The French do not really do liberty – even though in most cases, the state does leave people alone in a way that our nagging nannies tend not to. However, this one does cause a conflict in anyone who values liberty.
Personally I find the whole concept of Halal repugnant. However, my solution would be not to buy the products – providing that they are honestly labelled as such. In this case, I would refrain from entering the store, so problem solved. It is, after all, their store and they should be free to sell or not sell whatever products they choose. Yes, in France the state gets to tell shop owners what they may sell – must sell, even, which is why it is in the lease, so, er it isn’t their store after all. All goes back to the state having strict rules over boulangeries… I’m not sure the French have ever really understood the principle of a private business. |
Comments are closed.
As so often happens, old butch Oscar has it covered – “I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an ass of yourself.”
It isn’t a question of liberty, it is a question of obeying/having planning law and the like.
Complete liberty might mean that one finds oneself suddenly living next door to a 24-hour supermarket because one’s next-door neighbour fancied setting up in business or having a high street comprised only of building society offices. The later may be perfectly viable but the townsfolk would have no option but to travel to the next town for food etc.
The clash is where the state decides that a business must sell particular products, so yes it is a matter of liberty. This goes way beyond sensible planning regulations into the realms of micromanaging businesses – which is something the French are very good at as I discovered when I lived there.
If the lease doesn’t explicitly say pork or booze must be included, I’d say otherwise. General food stores don’t sell everything, they can’t. They should still be able to prioritise which general foodstuffs they stock.
The thing that sounds against the lease is that they are almost exclusively halal, which I would say makes them a speciality store.
From what I understand, the lease requires them to be a general store. Therefore, the state is interpreting this to mean products that the average French citizen would expect to be able to purchase – such as pork sausages and wine.
No conflict with me. If they owned the shop outright, sell what the hell they like. However, they have a lease, and in a general store in most western countries one would expect to buy pork products and booze. They chose not to sell general products so got evicted, I have no sympathy.
This is the gay cake thing again. Except in this case we are talking about France. I would argue that specifying what, exactly, a general store should stock is outwith the scope of a lease – indeed the lease is an unreasonable restriction on trade. But, I repeat myself, this is France. The best way to deal with this is for customers to go elsewhere and allow the market to do its thing. But again, this is France and dobbing people into the authorities comes naturally to the French.
“But again, this is France and dobbing people into the authorities comes naturally to the French.”
Claws away dear, the plucky Brits on the Channel Islands were no better and as Joolz has reported more than once children here are now educated to be blockwarts of their parent’s lifestyles…and motoring offences.
I value the liberty of a property owner to put whatever conditions they wish into a lease and the liberty of anyone to agree to the lease or not. It seems that the lessee in this case signed the lease without any intention of fulfilling its conditions. By no definition in a Western European country is a halal store a general store. It obviously would be in the Middle East and in Albania.
Lease agreements can be unfair to one or other of the parties. Of course, people should read what they sign (caveat emptor), but frequently don’t and get caught. In the UK, we have the fallback of the unfair contracts terms act (1977), which acknowledges this phenomenon. So, no, I don’t necessarily agree that the lease owner can impose whatever restrictions they choose if it is unfair to the other party. Not that this one necessarily was – but it suggests a level of micromanagement by the state that is excessive; which was my original point.
In this instance we are talking about France and they do things differently there – including the state deciding what people sell in their shops or that bakers must be open at certain hours. One of the peculiarities that I really found difficult to deal with.
I stand by my original thought here – the market is the best way of dealing with this one. Don’t like Halal? Don’t shop there.
From my perspective, having an unfair contracts act is state interference in something which should be between two or more adult parties. By all means protect people without the mental capacity to enter into a contract, but for the rest of us, it is our responsibility to understand a contract or, where necessary, obtain legal advice. The fact that many people cannot be arsed to read what they are signing is not a reason for the state to get involved.
I refer you to:
https://www.longrider.co.uk/blog/2017/11/29/old-enough-to-know-better/
Quite so. However sometimes that legal advice leaves something to be desired. There’s an ongoing case where the land registry got it wrong and the house owner can’t sell until it’s sorted. The solicitor didn’t pick it up.
Actually, I have no problem with the state taking the role of independent arbiter here. It’s one of the few areas where it can serve a useful function.
