Racist soup

[Xerxes & Friends]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4644766.stm

My first reaction to this was that it was impossible to imagine anything like this happening here in the UK.  But with the rise in nutter fringe groups like Christian Voice I'm not so sure any more.  Of course, extreme right-wing views have always been held in this country, but what is changing is an increasing likelihood that people will join like minded organised pressure groups,  coupled with the media's increased readiness to give them a voice - a chicken and egg problem.

If the media didn't feed so much off of dissent and controversy, reporting news for its own sake rather than because it creates discord, then groups like this wouldn't be encouraged to try attention-grabbing stunts like this in an effort to attract support and new members.

We could do with some sort of alternative MediaWatch, where we find and expose shit-stirring self-interest stunts like this and the equally complicit journalists who give them the oxygen of publicity.

[jutl]

I'm not sure that the media could avoid reporting this once it has got to this stage. These Bloc Identitaire cunts have been doing this for a while, and gradually expanding their 'charity' to areas of racial tension all across France. The fact that local government is finally reacting is genuinely big news in the context of last year's riots. French policy has traditionally been precisely what you advocate - let the extremists do their own extreme thing and hope that ignoring them will put them off...

Even in the more general sense I'm not sure that your point is well-taken. Your French racist cunts have constructed a cleverly divisive bit of media theatre here. It's become news for precisely the same reason it's attracted government action - it's a compellingly odd vehicle for racist ideology. I'm not sure how media sources can suppress that kind of thing.

[Suttonpubcrawl]

I think the idea that this is being done as a kind of media stunt designed to attract attention is pretty flawed. If people went around beating up Jews and Muslims, no one would say that it was just an attention grabbing stunt and we should just ignore it. I really don't think this is much different, the main reason they're doing it is surely to be nasty to those who can't eat the soup. I think if anything it's important for things like this to be attacked in the media, if they're just allowed to happen without comment then there's no one presenting any opposition to them or trying to argue that it's wrong, and that can't be a good thing.

[LadyDay]

Surely the aim of racist groups these days is to put themselves forward as reasonable people with reasonable views. This sort of media coverage wouldn't help their cause, it's just portays them as the sick people they are, then again, they probably don't have the brains to work that out.

[MonkeyDrummer]

oh come on, will someone think about the vegetarians!

[jutl]

the main reason they're doing it is surely to be nasty to those who can't eat the soup.

Given their constant press releases about it on their web site, I think they do have their media profile in mind. Fighting 'Islamisation' by not giving them soup is surely a pretty feeble ploy? Surely it's more believable that they are trying to stimulate debate about what it mean to be European... In fact they say as much in their press releases:

Tous les peuples d'Europe et, au-delà, tous les peuples attachés à leurs traditions et à leurs libertés sont en effet concernés par ce qui se passe à Strasbourg : ne pas réagir aujourd'hui serait laisser la porte ouverte à toute une série d'interdictions ubuesques sous prétexte de « racisme » et de « discrimination » :

- les croissants, symboles racistes de la victoire européenne sur les armées musulmanes devant Vienne en 1683,
- les sapins de Noël, symboles du double héritage religieux païen et chrétien de notre Europe,
- toutes les sucreries de notre enfance qui contiennent de la gélatine de porc : fraises Tagada, Nounours en chocolat, Hari Croco, Carambars, Chamallows, etc. !

from http://www.bloc-identitaire.com/communique.php?id=226

"They'll be at our croissants next..."

[clareQuilty]

Why bother giving them the oxygen of publicity? If they want to give away their racist soup let them, if a few more homeless people don't have to go hungry I don't really see the problem. Maybe it will encourage everyone with an agenda to feed them and eventually we'll have the whole hunger thing sorted out once and for all.

[Mister Six]

Fucking soup Nazis.

[jutl]

Why bother giving them the oxygen of publicity?

...because it can't realistically be avoided?

