Why do people complain about Halal and not Kosher?
If we aren't a Muslim country who do we need Halal meat ? It is the removal of choice in buying Halal meat that is the point. Kosher products are often labelled and it doesn't just cover meat but other item.
There is also the fact that people know how animal killed using traditional methods has been slaughtered and whether it has been stunned as some Muslims object to an animal being stunned before its throat it cut.
If we aren't a Muslim country who do we need Halal meat ? It is the removal of choice in buying Halal meat that is the point. Kosher products are often labelled and it doesn't just cover meat but other item.
There is also the fact that people know how animal killed using traditional methods has been slaughtered and whether it has been stunned as some Muslims object to an animal being stunned before its throat it cut.
Does the meat taste any different and do you think you are buying an inferior product?
If you don't want to buy it, go to a butcher where they kill the animal in a much nicer way (but it's still dead).
Does the meat taste any different and do you think you are buying an inferior product?
If you don't want to buy it, go to a butcher where they kill the animal in a much nicer way (but it's still dead).
Still why should supermarkets in this country have to stock halal meant if we aren't a Muslim country.
If they don't want to buy non-halal meant they can go to a Muslim butcher and buy halal meant.
So the culture has changed because Muslims want to buy halal meat and English culture has been eroded. Why do places such as Subway sell unlabelled meat ?
It's not just about the weekly shop but various other products.
1) Still why should supermarkets in this country have to stock halal meant if we aren't a Muslim country.
If they don't want to buy non-halal meant they can go to a Muslim butcher and buy halal meant.
So the culture has changed because Muslims want to buy halal meat and English culture has been eroded.
2) Why do places such as Subway sell unlabelled meat ?
It's not just about the weekly shop but various other products.
1) Why shouldn't they? It's a commercial decision and if people (apart from a few islamophobes) raised objections then the supermarkets would alter their stock and labelling to make more profits.
2) Commercial expedience. If you are worried, ask the person behind the counter about the origin of the meat and if enough people do that, then they will start labelling the origins in order to increase customer share and profits. Otherwise boycott he place and tell them why, and they will respond to customer pressure.
Still why should supermarkets in this country have to stock halal meant if we aren't a Muslim country.
If they don't want to buy non-halal meant they can go to a Muslim butcher and buy halal meant.
So the culture has changed because Muslims want to buy halal meat and English culture has been eroded. Why do places such as Subway sell unlabelled meat ?
It's not just about the weekly shop but various other products.
Supermarkets don't have to stock anything they don't want to - they chose to for business reasons, the freedom to transact is as it's always been.
Most subways I've observed have a squiggly halal sign to indicate what they sell.
This inhumane nonsense is so hypocritical as well. If your willing to tear the flesh of dead animals with your teeth but are concerned about how a halal or non halal animal meets is demise you have serious contradictions in your head to resolve.
There are only two accents in the UK that many people struggle with - Geordie and Aberdonian. All others don't need sub titles. Why we have problems with Geordie and Aberdonian I do not know.
I have many relatives in Paisley and of course it has quite a lot of media personalities from andrew neil (sun) to David Tennant and Peter Capalidi (dr whos)... I've yet to meet someone who struggles to understand Glaswegian. And if anyone can't understand Edinburgh then of course words totally fail me. LOL. Does ITVs "Tagget" need subtitles - give me a break.
You're not using personal experience as proof are you? If so can I add my own extensive research (based on a sample of one) that the people of Lairg need subtitles to watch Eastenders.
1) Why shouldn't they? It's a commercial decision and if people (apart from a few islamophobes) raised objections then the supermarkets would alter their stock and labelling to make more profits.
2) Commercial expedience. If you are worried, ask the person behind the counter about the origin of the meat and if enough people do that, then they will start labelling the origins in order to increase customer share and profits. Otherwise boycott he place and tell them why, and they will respond to customer pressure.
Why shouldn't they ? The topic was about culture and halal in not part English culture but the country is being forced to accept it along with burka's.
People shouldn't need to ask, England is not a Muslim a country so halal should be labeled. Do people need to ask for nuts in food, nope because their labelled to avoid it.
