In both case, you pay each month for the number of meals ate by your child (to which is added a "forfait" of between 40 to 100 euro, that you pay only once, if you eat in a private school); each meal costing between 4 and 6 euro usually.
To the total price of all the meal is substracted some percentage (between 5% to 50%) if your family is poor or big (more than 4 children) and, in the case of private schools, if some of your siblings are eating too.

This may seem a little complicated but I'll give you an exemple.

For a public school where the price of the meal is 4,70 euro.

Jean is eating Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday. He's part of a well-off family and is an only child.

4,70X4X4= 75.2

He thus pay 75.2 euro.

Joachim, him, is eating every day. His family is rather poor and he got two brother and one little sister.

4.70X5X4 = 94
94X(10% + 10%) = 18.8
94-18.8 = 75.2

He thus pay 75.2 euro too thanks to the cuts.

Are they given the menu in advance, so what will be served on each day?

[Olerand]

Not our problem. Your human rights are not judged to be violated, so goodbye.

So you don't really "do" freedom of religion. That's monstrous.

We, unlike America, are not open to all religious demands, cults, exceptions, special treatments etc.

There's no way allowing a person to wear clothing they want in public is a special treatment.

That Islam is the most proselytizing and demanding religion today is not the fault of the Republic. The ban on religious symbols, for example, applies to all religions.

And it's a stupid ban.

However, the ban on religious clothing doesn't apply to all religions. That ban was put in place with Islam specifically in mind.

We certainly do, within the limits of French and European law. Shocking that we are not an American state, or a British country, and thus not subject to your laws and standards, no?

Allowing you to hide your face in public, as it is your religious demand, while a legitimate argument in America, and sacrosanct to the American left (again a privilege not afforded to other religions) is not so in France. Public facial coverings are banned, and your religion is not a carte blanche, sorry.

A subjective opinion, we disagree.

EDIT:The ban on religious clothing applies to all in public schools. That Islam is the most prosletyzing and visually demanding religion today is not the Republic's issue. The ban applies to Catholics and Jews, they simply pose less problems and this receive less media attention.

[The Hobbesian Metaphysician]

Not our problem. Your human rights are not judged to be violated, so goodbye.

So you don't really "do" freedom of religion. That's monstrous.

We, unlike America, are not open to all religious demands, cults, exceptions, special treatments etc.

There's no way allowing a person to wear clothing they want in public is a special treatment.

That Islam is the most proselytizing and demanding religion today is not the fault of the Republic. The ban on religious symbols, for example, applies to all religions.

And it's a stupid ban.

However, the ban on religious clothing doesn't apply to all religions. That ban was put in place with Islam specifically in mind.

Given the quote in their signature I suspect France along with the rest of the world would benefit from atomic hell fire.

At least everyone would be equal (in death).

[Olerand]

So you don't really "do" freedom of religion. That's monstrous.



There's no way allowing a person to wear clothing they want in public is a special treatment.


And it's a stupid ban.

However, the ban on religious clothing doesn't apply to all religions. That ban was put in place with Islam specifically in mind.

Given the quote in their signature I suspect France along with the rest of the world would benefit from atomic hell fire.

At least everyone would be equal (in death).

Perhaps. There certainly is a philosophical question regarding humanity's terrible influence on our planet, and the possibility that it would do better without us; although I doubt it would benefit from a nuclear winter. Regardless, that certainly is not the point of this thread, no?

[Galloism]

So you don't really "do" freedom of religion. That's monstrous.



There's no way allowing a person to wear clothing they want in public is a special treatment.


And it's a stupid ban.

However, the ban on religious clothing doesn't apply to all religions. That ban was put in place with Islam specifically in mind.

We certainly do, within the limits of French and European law. Shocking that we are not an American state, or a British country, and thus not subject to your laws and standards, no?

More like we think oppression of religion is monstrous, as a general principle.

Allowing you to hide your face in public, as it is your religious demand, while a legitimate argument in America, and sacrosanct to the American left (again a privilege not afforded to other religions) is not so in France. Public facial coverings are banned, and your religion is not a carte blanche, sorry.

Actually, anyone can cover their face in public, regardless of religion. It's a pretty cool country in most respects (think we need to jettison all the republican candidates this year into space, but no place is perfect).

In any case, let's not pretend that France started by saying "you know, we should make sure that people can't cover their face in public for security" and muslims were caught on accident by a wholly secular provision.

The French Parliament began an initial inquiry on the issue shortly after President Nicolas Sarkozy stated in June 2009 that religious face veils were "not welcome" within France.[10] Sarkozy had stated that the law is to protect women from being forced to cover their faces and to uphold France's secular values.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ba ... Background

It was intended as, and succeeded in, barring a religious practice on the basis of it being a religious practice. There was no secular purpose ever in mind. It was an anti-religion purpose.

A subjective opinion, we disagree.

That allowing people to wear what they want is a special privilege?

[Olerand]

We certainly do, within the limits of French and European law. Shocking that we are not an American state, or a British country, and thus not subject to your laws and standards, no?