[Mr. Analytical]

I don't really see what the problem is.

For ages organisations like the Salvation army made it difficult for Muslims because you were given food on the understanding that you'd sit and listen to some preaching.

If these people want to make soup and only give it to certain members of society then I'm not sure what the problem is seeing as it is their soup.  Besides which, if the homeless were that starving they'd probably take it anyway.  At the end of the day it's still a bunch of people giving food to homeless people.

[jutl]

I don't really see what the problem is.

Yes you do. You're just playing devil's advocate.

[Mr. Analytical]

Well.. I see why people wouldn't like it but I don't necessarily agree with them.  So I don't see it as being a problem in absolute terms.

[clareQuilty]

Doesn't banning people from giving out soup to hungry people seem, just a little bit, fascist? If people are really concerned about all the homeless Muslims and Jews (and by extension vegetarians) who are missing out why not provide an alternative instead of trying to get it banned?

[jutl]

Well.. I see why people wouldn't like it but I don't necessarily agree with them.  So I don't see it as being a problem in absolute terms.

Oh come on... You're perfectly capable of seeing the negative effects of this campaign, surely? Granted, giving hungry people soup is positive on a simplistic level, but that's obviouslu not all there is to it...

Doesn't banning people from giving out soup to hungry people seem, just a little bit,fascist? If people are really concerned about all the homeless Muslims and Jews (and by extension vegetarians) who are missing out why not provide an alternative instead of trying to get it banned?

The Bloc Identitaire are making a monoculturist point by giving away soup to 'Christians only'. Why should those who oppose their views use the same method of expressing themselves? Come to that, why shouldn't the state make a statement of its opposition to the view that France is a Christian-only state? Defining all state intervention as fascism makes the prosecution of murderers a fascist act.

[Garfield And Friends]

Doesn't banning people from giving out soup to hungry people seem, just a little bit, fascist? If people are really concerned about all the homeless Muslims and Jews (and by extension vegetarians) who are missing out why not provide an alternative instead of trying to get it banned?

Yoinks! Hungry homeless vegetarians? Aside from a serious medical condition, you'd have to be quite the idealist picky pauper to refuse a piggy supper!

[Shaun]

Yoinks! Hungry homeless vegetarians? Aside from a serious medical condition, you'd have to be quite the idealist picky pauper to refuse a piggy supper!

Well assuming they are vegetarians for ethical reasons is there that much difference between them and Jews and Muslims? Are you saying that the beliefs of the vegetarians are not as important because they don't believe it is wrong because a religion told them so?

I think if they are giving the soup to anyone who wants it an people are not eating it for religious reasons then it is no different for a vegetarian not eating it because they think it is wrong.

[Mr. Analytical]

The Bloc Identitaire are making a monoculturist point by giving away soup to 'Christians only'. Why should those who oppose their views use the same method of expressing themselves? Come to that, why shouldn't the state make a statement of its opposition to the view that France is a Christian-only state? Defining all state intervention as fascism makes the prosecution of murderers a fascist act.

 I'm not denying that these people are cunts, I'm just questioning the wisdom and the morality of throwing them in jail or preventing them from giving out soup.

 Besides which, only giving food or shelter to christians is standard operating procedure for the majority of christian charities working with the homeless.  As I said before, even big organisations like the Salvation Army do it.  The only different is that this lot are quite explicit in their "We're not giving any to YOU!" attitude whereas the other charities simply made it intolerable if you weren't a christian to accept their help.

 And anyway France is far more monocultural than the UK , and quite proudly so.  Just as we talk about multiculturalism they're the ones who endlessly go on about integration.

So a) it's their soup, so they should be able to give it to whom they want, b) they're not all that different from other charities who don't get any stick despite doing similar things and c) they're voicing a quite mainstream view in French culture and politics.

They're clearly cunts but not such cunts that the law need get involved.