Supermarkets don't have to stock anything they don't want to - they chose to for business reasons, the freedom to transact is as it's always been.
Most subways I've observed have a squiggly halal sign to indicate what they sell.
This inhumane nonsense is so hypocritical as well. If your willing to tear the flesh of dead animals with your teeth but are concerned about how a halal or non halal animal meets is demise you have serious contradictions in your head to resolve.
In a democratic county the choice to have halal in certain products has been removed.
The religious needs of one group has been placed above another which and in many cases without even consulting people.
Why shouldn't they ? The topic was about culture and halal in not part English culture but the country is being forced to accept it along with burka's.
People shouldn't need to ask, England is not a Muslim a country so halal should be labeled. Do people need to ask for nuts in food, nope because their labelled to avoid it.
In a democratic county the choice to have halal in certain products has been removed.
The religious needs of one group has been placed above another which and in many cases without even consulting people.
Companies aren't interested in meeting religious needs - they simply cater to demand, for their own commercial reasons.
Why shouldn't they ? The topic was about culture and halal in not part English culture but the country is being forced to accept it along with burka's.
People shouldn't need to ask, England is not a Muslim a country so halal should be labeled. Do people need to ask for nuts in food, nope because their labelled to avoid it.
In a democratic county the choice to have halal in certain products has been removed.
The religious needs of one group has been placed above another which and in many cases without even consulting people.
The whole idea of any buisness is to make money, And if this is were the money is so be it. It is not a buisness job to worry about culture
Your point only in part eludes to violent opposition but fundamentally eludes to opposition to British artistic values.
There is ultimately no difference in the mindset of someone protesting against a play and being arrested for public disorder in the course of their actions and another who protests against a play and demands a broadcaster to be arested for blasphemy.
Both are the antithesis of what you describe.
Demanding the detention of somebody for freedom of speech is in its own way thuggish and far more disturbing than 3 unruly sikhs.
Oh there is a difference which you fail to appreciate. If blasphemy is a law in force in the UK then requesting that someone be tried for blasphemy is working within the law. That decision is then made by the relevant authorities. AS frequently referred to here Freedom of Speech is a limited right. That is the proper way to contest any production that one feels is not in accordance with the law. We know Rushdie was threatened with death, we know publishing houses were firebombed, we know the Bezhti play was abandoned because of mob violence and extensive damage to the theatre.
The thugs have won because breaking the law with violence brings the result wished for when no law was being broken by the book or the play. The Christians learned that lesson with JS The opera as clearly indicated by the quote.
Now to go one step further Nick Griffin was roundly condemned for his well aimed fist and boot quote to counter left wing opposition, it seems the left wing have a great deal of sympathy for that particular way of conducting politics. It is the hypocrisy of it all.
Oh there is a difference which you fail to appreciate. If blasphemy is a law in force in the UK then requesting that someone be tried for blasphemy is working within the law. That decision is then made by the relevant authorities. AS frequently referred to here Freedom of Speech is a limited right. That is the proper way to contest any production that one feels is not in accordance with the law. We know Rushdie was threatened with death, we know publishing houses were firebombed, we know the Bezhti play was abandoned because of mob violence and extensive damage to the theatre.
The thugs have won because breaking the law with violence brings the result wished for when no law was being broken by the book or the play. The Christians learned that lesson with JS The opera as clearly indicated by the quote.
Now to go one step further Nick Griffin was roundly condemned for his well aimed fist and boot quote to counter left wing opposition, it seems the left wing have a great deal of sympathy for that particular way of conducting politics. It is the hypocrisy of it all.
You stated
The Rushdie affair was basically Islamic cultures unable to adapt to the specific freedoms of expression in the arts that had only just been gained for Western culture
Similarly the Christian reaction to the Jerry Springer Opera by calling for the Blasphemy law to be used to detain the broadcaster is demonstration of an inability to adapt to "specific freedoms of expression in the arts that had only just been gained for Western culture"
Regardless of the method used to show disapproval the mind set of the groups are the same. It's same same.
I must say it's illuminating to see how you can intricately present an argument to resolve a double standard.