Have a lovely little bakery about 5 minutes from my house. They did all manner of sandwiches, cakes and salads – also sausage rolls.
Changed hands to a 2nd generation Muslim family and seemed to be selling much the same stuff. So popped in to grab a sandwich and cake.
No sausage rolls, no ham or salami sandwiches and – to my great disappointment – no rum truffles!
That lot lasted about 15 months and stayed shut for ages, meaning they’d blown any “goodwill” they may have tried to add to the sale price.
I doubt they could even produce accounts showing a profit.
Two years ago it sold. It’s still billed as a bakery, but caters mainly to nearby office workers and those who fancy a snack.
Slap bang, very prominent in the window, they have an expensive carved wooden sign saying one of their sandwich choices is pulled pork!
Unfortunately not able to tell if they sell rum truffles, simply because the queue at lunch time is to intimidating.
IMO a classic case of the free market in operation.
And this is the solution. Given that this is Paris, there will be plenty of alternatives.
In France, nothing is legal unless the state says it is. In this country, everything is legal unless the state says it’s not.
Exactly – and the difference between the two is what generally separates the English speaking world from the rest.
I’m a little bit split on this one. On the one hand I agree with the ‘their gaff their rules’ thing and let the consumer decide, the example given by Smoking Scot shows that this approach works. On the other hand I think that, if the terms of the lease were that the premises should be used to provide a general store, then a Halal store was in breach of the terms of the lease. For example, what if you had leased the premises on those terms and then opened a motorcycle dealership? In the end I think that I would look at the broader picture, was the Halal store actually causing a problem? As long as the locals were able to buy their pork and alcohol nearby I don’t see a problem. If this was the only outlet in the area, which seems highly unlikely, then perhaps there might be an issue.
Given that it is in Paris, highly unlikely.
@LR
FTFY
Exactly. Like UK Gov’t decides a business must sell “Gay Marriage” cakes…
Yeah, I’m aware of the way our government is going. Yet, oddly, despite cases like this and the French having Napoleonic rather than common law, for most people, the state leaves them alone and there tends to be more personal liberty. At least, that was my experience.
The law, and its implementation, are two separate issues, and make the difference between relative freedom and oppressive authoritarianism. The laws as written in the statute books don’t often reflect the reality.
For instance, in Chris Snowdon’s ‘Nanny State Index’, Greece ranked quite high in terms of smoking bans, alcohol taxes etc, but the reality on the ground is that few of these laws are actually enforced (although tax on alcohol is difficult to avoid unless you make your own, as many Greeks in fact do). In reality, by most of the criteria laid out in the index, Greece is probably one of the most relaxed and freest countries in Europe, regardless of what the statute books say. And although I’ve not lived there, I always had the impression that France was much the same, although they knuckle under to EU law a bit more than Greece.
They were much the same, but have lurched towards our type of nannying this past few years 🙁
They used to ignore the smoking ban and in the early days, they provided a non-smoking table in the corner of a fug-filled bar. These days it’s rigorously enforced.
From my perspective, cases like this enable us to see if we are consistent with our arguments as I am defending people I would normally oppose.
It’s not clear here whether the state owns the property or is merely responsible for setting the terms of the lease – this being France, the latter is entirely possible (see the requirements for boulangeries, for example – owning your own property is neither here nor there, you open when the state tells you to).
Also, where is it okay for the state to be involved? I am not an anarchist, so accept that there is a role for some state to exist (just not very much). I quoted the Unfair Contracts Terms act. This is in line with using the law to protect people from those who would take advantage – as is consumer protection law. Having signed an unfair contract under duress some decades ago, I can understand that some protection from rogues is perfectly valid. Both of these are a reasonable use of the law. The French example is not protecting anyone from anything – it is pettifogging interference in the market, so as far as I am concerned is not an appropriate use of state force. And I very much doubt the lease specifies what products must be included in the shop’s stock. Likely as not, this is the result of a complaint and the state is pretty much making it up as it goes along – i.e. French people like pork and wine, so therefore should expect to buy these items in a convenience store. I would agree, however, if it had Halal over the doorway, I wouldn’t and would go elsewhere if I wanted those items.
I suggest, therefore, that I am being entirely consistent here.
All food that is Halal or Kosher in the UK should be clearly labelled as such.
Yes, absolutely. Those of us who don’t wish to follow religious dietary rules need fair warning.