[jutl]

I'm not denying that these people are cunts, I'm just questioning the wisdom and the morality of throwing them in jail or preventing them from giving out soup.

Let's not lump those two in together. A group who try to make a 'Europe For The Christians Only' point by deliberately starting exclusionist charities in racially tense areas ought to be stopped, in my view.

 Besides which, only giving food or shelter to christians is standard operating procedure for the majority of christian charities working with the homeless.  As I said before, even big organisations like the Salvation Army do it.  The only different is that this lot are quite explicit in their "We're not giving any to YOU!" attitude whereas the other charities simply made it intolerable if you weren't a christian to accept their help.

...and that's an enormous difference. One activity is an attempt to extend inclusivity (of the church) while the other is an attempt to assert exclusivity.

 And anyway France is far more monocultural than the UK , and quite proudly so.  Just as we talk about multiculturalism they're the ones who endlessly go on about integration.

...until the riots late last year, when the government publicly acknowledged that their relentless 'integrationist' stance was a failure, and had in fact been a cover for not giving a fuck about minorities.

So a) it's their soup, so they should be able to give it to whom they want,

Narrowing this to the act of giving soup is being deliberately naive.

b) they're not all that different from other charities who don't get any stick despite doing similar things and

Yes, they are, as I pointed out above

c) they're voicing a quite mainstream view in French culture and politics.

The fact that it's been mainstream doesn't make it right, as even the government are now acknowledging.

They're clearly cunts but not such cunts that the law need get involved.

Well that's a matter of opinion. Given that I disagree with your opinions on this almost 100%, it's not surprising that I also disagree with your conclusion.

[MojoJojo]

Besides which, only giving food or shelter to christians is standard operating procedure for the majority of christian charities working with the homeless.  As I said before, even big organisations like the Salvation Army do it.  The only different is that this lot are quite explicit in their "We're not giving any to YOU!" attitude whereas the other charities simply made it intolerable if you weren't a christian to accept their help.

You do know you're talking bollocks, right? It's only the Salvation army, as far as I am aware, who do the preaching thing, and even they don't actually turn the homeless away.

Most of the arsehole christians have better things to do than talk to dirty beggars.

I know you are only using it as a comparison, but it's not a good one. The only problem with giving out pork to the homeless is their motivation for only giving out pork. If, for example, it was a benevolent butcher who was giving out the pork he had left at the end of the day, there wouldn't be a problem. The cunts in Paris, however, are only giving out pork* because they want Jews and Muslims to fuck off and starve to death. The Salvation Army want to convert them, for their benefit, not kill them.


*well their probably giving it out for media attention, but it's the subtext.

[Gamma Ray]

Even in the more general sense I'm not sure that your point is well-taken. Your French racist cunts have constructed a cleverly divisive bit of media theatre here. It's become news for precisely the same reason it's attracted government action - it's a compellingly odd vehicle for racist ideology. I'm not sure how media sources can suppress that kind of thing.

With the diversity of media sources we have today I don't think that they can. And why should they? With such an avalanche of information available these days the end user (consumer) has to take responsibility for filtering it. Much as one would hope the paupers take their pork soup, say thanks for the free soup and think of it no more, one would hope that people would see a story like this and think 'wow, paupers are getting free soup ... cool'.

Because that is the essence of the story - people are getting free soup. Any other angles, such as the racist one, are traps set for the unwary and inflexibe mind. They are giving free soup to people. Sure, maybe some people can't eat it for whatever reason. They are giving free soup to people. If the story is presented in this way, completely ignoring (a la the French government's attitude) any negative aspects to it, the group responsible will look like fools for giving away free soup for no particular reason. Which, funnily enough, they are. Or they would be if people weren't so happy to pick up on a tasty morsel for debate like this one.

[Hugo Rune]

... So a) it's their soup, so they should be able to give it to whom they want ...

Using that argument, private bus operators can justify insisting that blacks move to the back of the bus.