You're not using personal experience as proof are you? If so can I add my own extensive research (based on a sample of one) that the people of Lairg need subtitles to watch Eastenders.
People in Scotland do not watch Eastenders. If its not Coronation St its not a proper halal soap. That my friend is a fact you can take home to the bank! To be honest with you I've never heard of a single person who watches EE, I think the viewing figures are fake.
Does the meat taste any different and do you think you are buying an inferior product?
If you don't want to buy it, go to a butcher where they kill the animal in a much nicer way (but it's still dead).
You seem to be saying that the UK slaughter regulations for the humane slaughter of animals should just be ignored and people fed with animals slaughtered any old how.
Throughout the EU there are several countries that slaughter without stunning at all and even in the UK and Ireland large numbers are slaughtered without stunning at all. An animal that is killed is still dead we used to pride ourselves on doing that humanely or at least trying to enforce regulations that made it so. We now seem to have just rolled over. That is the point British culture in this respect has been eroded and now most do not care as evidenced by your answer. There was a time all abattoirs had to do it in a much nicer way unless specifically derogated.
People in Scotland do not watch Eastenders. If its not Coronation St its not a proper halal soap. That my friend is a fact you can take home to the bank! To be honest with you I've never heard of a single person who watches EE, I think the viewing figures are fake.
I do and so does my other half, so that's two you've heard of now.
Supermarkets don't have to stock anything they don't want to - they chose to for business reasons, the freedom to transact is as it's always been.
Most subways I've observed have a squiggly halal sign to indicate what they sell.
This inhumane nonsense is so hypocritical as well. If your willing to tear the flesh of dead animals with your teeth but are concerned about how a halal or non halal animal meets is demise you have serious contradictions in your head to resolve.
Not so, meat eating is a human trait common to almost all societies. The point is about culture and how the British culture tries its best to be humane about that trait but at the same time being considerate of the beliefs of others. More fool us eh? No good will come of it.
Similarly the Christian reaction to the Jerry Springer Opera by calling for the Blasphemy law to be used to detain the broadcaster is demonstration of an inability to adapt to "specific freedoms of expression in the arts that had only just been gained for Western culture"
Regardless of the method used to show disapproval the mind set of the groups are the same. It's same same.
I must say it's illuminating to see how you can intricately present an argument to resolve a double standard.
No the Christian tried to use the law. That route was open to Muslims and Sikhs, if it was tried it failed and they adopted the violent method. The Christians for JS the opera learned the lesson that violence worked.
Where is the double standard?
No the Christian tried to use the law. That route was open to Muslims and Sikhs, if it was tried it failed and they adopted the violent method. The Christians for JS the opera learned the lesson that violence worked.
Where is the double standard?
There are two strands to your argument; firstly violent protest and secondaly offence taken to artistic expression.
I can condem violent protest and believe those involved should have (and were) prosecuted, on this I'm sure we agree.
The double standard, and this is the second strand of your argument, is your disapproval of foreign cultures being unable to adapt to western artistic expression but at the same being unable critisise Christians for showing the same behaviour.
Do you disapprove or approve of Christian requests for a broadcaster to be detained on the grounds of blasphemy?
If British culture has been eroded, then I don't think it's any different to most other countries. I recently watched some music videos from China. If it wasn't for the language of the lyrics, even there English is occasionally used, they could have been made anywhere.
Not so, meat eating is a human trait common to almost all societies. The point is about culture and how the British culture tries its best to be humane about that trait but at the same time being considerate of the beliefs of others. More fool us eh? No good will come of it.
Meat eating being a common human trait doesn't preclude it from being hypocritical.
There are two strands to your argument; firstly violent protest and secondaly offence taken to artistic expression.
I can condem violent protest and believe those involved should have (and were) prosecuted, on this I'm sure we agree.
The double standard, and this is the second strand of your argument, is your disapproval of foreign cultures being unable to adapt to western artistic expression but at the same being unable critisise Christians for showing the same behaviour.
Do you disapprove or approve of Christian requests for a broadcaster to be detained on the grounds of blasphemy?
