"Feldman argues, correctly in our view, that because the central core meaning of dignity is not clear, there are dangers in using it as a value from which to develop specific rights.63 He points out that dignity can be used as an instrument of legal paternalism: Classical liberal notions such as autonomy depend on the state respecting the right of individuals to choose both the desirable ends of their own lives and (within certain limits) the means by which they pursue those ends. The presence of dignity, by contrast .. is determined objectively, at least in part. A government, court or tribunal concerned with dignity need not defer to the subjective judgment of an indiviual as to what is good for him or her. Instead it is open to public authorities to make their own assessments as the demands of dignity and the kinds of existence or activity whicch are conducive to it.64 An example of the paternalistic use of dignity is the French case in which the Conseil d'Etat upheld orders made by local authorities in Versailles and Marseilles banning dwarf throwing competitions on the grounds that such spectacles were an affront to human dignity.65"