3 ms·
It is more so that if a country have maximum sound regulations, then either the law should define exceptions for certain animals, and if it do not, it should be
by Blikkentrekker 6y ago
It is more so that if a country have maximum sound regulations, then either the law should define exceptions for certain animals, and if it do not, it should be treated the same.
I would assume there are certain maximum sound volume regulations in France as they exist in many places.
“tradition” is all too commonly used as an argument to break the law. I do not believe it should play a factor at all whether something happened in the past, merely whether it violate the law.
If France have nationwide rules about sound levels and the rooster exceeded them, then that is all the diligence a man needs to have done. One may certainly expect that the government upholds the law uniformly throughout one's country.
- bobthepanda 6y agoThat would imply a law is always absolutely correct. A legal system is ultimately made by humans who are fallible. And laws, particularly in the US, are usually created by one wealth/social class of people, and historically not made without diverse public input. I don't really care for holding such strict interpretations of law in high regard. It's not as if France doesn't have issues with perceived political elitism, given the existence of the yellow vests.
- Blikkentrekker 6y agoCertainly the power to decide whether laws are “correct” in a specific, rather than general sense is far too much power for any one party to have? If laws could be so easily ignored, we might as well do away with them.