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

[Imperializt Russia]

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.

Disparate impact is a term, a term that just so happens to have a meaning in US law.

Gallo is not suggesting that France is in violation of US law so kindly stop pretending that he is

[Valystria]

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.

No, no.

It's when you have one choice or the other. That in itself is the "illusion of choice".

In this situation there are more than two choices. They can either eat the meal, not eat it, choose from among the side dishes, they can bring their lunch, or do a combination of those things. There is a choice.

[Imperializt Russia]

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.

No, no.

It's when you have one choice or the other. That in itself is the "illusion of choice".

In this situation there are more than two choices. They can either eat the meal, not eat it, choose from among the side dishes, they can bring their lunch, or do a combination of those things. There is a choice.

The choices are not equivalent and the use of the term "choice" is so generous as to be meaningless if not intentionally obtuse.

[Olerand]

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.

But that's not what I said. I reminded you that we are a separate nation, subject to our national, and European law. We are not in the wrong according to the previously mentioned legislative systems. You wish to judge us by your standards and legislation, and we remain not subject to them. You will continue to do so, we will ignore you as we have historically-in America's case for decades, Britain for centuries- and you will remain objectively not better than us. That is all.

[Olerand]

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.

Disparate impact is a term, a term that just so happens to have a meaning in US law.

Gallo is not suggesting that France is in violation of US law so kindly stop pretending that he is

It is a term invented and used in America. It means nothing to us and we are not bound by it. Why should I entertain the idea that the opposite is true? "Disparate impact" means nothing to us, so why should we care about America's legal terms?

[Valystria]

No, no.

It's when you have one choice or the other. That in itself is the "illusion of choice".

In this situation there are more than two choices. They can either eat the meal, not eat it, choose from among the side dishes, they can bring their lunch, or do a combination of those things. There is a choice.

The choices are not equivalent and the use of the term "choice" is so generous as to be meaningless if not intentionally obtuse.

Uhh... no one said it's equivalent.

Secondly, you're hellbent on ignoring how the student has a variety of choices and alternatives.

[Galloism]

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.

But that's not what I said. I reminded you that we are a separate nation, subject to our national, and European law. We are not in the wrong according to the previously mentioned legislative systems. You wish to judge us by your standards and legislation, and we remain not subject to them. You will continue to do so, we will ignore you as we have historically-in America's case for decades, Britain for centuries- and you will remain objectively not better than us. That is all.

Oh I wouldn't say we're better than you - that would require a specific analysis of all facets of government, culture, and economics.

However, I CAN say we're better than you when it comes to religious freedom, because we don't try to stomp all over it in an ever-more-petty attempt to do the most dickish things we can think of.

Let me put it this way. Let's say France made a law that made it so that people who did not have at least one grandparent who was allowed to vote in French elections could not vote. On its face, this is nondiscriminatory and applies to everyone. However, when applied to reality, it discriminates against immigrants.

This is what is called "disparate impact", and it's terrible because it's designed to harm a specific facet of people, and uses weasel words to accomplish that goal without being discriminatory on its face.

The face covering ban also results in disparate impact, and did so very deliberately.

[Imperializt Russia]

Disparate impact is a term, a term that just so happens to have a meaning in US law.

Gallo is not suggesting that France is in violation of US law so kindly stop pretending that he is

It is a term invented and used in America. It means nothing to us and we are not bound by it. Why should I entertain the idea that the opposite is true? "Disparate impact" means nothing to us, so why should we care about America's legal terms?

Gallo is using disparate impact because it is a term he is familiar with. I prefer the phrase "being a twatbasket" because I'm vulgar and it makes me giggle. There is also the very direct and not-tainted-by-being-a-term-with-a-meaning-in-American-law-this-somehow-invalidating-its-use-in-simple-discussion phrasing of "disproportionately affecting one group".

The American legal system is neither here nor fucking there.

[Olerand]

But that's not what I said. I reminded you that we are a separate nation, subject to our national, and European law. We are not in the wrong according to the previously mentioned legislative systems. You wish to judge us by your standards and legislation, and we remain not subject to them. You will continue to do so, we will ignore you as we have historically-in America's case for decades, Britain for centuries- and you will remain objectively not better than us. That is all.

Oh I wouldn't say we're better than you - that would require a specific analysis of all facets of government, culture, and economics.

However, I CAN say we're better than you when it comes to religious freedom, because we don't try to stomp all over it in an ever-more-petty attempt to do the most dickish things we can think of.

