I'm not squeamish about the idea that, for us to eat meat, animals have to die but like the debate over free-range chicken that was promient in the UK earlier this year, we owe these animals a modicum of respect during their lives.

The process of force feeding geese to make foie gras  is self-evident mistreatment bordering on cruelty and seems to be done simply to maximise profit. I have tasted foie gras and it isn't any better to a normal pate imo. Knowing what is involved I will not eat it again and, whilst it may seem prissily politically correct, to ban the product of a cruel practice was a good thing.

keep to the Fen Causeway

That's not what this is about.  This is about the role of government and who dictates what you can and cannot eat.  

"Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.

It's very, very yummy. Plus this is fake animal rights stuff.  Nobody seriously proposes that we insist on free range eggs, chickens and other animal products because that would make them a lot more expensive. Foie gras on the other hand is an elitist latte eating arugula drinking food, and it's even got a frenchy name. Perhaps if we called it 'freedom liver'...

I mean, look at the way cows and chickens and all matter of animals are treated in factory farming.  If this was about caring about the animals, they'd close down all of the McDonalds and most the the supermarkets in the city.  This was about one person-whom I personally know-using this issue to gain fame and notoriety.  This was never about caring about the treatment of animals.  Foie Gras is not even produced in this city.  The ban was on serving it at restaurants.  In America - this is generally not considered the role of government.  They can regulate the factory farming industry and enact laws to protect animals.  But this law had nothing to do with that.  This was only about what you could legally order at a restaurant, at a handful of restaurants at that.  It in no way was wide-scale enough to have any impact on the treatment of animals in the production of food.  It was a strategy to get one man's name on the political map.  And it worked, but it backfired.  Because in a city where kids are being shot everyday, where the infrastructure is crumbling, where the schools are failing, the people passing laws are arguing about what appetizers resaurants should serve.  In a city of 3 million people, few of whom will ever eat the stuff, it's an embarassment.  There is an overwhelming concensus, even among vegetarians, that this is not what our city government should being focussed on!

"Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.