On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 6:30 PM, Ted Lemon <mellon(_at_)fugue(_dot_)com> wrote:
On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 6:12 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <
jordi(_dot_)palet(_at_)consulintel(_dot_)es> wrote:
I don’t agree it makes a difference if it is a stare-rule of and
environmental thing, also because as we need to contract the venue 2-3
years in advance, both situations can change in that period of time.
+1
That is not a distinction we make now: at present, there are locations we
avoid at least in part because they are not as safe as the locations to
which we presently go.
I believe we do distinguish this now, and that we should continue to do
so. There are classes of activity (visa issuance, to take an obvious
example) which are reserved to the state, and we have to treat those
differently.
You might feel safer in one area of Paris than another, to take the example
given above, but the *Loi interdisant la dissimulation du visage dans
l'espace public *will effect you equally in both.
Ted Hardie