Let me put it this way. Let's say France made a law that made it so that people who did not have at least one grandparent who was allowed to vote in French elections could not vote. On its face, this is nondiscriminatory and applies to everyone. However, when applied to reality, it discriminates against immigrants.

This is what is called "disparate impact", and it's terrible because it's designed to harm a specific facet of people, and uses weasel words to accomplish that goal without being discriminatory on its face.

The face covering ban also results in disparate impact, and did so very deliberately.

And again, you are judging us according to your principals, values, etc. But we are not bound by them. That Muslim women who wear the niqab "suffer" more from its ban than the rest of the female population of the country is not our problem. Public smoking is banned, an irritating hindrance to smokers. Not our problem. Your individual comfort, happiness, what have you is not our problem.

The ban conforms to French and European law, and that's it.

[Galloism]

Oh I wouldn't say we're better than you - that would require a specific analysis of all facets of government, culture, and economics.

However, I CAN say we're better than you when it comes to religious freedom, because we don't try to stomp all over it in an ever-more-petty attempt to do the most dickish things we can think of.

Let me put it this way. Let's say France made a law that made it so that people who did not have at least one grandparent who was allowed to vote in French elections could not vote. On its face, this is nondiscriminatory and applies to everyone. However, when applied to reality, it discriminates against immigrants.

This is what is called "disparate impact", and it's terrible because it's designed to harm a specific facet of people, and uses weasel words to accomplish that goal without being discriminatory on its face.

The face covering ban also results in disparate impact, and did so very deliberately.

And again, you are judging us according to your principals, values, etc. But we are not bound by them. That Muslim women who wear the niqab "suffer" more from its ban than the rest of the female population of the country is not our problem. Public smoking is banned, an irritating hindrance to smokers. Not our problem. Your individual comfort, happiness, what have you is not our problem.

The ban conforms to French and European law, and that's it.

So you're saying France could do exactly what I said with regard to voting and that's fine?

[Infected Mushroom]

I take no issue with this. Its only being done in the name of equality.

After all, if you have a ''Muslim menu,'' who is really choosing here? Its the parents forcing the child to pick that and to deny them access to pork.

If anything, now all children will have access to the delicacy of pork notwithstanding what their parents may try to force on them at home.

[Olerand]

And again, you are judging us according to your principals, values, etc. But we are not bound by them. That Muslim women who wear the niqab "suffer" more from its ban than the rest of the female population of the country is not our problem. Public smoking is banned, an irritating hindrance to smokers. Not our problem. Your individual comfort, happiness, what have you is not our problem.

The ban conforms to French and European law, and that's it.

So you're saying France could do exactly what I said with regard to voting and that's fine?

Well what you suggested is not possible. Universal suffrage is a guaranteed consitutional right to all French citizens -except for felons if so is demanded by a court, and even then the ban can only be temporary. If a constitutional amendment, or a change of constitution were enacted, that made what you are suggesting possible; and European courts did not strike it down; then that is fine and is conforming to French and European law.

EDIT: And I refuse this equivalence that you have established between suffrage and public facial coverings. The two are not comparable.

[The 93rd Coalition]

I take no issue with this. Its only being done in the name of equality.

After all, if you have a ''Muslim menu,'' who is really choosing here? Its the parents forcing the child to pick that and to deny them access to pork.

If anything, now all children will have access to the delicacy of pork notwithstanding what their parents may try to force on them at home.

*Alerts the horde*

[Galloism]

So you're saying France could do exactly what I said with regard to voting and that's fine?

Well what you suggested is not possible. Universal suffrage is a guaranteed consitutional right to all French citizens -except for felons if so is demanded by a court, and even then the ban can only be temporary. If a constitutional amendment, or a change of constitution were enacted, that made what you are suggesting possible; and European courts did not strike it down; then that is fine and is conforming to French and European law.

EDIT: And I refuse this equivalence that you have established between suffrage and public facial coverings. The two are not comparable.

Freedom of religion and suffrage are roughly equivalent in importance, along with things like freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. Hell, even the EU states freedom of religion is extremely important.

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9 ... man_Rights

I would disagree with the EU court that banning facial covering, with the intent to be a dick, was necessary in a democratic society.

[Olerand]

Well what you suggested is not possible. Universal suffrage is a guaranteed consitutional right to all French citizens -except for felons if so is demanded by a court, and even then the ban can only be temporary. If a constitutional amendment, or a change of constitution were enacted, that made what you are suggesting possible; and European courts did not strike it down; then that is fine and is conforming to French and European law.

EDIT: And I refuse this equivalence that you have established between suffrage and public facial coverings. The two are not comparable.

