January 25, 2006, - 10:56 am

Pork Soup or Truth Serum?: French Muslims Are New Food Police

Are the Muslim food police coming to America? Imagine American police using permits to shut you down if you serve pork or any pig products.
That’s what’s happening in France. Here in the States we have the Center for the Study of Science in the Public Interest, which comes out with monthly reports assaulting movie refreshments, Asian food, Italian food–virtually anything consumable.
But they ain’t got nothin’ on French Muslims. Pursuant to Muslims’ demands, French police are using permits to shut down homeless soup kitchens that serve Pork soup, an age-old French dish. (Pigs are not Hallal–or “permitted”–under Muslim dietary laws.) In some French cities, Muslims have succeeded in an OUTRIGHT BAN on the soup. That should disturb all freedom-loving Americans.

Coming to America?:

Islam’s Food Police Declare War on French Pork Soup

For the record, my religion, Judaism, forbids consumption of any pig products–which was copied by Islam (along with many other Jewish and Christian tenets) when the religion was invented. However, we Jews do not believe in imposing our restrictive religious beliefs on others. That is a disturbing Islamic precept. And the use of the state to do it is openly urged by many prominent American Muslim leaders, such as Ibrahim Hooper and Omar Ahmad of –both of whom have stated that they want the Koran and Islamic law to replace the U.S. Constitution.
Here are more of the details of France’s Muslim food police and their statist attack on Pork soup, as reported by AP:

“One has the right to be charitable toward whom one wants,” said Bruno Gollnisch, the [French National Front] party’s No. 2. Moves to forbid soup kitchens offering pork reveal authorities’ “alienation” from the French people, he said.
Pork soup is an age-old staple of the rural heartland from which all the French, at least in the national imagination, are said to spring.
The groups dishing up the soup say their victuals are no more than traditional French cuisine and deny they are serving up a message of racial hatred – a crime in France – or that they would refuse soup to a hungry Muslim or Jew.
In Strasbourg, pork soup was banned this month after officials deemed it could disrupt public order.
“Schemes with racial subtexts must be denounced,” said a statement by Strasbourg Mayor Fabienne Keller.
More than a dozen police surrounded volunteers at a recent soup distribution at Paris’ Montparnasse train station. Once police determined there was pork in the broth, they ordered the 10-gallon container sealed because the group had no permit.
There has been no outright ban on pork soup giveaways in Paris, but police have been using the permit issue as a way to shut down the kitchens and avert racial tensions.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

15 Responses

The prohibition on pork does not make sense any more. It did make sense at the time of Moses, when they did not have breeding facilities for pigs and the pigs layed around in dirty areas.
With modern breeding facilities, pork meat is as clean and hygienic as any other meat.

lawman on January 25, 2006 at 11:21 am

Now they have gone too far. You may attack the native French on their ethnicity and most will roll over and give up…but attack the French on their cuisine, and you will have a fight on your hands.
I’m only half joking-the Muslim who attacks French cuisine is attacking the very heart of French culture. Which is what they want to do. I dare say the sale of pork will go up, there will be a greater desire for all things pork.
As for the previous commentor-yes pork is clean now. Has been for centuries. But the religious law forbidding the consumption of pork is still being followed; respect for those laws is what keeps that prohibition in place.
Debbie, I like your blog-I found mention of you through Roger Eberts site, where they were comparing your movie quotes with Ann Coulter’s.
Keep up the good work.

Doug on January 25, 2006 at 11:48 am

The arrogance of these people (Muslims) is simply astounding. These are people who can not be bribed, appeased, or bought off. A global Caliphate is what they are after.

Ripper on January 25, 2006 at 11:53 am

Lawman..and others who keep this trash talk up about Kashrut(Keeping Kosher) are entitled to their own baseless opinions; Judaism’s dietary laws are because of Judaism’s idea of holiness-not because pigs weren’t clean before the 20th
century(although I do believe there is a connection to Jews who keep (KO)sher and knockouts.This explains why
Jews dominated boxing in the early 20th century).
And this appears to be an anti Muslim revolt that is doable.Obviously,the French have a tradition-up to now of eating anything…and unlike Jewish dietary laws,if I’m not mistaken,Muslims can eat shellfish,mix meat and milk…I say it’s time for
Gary Cooper & High Noon II.

jaywilton on January 25, 2006 at 11:57 am

Moslems impose their religious beliefs on others because Islam, among other things, is the Religion of INTOLERANCE.
These “people” invade other countries and never assimilate. And, while still a minority, they demand that the host countries abandon their traditions and customs, and instead, adopt Muslim traditions. What arrogance!
It all stems from Muslem mindset/indoctrination – from the moment when they are born to the moment when they die either from natural causes or while committing suicide in the process of murdering the Infidel – that Islam forbids them of any independent and rational thought. They must accept everything that Muhammad invented and never question it. Islam dictates everything a Moslem does from the moment he wakes (he better not miss that first morning prayer) to the moment his head hits the stone pillow.
The French are just as primitive in their thinking for going along with their demands. Doing so only fuels the Moslim thirst for imposing even more Islamic intolerances on them.

Thee_Bruno on January 25, 2006 at 12:07 pm

you think pork soup in france is something.
this is worse AND is already here:

louielouie on January 25, 2006 at 4:24 pm

Hot. Soup. Action: The soup issue is so steamy, it’s illegal.