Start with the question was it legal for them to make that demand? Yes. Did they plan to use the existing law to have their way? Yes. It is difficult to object to someone working within the legal framework of the UK. I may disagree with their intent very much but the law is the law I may even take extreme exception to that actually being the law. The Christians seemed to wish to operate within the law but learned the lesson of the foreign cultures that violence is what works irrespective of what the law allows. There is no double standard there that is being consistent.
The foreign cultures worked in ways they are used to operating in that the Plebiscite is not what you sit down and agree it is the shouty version. This goes all the way back to Ray Honeyford who met the same shouty aggresive version over 30 years ago and the shouty aggressive version was the winning one. Cultural erosion is just that erosion, litlle by little, with occasional leaps and bounds.
1) Why shouldn't they? It's a commercial decision and if people (apart from a few islamophobes) raised objections then the supermarkets would alter their stock and labelling to make more profits.
.
Concern about animal rights is not 'Islamaphobic'. Am I anti semitic for wanting cruelly kiled Kosher meat banned?
Meat eating being a common human trait doesn't preclude it from being hypocritical.
What is hypocritical? If you start from the premise that meat eating exists then the idea is to ensure that the animals you breed for that purpose are treated well in life and dispatched as quickly and as painlessly as possible. That seems to be the humane route to take if one is a meat eater.
Start with the question was it legal for them to make that demand? Yes. Did they plan to use the existing law to have their way? Yes. It is difficult to object to someone working within the legal framework of the UK. I may disagree with their intent very much but the law is the law I may even take extreme exception to that actually being the law. The Christians seemed to wish to operate within the law but learned the lesson of the foreign cultures that violence is what works irrespective of what the law allows. There is no double standard there that is being consistent.
The foreign cultures worked in ways they are used to operating in that the Plebiscite is not what you sit down and agree it is the shouty version. This goes all the way back to Ray Honeyford who met the same shouty aggresive version over 30 years ago and the shouty aggressive version was the winning one. Cultural erosion is just that erosion, litlle by little, with occasional leaps and bounds.
I think it's possible to extract from some where in your answer that you do disapprove and therefore agree that Jerry Springer the opera is an example of Christians being unable to adapt to western artistic expression.
What is hypocritical? If you start from the premise that meat eating exists then the idea is to ensure that the animals you breed for that purpose are treated well in life and dispatched as quickly and as painlessly as possible. That seems to be the humane route to take if one is a meat eater.
Do you honestly believe that anybody who has read just a few of your posts believes that you give a toss about how animals are treated and slaughtered?
Only ones that will swallow this guff are your fellow extremists
Comments
If we aren't a Muslim country who do we need Halal meat ? It is the removal of choice in buying Halal meat that is the point. Kosher products are often labelled and it doesn't just cover meat but other item.
There is also the fact that people know how animal killed using traditional methods has been slaughtered and whether it has been stunned as some Muslims object to an animal being stunned before its throat it cut.
Does the meat taste any different and do you think you are buying an inferior product?
If you don't want to buy it, go to a butcher where they kill the animal in a much nicer way (but it's still dead).
Still why should supermarkets in this country have to stock halal meant if we aren't a Muslim country.
If they don't want to buy non-halal meant they can go to a Muslim butcher and buy halal meant.
So the culture has changed because Muslims want to buy halal meat and English culture has been eroded. Why do places such as Subway sell unlabelled meat ?
It's not just about the weekly shop but various other products.
http://www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/58447/halal-what-halal-meat-and-it-inhumane
2) Commercial expedience. If you are worried, ask the person behind the counter about the origin of the meat and if enough people do that, then they will start labelling the origins in order to increase customer share and profits. Otherwise boycott he place and tell them why, and they will respond to customer pressure.
Supermarkets don't have to stock anything they don't want to - they chose to for business reasons, the freedom to transact is as it's always been.
Most subways I've observed have a squiggly halal sign to indicate what they sell.
This inhumane nonsense is so hypocritical as well. If your willing to tear the flesh of dead animals with your teeth but are concerned about how a halal or non halal animal meets is demise you have serious contradictions in your head to resolve.
You're not using personal experience as proof are you? If so can I add my own extensive research (based on a sample of one) that the people of Lairg need subtitles to watch Eastenders.
