Halal Burger 'Discrimination' Stirs Debate in France

[Grey Fox]

Why do non-muslim care if food is Halal or not?

I don't want to eat halal meat

Why not?

[grumbler]

The management of Quick and not the mayor of Roubaix should determine what is sold there.

Well, the management of Quick determines what should be sold there and how it should be sold, but this is subject to regulations concerning health, safety, consumer protection, non-discrimination etc. So your lassez-faire position is quite wrong taking into account the commercial environment in Europe (not to mention Germany, where the management of Aldi can't, for example, sell stuff on Sunday, so it's not the management of the chain, but politicians who decided he can't do this).

I love this "your position is correct but I will try to move the goalposts rather than acknowledge that i was wrong" approach! 

It is very transparent.

Why can't you just say, "yeah, you are right and I was wrong?"

[Warspite]

I agree with the overall sentiment - it's one thing to offer 'special' food (whether halal, kosher, vegetarian or whatever craziness one believes in) as an alternative, it's quite another to axe the normal food and replace it with a hocus pocus version exclusively. France needs another anti-religious revolution.

Firms can sell whatever the hell they want. Your faux-liberal veneer rubs off more every day.

This is an illusion in a highly-regulated European market. Firms can't sell whatever they want, they can't fire whoever they want, they can't refuse service to whoever they want, they can't even charge whatever they want.

The only question here is whether on its merits this warrants a state intervention or not, not whether by doing so we would lose some laissez-faire purity, because we lost it decades ago.

Some reasons for losing laissez-faire purity are better than others. We tell food sellers they have to sell in certain systems of weights and measures because it gives customers better information. We tell sellers they can't stick antifreeze in wine because it is poisonous.

We don't tell sellers they have to stock pork because that is no business of the state.

[grumbler]

Some reasons for losing laissez-faire purity are better than others. We tell food sellers they have to sell in certain systems of weights and measures because it gives customers better information. We tell sellers they can't stick antifreeze in wine because it is poisonous.

We don't tell sellers they have to stock pork because that is no business of the state.

Agree that the default position should be non-intervention, and that the existence of some limited  government intervention does not justify unlimited government intervention.  When you are dealing with Socialists, though, they will often bring out that argument that business choice is an "illusion in a highly-regulated European market" and so try to justify ostensibly unjustifiable government intervention (like the one here, where Marti supports the efforts of the government to force a restaurant to offer bacon burgers) as "just more of the same intervention even you support."

There is no slippery slope, however, except on internet boards, and even then only with posters who have no actual facts or even logic to support their position.

[DontSayBanana]

Dumb decision?  Yes.  Should government intervention be required?  Hell no.  If you want to look at all capitalist, let the money do the talking, and let the company take the suggested nosedive in sales when non-muslims get fed up and stop purchasing.

Government should only get involved in something systemic; if the company decided it would only sell to muslims or only hire muslims, that would be grounds for government intervention here.  Instead, all I'm hearing described is a tighter focus on a target market.

[Eddie Teach]

The latest brouhaha was sparked by René Vandierendonck, the socialist mayor of the northern city of Roubaix, who this month railed against his local Quick outlet over its Nov. 30 decision to remove bacon burgers from its menu and replace them with a version using halal beef and a slice of smoked turkey. "It's discrimination" against non-Muslim customers, Vandierendonck said. The mayor has filed charges with justice authorities against Quick for what he says is prejudicial religious catering. He has also lodged a complaint with France's main antidiscrimination authority on the matter.

Somebody should sue Burger King to make them put the Angry Whopper back on the menu. Its removal is clearly discrimination against jalapeno lovers.

[Duque de Bragança]

Why do non-muslim care if food is Halal or not? It's actually one more link in the chain of food salubrity.

But I support emasculation of Islam at every corner.

Tithing or not tithing to Islam (halal meat has to declared so by some muslim cleric for money which goes to the islamic institutions) and there's the issue of cruelty to animals for the ritual slaughter to some people.

Update: the mayor of Roubaix has withdrawn his suit and is negotiating with the state-owned Caisse des dépôts, Quick's main shareholder, to provide a non-halal offer.

http://www.challenges.fr/actualites/entreprises/20100226.CHA1734/le_maire_de_roubaix_retire_sa_plainte_contre_quick.html

[Martinus]

Why do non-muslim care if food is Halal or not?

I don't want to eat halal meat

Why not?

For the same reason islamic finance funds do not want to invest into alcohol, tobacco and sex industry - I don't want my money spent on products which would enrich causes I find objectionable (in this case, some muslim cleric which ensures the meat is halal).

[Grey Fox]

I doubt DP's objection is that but we might never know.

[Malthus]

Seems pretty simple.

Government requiring restaurant to be halal = outrage

Restaurant management deciding to go halal = no outrage

Don't like halal = don't eat there

[HisMajestyBOB]

The management of Quick and not the mayor of Roubaix should determine what is sold there.

I agree with that but there is a thing the article fails to mention that Quick is owned by the French investment firm CDC Capital Investissement, a 100 % subsidiary of the Caisse des Dépôts, a French financial organization, owned by the French secular state which would be then paying some kind of hallal tax...
Not exactly a strategic sector warranting some kind of state control.

Quick was Belgian before that. There is another controvery surrounding the takeover by CDC in Belgium but I'll let the Belgians give the details

Selling only hallal stuff is dumb if you ask me, even in Roubaix (near Lille/Rijsel lots of muslims there) or Marseille (ditto).

So a state owned consortium owns Quick, meaning France has state-owned fast food joints?
God France sucks.

[DontSayBanana]

Seems pretty simple.

Government requiring restaurant to be halal = outrage

Restaurant management deciding to go halal = no outrage

Don't like halal = don't eat there

Incidentally, is there some cultural/historical reason I'm missing why it seems like French go whine to the government about everything they find objectionable?

[Ed Anger]

I should make bacon cheeseburgers today.

[Grey Fox]

Seems pretty simple.

Government requiring restaurant to be halal = outrage

Restaurant management deciding to go halal = no outrage

Don't like halal = don't eat there

Incidentally, is there some cultural/historical reason I'm missing why it seems like French go whine to the government about everything they find objectionable?

That's just the way it is. Centralisation in all aspects of life.

[starbright]

Burger + bacon = fat.

Burger + turkey = yuk.