International News
See other International News Articles
Title: French Government Threatens Town With A Fine Of 2000 Euros A Day If It Does Not Remove Nativity Set
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://shoebat.org/2018/12/14/frenc ... -does-not-remove-nativity-set/
Published: Dec 15, 2018
Author: Andrew Bieszad
Post Date: 2018-12-15 10:33:56 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 1145
Comments: 22
The French government is a threatening a town with a fine of 2000 euros a day if it does not remove a Nativity set. According to one report from Valeurs: 2,000 euros per day late. This is the risk of the town of Béziers if it does not “withdraw within 48 hours the Nativity set installed in the courtyard of the Hôtel de Ville,” reports Franceinfo . The prefecture of Herault seized the administrative court of Montpellier in early December for the immediate move of the Nativity set, which already last year, created a controversy. But the mayor, Robert Ménard, persists. “The installation of such a Nativity set, on a temporary basis, at the initiative of a public person, in a public place, is only legally possible when it is of a cultural, artistic or festive nature, without expressing the recognition of a cult or mark a religious preference,” says the administrative court, quoted by the prefecture. Justice considers that even if the nursery is installed in the main courtyard, it “remains however in the enclosure of the public building which shelters the seat of the commune”.
Poster Comment: What idiots the French are. The Generals already said Macron is a traitor. Cut the pricks head off. Isn't that what they do in kooky France.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: A K A Stone (#0)
Coming soon to a country you live in. Especially if you live in Mn.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
I hope you have a great Christmas Pete.
Godless frogs. Their activities are being directed by their big bosses in Brussels.
Liberals are like Slinkys. They're good for nothing, but somehow they bring a smile to your face as you shove them down the stairs.
IIRC the EU offices in Brussels are just right down the street from the red light district, poetic isn't it. lol
Vegetarians eat vegetables. Beware of humanitarians!
So I started to cut and paste a list of cities, towns, villages in America, and American court decisions banning nativity scenes. I stopped at twenty because I got bored. But yep, those French sure are stupid when compared to Americans. I hope that the major of Besieres leaves up the nativity scene and pays the fines - it is, after all, just public money, much of which came from the French state in the first place. Ok, we'll just budget the fine money out of the cash you give us. Easy peasy lemon squeesy.
I wish the same for you and your family,Stone.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Not true. They have Allah.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
I have to admit I am surprised. Nobody ever tried to explain to those goobers that the US Constitution does NOT give them or anyone else the right to never be offended. Either suck it up,or move to the police state of your choice.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Nobody ever tried to explain to those goobers that the US Constitution does NOT give them or anyone else the right to never be offended. I agree with you. But the Courts in many places do not agree with us. And they're the ones with the power to decide what the Constitution means. So, while you and I would prefer that the Constitution be interpreted one way, Courts all over this nation disagree with us and interpret it another way. And they win because the governments and police and people are going to obey them, not us. I recall back in Columbia Law School I argued vociferously and stubbornly against the student mandated school policy that all law students had to do 40 hours of approved pro-bono community service in order to graduate. I don't think I persuaded anyone. And I did my 40 hours because I wanted to graduate. I also never contribute a dime to Columbia on account of that, and I never will. They extracted involuntary service out of me to serve their causes. They'll never get a dime out of me voluntarily. I do regularly give to other institutions, but not a dime to them, not ever.
It isn't a matter of interpreting it "my" way or "your" way. It is a matter of what does the document say. It isn't hard to understand. It is like third grade stuff.
Thanks Pete.
No, that's third grade logic. Words on a page do not read themselves, and they do not enforce themselves. Laws are enforced by uniformed men with guns. Uniformed men with guns obey chains of command. The tops of chains of command obey Presidents and Court Orders. Presidents also obey Court orders. Therefore, laws will be enforced by men who obey men who obey Court interpretations of words, not by yours or my interpretations of words, no matter how "clear" the words are to you (or to me). You would like your country and its Constitution to be like your religion and its Bible, which each of you Protestants interprets as is "obvious" to you. But country and its Constitution are like the Catholic Church, with a hierarchy of authority, and a Supreme Court that has the final power to say what the Constitution means. Every man who commands every man in uniform accepts that, and every man in uniform obeys. So that's the way it is - regardless of how any of us think it SHOULD be, it isn't that way. The Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means. The Supreme Court is the Vatican, the Curia and the Pope when it comes to the civic bible of the USA: the Constitution.