Freedom of religion and suffrage are roughly equivalent in importance, along with things like freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. Hell, even the EU states freedom of religion is extremely important.

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9 ... man_Rights

I would disagree with the EU court that banning facial covering, with the intent to be a dick, was necessary in a democratic society.

And as you have correctly stated, the Court whose job it is to defend the European Convention on Human Rights judged the ban acceptable. So the issue is moot.

Determining, consequently, that facial coverings are not an integral and protected part of freedom of religion. Problem solved.

[Infected Mushroom]

Freedom of religion and suffrage are roughly equivalent in importance, along with things like freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. Hell, even the EU states freedom of religion is extremely important.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9 ... man_Rights

I would disagree with the EU court that banning facial covering, with the intent to be a dick, was necessary in a democratic society.

And as you have correctly stated, the Court whose job it is to defend the European Convention on Human Rights judged the ban acceptable. So the issue is moot.

and I would agree with the Court's ruling

after all, Muslim immigrants to Western nations do NOT have a right to demand that we structurally distort our cafeteria menus just to suit their religious beliefs. In the West, equality comes before all else.

[BK117B2]

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



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.



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.


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.

And the regressive French laws involved in dictating manner of dress. Pretty common among countries, unfortunately.

One point though: it is not your right to do so. People have rights, not countries.

[Imperializt Russia]

And as you have correctly stated, the Court whose job it is to defend the European Convention on Human Rights judged the ban acceptable. So the issue is moot.

and I would agree with the Court's ruling

after all, Muslim immigrants to Western nations do NOT have a right to demand that we structurally distort our cafeteria menus just to suit their religious beliefs. In the West, equality comes before all else.

>implying only immigrants are muslims
>implying this hard

[Valystria]

and I would agree with the Court's ruling

after all, Muslim immigrants to Western nations do NOT have a right to demand that we structurally distort our cafeteria menus just to suit their religious beliefs. In the West, equality comes before all else.

>implying only immigrants are muslims
>implying this hard

No. Infected Mushroom specifically said "Muslim immigrants."

Why do you insist on resorting to strawmen and misrepresentations against your opponents?

[Infected Mushroom]

and I would agree with the Court's ruling

after all, Muslim immigrants to Western nations do NOT have a right to demand that we structurally distort our cafeteria menus just to suit their religious beliefs. In the West, equality comes before all else.

>implying only immigrants are muslims
>implying this hard

Does it matter?

France is a secular state, it has no obligation to structure its cafeterias or public facilities to cater to specific religions (especially ones that don't originate in France)

[Galloism]

Freedom of religion and suffrage are roughly equivalent in importance, along with things like freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. Hell, even the EU states freedom of religion is extremely important.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9 ... man_Rights

I would disagree with the EU court that banning facial covering, with the intent to be a dick, was necessary in a democratic society.

And as you have correctly stated, the Court whose job it is to defend the European Convention on Human Rights judged the ban acceptable. So the issue is moot.

Determining, consequently, that facial coverings are not an integral and protected part of freedom of religion. Problem solved.

Problem exacerbated, not solved. Now women who feel devoutly on that can't leave their homes.

The issue is not moot - court decisions are reversible. At one point in the US, it was legal for students to be compelled to pledge allegiance to our flag. Our highest court confirmed it.

A few years later, SCOTUS reversed itself. For the cause of freedom, I hope the ECHR does so - sooner rather than later. Government endorsed bigotry should be killed.

[Imperializt Russia]

>implying only immigrants are muslims
>implying this hard

No. Infected Mushroom specifically said "Muslim immigrants."

Why do you insist on resorting to strawmen and misrepresentations against your opponents?

Well funnily enough there are more Muslims than "teh immigants" who would want a pork-free meal.
So it's not even a strawman.

[Infected Mushroom]

No. Infected Mushroom specifically said "Muslim immigrants."

Why do you insist on resorting to strawmen and misrepresentations against your opponents?

Well funnily enough there are more Muslims than "teh immigants" who would want a pork-free meal.
So it's not even a strawman.

Why is this important?

[Valystria]

No. Infected Mushroom specifically said "Muslim immigrants."

Why do you insist on resorting to strawmen and misrepresentations against your opponents?

Well funnily enough there are more Muslims than "teh immigants" who would want a pork-free meal.
So it's not even a strawman.

Yeah, it is. IM specifically said Muslim immigrants. You misrepresented that as somehow being about all immigrants.

[Qanchia]

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

In France, it applies to all religions. Like the other poster noted, I think you are confusing France's application of the ban with that of the US (if any).