[Gamma Ray]

...

Are you on the Rekords Rekords forums?

[Labian Quest]

I genuinely thought this was going to be a story about someone who'd ordered a bowl of alphabet soup and the letters had spelt something rude out.

[Zuffic]

The cunts in Paris, however, are only giving out pork because they want Jews and Muslims to fuck off and starve to death.

Nonsense. Muslims are absolutely allowed under their own traditions to eat pork if they are in need.  I would imagine that 'homeless' would fairly easily translate as 'in need'.

I also particularly like the way the word 'racist' is used in this story, since there's nothing racist going on whatsoever. A charity, funded by donations, is making a cheap and nutritious product available to the homeless community, and some subset of the society (not 'races', by any definition) don't fancy it. Big deal.

And what if - for example - a Jewish charity started handing out soup made of Kosher meat, or a Muslim charity was handing out soup made from Halal meat, would there be any media attention? Would the rights of people who would choose not to eat meat killed in those fashions - which some people regard as unethical - be valiantly defended like this?

The response the authorities seem to have taken, which is to shut these charities down, is incomprehensible. Surely the best outcome is for these charities to remain and other charities to be formed handing out alternatives.

[LadyDay]

... So a) it's their soup, so they should be able to give it to whom they want ...

Using that argument, private bus operators can justify insisting that blacks move to the back of the bus.

Good point

[swarfmonkey]

I genuinely thought this was going to be a story about someone who'd ordered a bowl of alphabet soup and the letters had spelt something rude out.

I just spat coffee everywhere as I got a mental picture of a can of Heinz Tomato soup, in a cupboard shouting "Send 'em all back!"

[Zuffic]

... So a) it's their soup, so they should be able to give it to whom they want ...

Using that argument, private bus operators can justify insisting that blacks move to the back of the bus.

Good point

Disagreed. The analogy doesn't stand up to scrutiny. One is a pointedly deliberate act of racism, the other is people handing out some soup. As probably hinted at elsewhere in this thread, the act of handing out pork soup is no more a discrimination against a religious or cultural group than it is a discrimination against vegetarians.

It's some people, who have made some soup, out of some ingredients, that they're giving away to anyone who fancies it.

[A Passing Turk Slipper]

I also particularly like the way the word 'racist' is used in this story, since there's nothing racist going on whatsoever. A charity, funded by donations, is making a cheap and nutritious product available to the homeless community, and some subset of the society (not 'races', by any definition) don't fancy it. Big deal.

'Don't fancy it'? You can make a point without being patronising and, well, annoying, you know. It's not like they are being fussy in refusing it is it?

And what if - for example - a Jewish charity started handing out soup made of Kosher meat, or a Muslim charity was handing out soup made from Halal meat, would there be any media attention? Would the rights of people who would choose not to eat meat killed in those fashions - which some people regard as unethical - be valiantly defended like this?

Well that doesn't affect whether what is happening here is right or wrong does it? The way the media would treat another thing doesn't affect the morality of this.

[Jemble Fred]

Odd how instantly positive this initiative seems if you look at it as targeted at religion rather than race. It's a superb scheme – if you decide to live your life by nonsensical laws at least two millennia out of date, you go hungry. That'll learn 'em.

But doing such a thing purely on the basis of whichever ethnic group people are born into is absolutely damnable, of course.

[LadyDay]

Disagreed. The analogy doesn't stand up to scrutiny. One is a pointedly deliberate act of racism, the other is people handing out some soup. As probably hinted at elsewhere in this thread, the act of handing out pork soup is no more a discrimination against a religious or cultural group than it is a discrimination against vegetarians.

It's some people, who have made some soup, out of some ingredients, that they're giving away to anyone who fancies it.

Wrong, it's a deliberately racist act as they have admitted themselves. I doubt very much that they give a toss about the plight of European homeless either, other than to try and make us believe that they are only homeless because the other races are taking their jobs.