The words have fixed meanings. Interpreting them is when they make up stuff like they did with interstate commerce. If they just use a dictionary to know what a word means or meant at the time. That is proper intreoretation.
I agree. There is nothing even the tiniest bit "tricky" or deceptive about the Bill of Rights. Plain language with plain meanings,written so the common man could understand them.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
You have been brainwashed by law school to believe nothing has any actual meaning. Lawyers MUST distort and confuse,or find some honest way to earn a living.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Brainwashed? Nah. I read the words. I see that we never applied the words as written - not ever - if he had there could not have been black slavery in America at all, or segregation. But their was, from the beginning. The words have NEVER MEANT what they say. They have always meant what they were meant to mean, and that's what the authorities have ALWAYS enforced. When I say "freedom of speech", what does anybody who looks in the dictionary think? By the dictionary, freedom of speech means I can say whatever I want to, and so can anybody else. But NO. That kind of free speech has ALWAYS been punished. "Freedom of speech", as enforced by the Founders and forward, has always meant a great deal of restriction and limitation on speech in every direction, such that "the freedom of speech" is really a legal term that means the freedom within the very narrow and limited box of permissible speech that can be uttered without punishment, to saw as one pleases, as long as one is temperate about it. "Freedom of speech" is pretty much the OPPOSITE of actually freedom of speech, as the dictionary would define it. Don't tell me that this is "brainwashing". "Free speech" was much more savagely restricted by the Founding Fathers than by us. We have greatly EXPANDED the range of "free speech" from the VERY narrow, constrained, crabbed and limited "freedom of speech" of Jefferson and Washington, Madison and Monroe. This is not brainwashing speaking, it's actual knowledge of the historical facts. Protestants just love to believe that anybody can pick up the Bible and understand it and be his own Pope. That's fine with religion, now that we have pulled all of the fangs out of religion and reduced its power. But when it comes to law that has never been true. It's a crime for people without a law license to give legal advice - no matter how many times they have read the Constitution. So much for "free speech". Now, you may (rightly I think) denounce the imperium of lawyers over the country, but understand that James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, John Adams - all those founders who wrote and ratified and adopted and enforced the Constitution were themselves lawyers, men of very high privilege, and they were not speaking as laymen when they wrote the Constitution. They were creating an instrument of power, using specific legal words and terms of power, from the pre-existing Common Law in which they had all grown up, to draft an instrument of power (the Constitution). They did not DEFINE the legal terms of art they were using - they simply used them. You may think that you can just read the words and apply the dictionary, and that lawyers have changed everything, but that was never true, not ever. Lawyers wrote the damned thing, using legal terms legalistically, and they never intended it to be a document that was to be interpreted by a non-existent (at the time) dictionary. It was to be interpreted by grandees who were lawyers, like themselves. NOWHERE is this more visible than in the very limited and constrained 'Freedom of speech" that they wrote into the Constitution and then enforced on themselves. It's fun and fashionable, especially on this site, to oppose what I have to say and to suggest that there's something wrong with me because you disagree with me. Truth is, I am one of the most open-minded and honest lawyers you will ever meet, and I don't think my profession is particularly grand or certainly very honorable. But I DO place a very high value on the truth, and on facts. And the fact is that you cannot pick up the Constitution and read it in the plain English of the 21st Century, because it was not written in plain English. It was written in the very precise language of 18th Century lawyers, using legal terms of art. You cannot actually understand what the Constitution means if you are not a trained lawyer. You can read it and THINK you understand it, and you will understand perhaps what those words WOULD mean if they were used as the dictionary uses them. But knowledge of history will very quickly disabuse you of that notion. The Constitution was not written by laymen and then captured by evil lawyers like me. It was written by the most sophisticated and clever lawyers of the late 1780s, in the legal terms of the 1780s, and it NEVER EVER has meant what it would mean if it were defined by the dictionary. "Freedom of speech" NEVER meant the freedom to freely speak your opinion and beliefs on any subject, not ever. And if you tried to do that at the time of the ratification of the Constitution, the Founders themselves would have arrested you and imprisoned you for sedition, for slander, for libel, for insurrection, and for every other sort of crime against good order, and not one of them would have thought that he was acting in any way against the Constitution he had just written and ratified. "Freedom of Speech" means "the ability of political men in a political context to debate, within limits, political subjects of the day without being charged with treason or sedition simply for being opposed in principle to the ruling government's policy." That's ALL it meant. Freedom of the press meant the freedom to print that limited sort of speech in writing. It did NOT mean the right to speak freely about anything. If modern people went back speaking about things the way we do now, James Madison himself would arrest them and lock them up, as would Thomas Jefferson. Lawyers didn't go back and gouge out their minds. The document never meant what you want it to mean. It's not me making that up. I'm quite a bit of a libertarian who finds the "original intent" of something like "free speech" to be positively oppressive and unacceptable, as would all of you if you really understood just how UNFREE free speech really was in the "original intent" of the Founding Fathers. But you don't know that. You don't know that because you're not trained lawyers. And you think I'm just making it up because you don't like my politics. I assure you that I accord you MUCH greater freedom of speech and tolerance than ANY of the founders would have. Most of you here would have been shot for sedition years ago by James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton - name your favorite founder.