More like we think oppression of religion is monstrous, as a general principle.

Allowing you to hide your face in public, as it is your religious demand, while a legitimate argument in America, and sacrosanct to the American left (again a privilege not afforded to other religions) is not so in France. Public facial coverings are banned, and your religion is not a carte blanche, sorry.

Actually, anyone can cover their face in public, regardless of religion. It's a pretty cool country in most respects (think we need to jettison all the republican candidates this year into space, but no place is perfect).

In any case, let's not pretend that France started by saying "you know, we should make sure that people can't cover their face in public for security" and muslims were caught on accident by a wholly secular provision.

The French Parliament began an initial inquiry on the issue shortly after President Nicolas Sarkozy stated in June 2009 that religious face veils were "not welcome" within France.[10] Sarkozy had stated that the law is to protect women from being forced to cover their faces and to uphold France's secular values.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ba ... Background

It was intended as, and succeeded in, barring a religious practice on the basis of it being a religious practice. There was no secular purpose ever in mind. It was an anti-religion purpose.

A subjective opinion, we disagree.

That allowing people to wear what they want is a special privilege?

The ban on facial coverings was without a doubt brought up due to the emergence of the extremily regressive niqab in France, something we deemed unacceptable, as we do to a number of other issues -polygamy, blasphemy laws etc- and as is our right as we are in France. However, the ban applies to all facial coverings, so there is no discrimination in law.

[Imperializt Russia]

When you're given a shitty choice for no real reason other than to be given a shitty choice, and expected by the likes of you that they're grateful that the still have "a choice", this is what we call the "illusion of choice".

There isn't really a choice. There used to be a choice. A perfectly amicable choice that was a problem for literally no-one. Now there isn't.
One viable option is not "choice".

There are a variety of side orders to choose from.

Illusion of choice.

Side are not equivalent to a fucking main, Ostro.

[Galloism]

The ban on facial coverings was without a doubt brought up due to the emergence of the extremily regressive niqab in France, something we deemed unacceptable, as we do to a number of other issues -polygamy, blasphemy laws etc- and as is our right as we are in France. However, the ban applies to all facial coverings, so there is no discrimination in law.

Snipped out the previous to make this easy to read.

I'm calling bullshit on "no discrimination". There is something called "disparate impact".

Do you know what "disparate impact" is?

[Valystria]

There are a variety of side orders to choose from.

Illusion of choice.

Side are not equivalent to a fucking main, Ostro.

You don't seem to understand what Illusion of Choice means.

[The Hobbesian Metaphysician]

So dark humor aside if the article is indeed incorrect then is the source going to change?

[Olerand]

The ban on facial coverings was without a doubt brought up due to the emergence of the extremily regressive niqab in France, something we deemed unacceptable, as we do to a number of other issues -polygamy, blasphemy laws etc- and as is our right as we are in France. However, the ban applies to all facial coverings, so there is no discrimination in law.

Snipped out the previous to make this easy to read.

I'm calling bullshit on "no discrimination". There is something called "disparate impact".

Do you know what "disparate impact" is?

Apparently it is a concept in American anti-discrimination law. Quaint. When we apply to be an American state, we shall be judged, and react, accordingly.

We are not subject to American legislation, and do not recognize American "protected classes".

All in all, again, you will do as you wish, and so shall we. Being the dominant force today, you will judge yourself better than us -despite nothing objectively and empirically proving you are- and judge yourself superior to us and deride us in your newspapers, Guardian articles etc. But we are French, and if there is one thing we can do, it is ignore Anglo-Saxon "critiques" and "corrections". And so the cycle goes on.

[Valystria]

So dark humor aside if the article is indeed incorrect then is the source going to change?

Of course not. That's not we do things at NSG.

[Imperializt Russia]

Illusion of choice.

Side are not equivalent to a fucking main, Ostro.

You don't seem to understand what Illusion of Choice means.

An illusion of choice is where a choice is presented but there is no real choice to be made. It is where the options are presented as equivalent yet they are not.
Your option is to take it or leave it, which is not a real choice.

[Galloism]

Snipped out the previous to make this easy to read.

I'm calling bullshit on "no discrimination". There is something called "disparate impact".

Do you know what "disparate impact" is?

Apparently it is a concept in American anti-discrimination law. Quaint. When we apply to be an American state, we shall be judged, and react, accordingly.

We are not subject to American legislation, and do not recognize American "protected classes".

All in all, again, you will do as you wish, and so shall we. Being the dominant force today, you will judge yourself better than us -despite nothing objectively and empirically proving you are- and judge yourself superior to us and deride us in your newspapers, Guardian articles etc. But we are French, and if there is one thing we can do, it is ignore Anglo-Saxon "critiques" and "corrections". And so the cycle goes on.

I mean, if the best you can muster to "obviously, you're being bigoted and discriminatory against your people" is "we are france, and we do what we want! Bugger off, yanks!", I don't think we have anything further to discuss.