France’s homeless population is more hungry these days since some cities have made it illegal to serve homeless people soup that contains pork products because pork is not allowed in the diets of Jews and Muslims.

Feisty Republican Whore on January 25, 2006 at 4:59 pm


danny on January 25, 2006 at 4:59 pm

Here’s something interesting, most estimates are that in America 15-20% of the kosher meat is consumed by none other than the adherants of Islam…because shechita (kosher meat preparation) and halal rules are vrtualy the same!
I have seen products myself with kosher certifications and halal certifications next to each other on the same package. And BTW, shellfish is also forbidden to Muslims under their dietary laws.
I otherwise agree with the comments about Islam’s intolerance, which stems from the religion’s beginings and is an integral part of it.
There is a very good use for pork and pork products in conjunction with Islam, however…burial shrouds for Islamic terrorists and violent jihadists who attempt to conquer the world for dar Islam.

Freedom Fighter on January 25, 2006 at 6:33 pm

Everything correct except one thing: These soup kitchens which have been shut down were mostly operated by right extremist groups who explicitly advocate killing Muslims and Jews as well, who deny the Holocaust etc. In this context, you might ask yourselves if they just put pork in the soup because it tastes good and is traditional or because they know that at least observant members of their hated religions will not eat it. Feeding the poor yes but only the clean white non-jewish poor people, that’s their agenda. Now you can argue that it is still better to feed some hungry people at all. However, these groups should be monitored, in our own interest, whether they are cooking or campaigning.

hjslaw on January 26, 2006 at 7:16 am

Freedom Fighter,you’re wrong about Islam and shellfish-Moslems are permitted to eat shellfish;I’m also pissed off that I googled Islam and dietary laws and checked the CAIR entry to verify it..Also Hjslaw,I know France’s right wing groups aren’t crazy about non-Christians-but so far,only non-Muslims are getting their asses kicked and apparently the French government ain’t doin’ much about it.

jaywilton on January 26, 2006 at 11:35 am

OH MAN! That means no Farmer John hot dogs at the Dodgers’ Stadium? Jesus! F-the muslim

KOAJaps on January 27, 2006 at 5:50 pm

Lame(the musliem)-man: as you say , “With modern breeding faclities pork meat is as clean and hygienic as any other meat”.It’s to bad you and your arab brothers can’t have that belief with the jews.Well I guess you and others thought you’d try that breeeding….

danny on January 29, 2006 at 11:07 pm

Proving Humanity

Now, an Iranian newspaper is running a Holocaust cartoon contest. You might think this is an attempt to “show them how it feels.” And you would be right … Muslims have prevailed on French authorities to close down soup kitchens serving pork,

Different River on February 7, 2006 at 1:57 pm


I feel compelled to inform you that at first I was very turned off by your website. Now I am very interested in reading more articles on here. However, I am still turned off by the same elements as I was before…

I feel that your site has a great amount of potential. There is a great amount of appeal in your ability to pick topics that interest me that I was previously unaware of, despite the fact that I spend numerous hours each and every week trawling the net in search of interesting politics. I was not aware of this soup issue. I was not aware that the FBI worked with the Westboro nut jobs. This is the great appeal. This is what I found interesting.

What turned me off was the overt religious intolerance towards Muslims. I, myself, am either atheist or agnostic, depending upon your definition of each. I harbor no favor nor hatred toward any religion. I value all unknown individuals equally. I recognize that there are varying levels of religiosity in a multidimensional spectrum of values, ranging from the fundamental, to the moderate, to the extreme, varying combinations of each, to the melding of values from varying religions; I find that there is no unifying attribute to any believer in the religious outside of their belief in something that I find to be unsubstantiated (no offense intended, honestly).

I have deduced to the best of my ability that the world would likely be a much better place if religion were dethroned and forgotten in its entirety. I have also deduced that the means to the end of removing religion from the current state of our small planet would be entirely immoral in each case that I have been able to reason my way to. Therefore, it is a fact of life that religion persists and that my only means of achieving my end is to debate in only the most honest of senses to achieve my vision of a better world.

You may ask yourself why I am telling you all of this. It’s quite simple really. Even though I think religion is a net cause of immorality, I respect individuality enough to recognize that each individual is worthy of fair judgment without the prejudicial presuppositions of prejudicial treatment. I can see that for you, this is not the case. Whereas I am atheist (or agnostic) and find all individuals to be worthy of reserving judgment for individuals, you seem to find that it is moral to judge individuals based on their chosen religion.

Did Hitler not judge the immorality of individuals as the immorality of an entire religion? How is your judgment any different? The people who fucked over Germany financially WERE MOSTLY JEWISH. However, these were a few immoral or ignorant individuals. It would seem that you have judged the entirety of the Muslim community based upon the actions of a few “newsworthy” or particularly vocal Muslims, in the same way that Hitler judged the entirety of Judaism on the visibility and dilapidation caused by a few Jews.

Did those millions of Jews deserve extermination? Of course not! Surely, it must be the case that even one Jew was unjustly executed. In the same sense, you are advocating an equivalent pseudo-philosophy of intolerance. Perhaps you are not advocating execution of Muslims but you ARE advocating an equally intolerant policy of prejudice.

Justin on January 6, 2012 at 7:39 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field