Not true. There was no slavery at Jamestown until a BLACK former indentured servant who took the English name of Johnson refused to free HIS black indentured servant,and took his case to court and won. That's right,it was a black man that enslaved the first black slave in English-speaking America. I specified English-speaking because the parts of our continent settled by the Spanish had slavery as a cornerstone of their economy. They flat worked one Carribean Indian tribe to death in mines,and most likely did the same in other places they occupied. All with the approval of Da Pope,of course.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
I see. So, a black guy treated another black guy like shit in 1619, and that's why a quarter of the US population were enslaved why whites in 1860. Come on.
The United States Census of 1860 was the eighth Census conducted in the United States starting June 1, 1860, and lasting five months. It determined the population of the United States to be 31,443,321, an increase of 35.4 percent over the 23,191,875 persons enumerated during the 1850 Census. The total population included 3,953,761 slaves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860_United_States_Census
Come on. You don't see anything but your own prejudices.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
LOL
Come on. Yes. You are confused about this because your knee jerking into your jaw keeps you from concentrating.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
#2. To: sneakypete (#1)
#3. To: A K A Stone (#0)
#4. To: IbJensen (#3)
Godless frogs. Their activities are being directed by their big bosses in Brussels.
#5. To: (#0)
What idiots the French are.
#6. To: A K A Stone (#2)
#7. To: IbJensen (#3)
Godless frogs.
#8. To: Vicomte13 (#5)
So I started to cut and paste a list of cities, towns, villages in America, and American court decisions banning nativity scenes. I stopped at twenty because I got bored.
#9. To: sneakypete (#8)
I have to admit I am surprised.
#10. To: Vicomte13 (#9)
So, while you and I would prefer that the Constitution be interpreted one way,
#11. To: sneakypete (#6)
#12. To: A K A Stone (#10)
It isn't a matter of interpreting it "my" way or "your" way. It is a matter of what does the document say. It isn't hard to understand. It is like third grade stuff.
#13. To: Vicomte13 (#12)
#14. To: A K A Stone (#10)
It isn't a matter of interpreting it "my" way or "your" way. It is a matter of what does the document say. It isn't hard to understand. It is like third grade stuff.
#15. To: Vicomte13 (#12)
Words on a page do not read themselves, and they do not enforce themselves.
#16. To: sneakypete (#15)
You have been brainwashed by law school to believe nothing has any actual meaning. Lawyers MUST distort and confuse,or find some honest way to earn a living.
#17. To: Vicomte13 (#16)
Brainwashed? Nah. I read the words. I see that we never applied the words as written - not ever - if he had there could not have been black slavery in America at all, or segregation. But their was, from the beginning.
#18. To: sneakypete (#17)
#19. To: Vicomte13 (#18)
nd that's why a quarter of the US population were enslaved why whites in 1860.
#20. To: Vicomte13 (#18)
I see. So, a black guy treated another black guy like shit in 1619, and that's why a quarter of the US population were enslaved why whites in 1860.
#21. To: sneakypete (#20)
#22. To: Vicomte13 (#18)
I see. So, a black guy treated another black guy like shit in 1619, and that's why a quarter of the US population were enslaved why whites in 1860.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]