Why shouldn't they ? The topic was about culture and halal in not part English culture but the country is being forced to accept it along with burka's.
People shouldn't need to ask, England is not a Muslim a country so halal should be labeled. Do people need to ask for nuts in food, nope because their labelled to avoid it.
In a democratic county the choice to have halal in certain products has been removed.
The religious needs of one group has been placed above another which and in many cases without even consulting people.
Companies aren't interested in meeting religious needs - they simply cater to demand, for their own commercial reasons.
The whole idea of any buisness is to make money, And if this is were the money is so be it. It is not a buisness job to worry about culture
Oh there is a difference which you fail to appreciate. If blasphemy is a law in force in the UK then requesting that someone be tried for blasphemy is working within the law. That decision is then made by the relevant authorities. AS frequently referred to here Freedom of Speech is a limited right. That is the proper way to contest any production that one feels is not in accordance with the law. We know Rushdie was threatened with death, we know publishing houses were firebombed, we know the Bezhti play was abandoned because of mob violence and extensive damage to the theatre.
The thugs have won because breaking the law with violence brings the result wished for when no law was being broken by the book or the play. The Christians learned that lesson with JS The opera as clearly indicated by the quote.
Now to go one step further Nick Griffin was roundly condemned for his well aimed fist and boot quote to counter left wing opposition, it seems the left wing have a great deal of sympathy for that particular way of conducting politics. It is the hypocrisy of it all.
You stated
Similarly the Christian reaction to the Jerry Springer Opera by calling for the Blasphemy law to be used to detain the broadcaster is demonstration of an inability to adapt to "specific freedoms of expression in the arts that had only just been gained for Western culture"
Regardless of the method used to show disapproval the mind set of the groups are the same. It's same same.
I must say it's illuminating to see how you can intricately present an argument to resolve a double standard.
People in Scotland do not watch Eastenders. If its not Coronation St its not a proper halal soap. That my friend is a fact you can take home to the bank! To be honest with you I've never heard of a single person who watches EE, I think the viewing figures are fake.
You seem to be saying that the UK slaughter regulations for the humane slaughter of animals should just be ignored and people fed with animals slaughtered any old how.
Throughout the EU there are several countries that slaughter without stunning at all and even in the UK and Ireland large numbers are slaughtered without stunning at all. An animal that is killed is still dead we used to pride ourselves on doing that humanely or at least trying to enforce regulations that made it so. We now seem to have just rolled over. That is the point British culture in this respect has been eroded and now most do not care as evidenced by your answer. There was a time all abattoirs had to do it in a much nicer way unless specifically derogated.
I do and so does my other half, so that's two you've heard of now.
Not so, meat eating is a human trait common to almost all societies. The point is about culture and how the British culture tries its best to be humane about that trait but at the same time being considerate of the beliefs of others. More fool us eh? No good will come of it.
No the Christian tried to use the law. That route was open to Muslims and Sikhs, if it was tried it failed and they adopted the violent method. The Christians for JS the opera learned the lesson that violence worked.
Where is the double standard?
There are two strands to your argument; firstly violent protest and secondaly offence taken to artistic expression.
I can condem violent protest and believe those involved should have (and were) prosecuted, on this I'm sure we agree.
The double standard, and this is the second strand of your argument, is your disapproval of foreign cultures being unable to adapt to western artistic expression but at the same being unable critisise Christians for showing the same behaviour.
Do you disapprove or approve of Christian requests for a broadcaster to be detained on the grounds of blasphemy?
Meat eating being a common human trait doesn't preclude it from being hypocritical.
Start with the question was it legal for them to make that demand? Yes. Did they plan to use the existing law to have their way? Yes. It is difficult to object to someone working within the legal framework of the UK. I may disagree with their intent very much but the law is the law I may even take extreme exception to that actually being the law. The Christians seemed to wish to operate within the law but learned the lesson of the foreign cultures that violence is what works irrespective of what the law allows. There is no double standard there that is being consistent.
The foreign cultures worked in ways they are used to operating in that the Plebiscite is not what you sit down and agree it is the shouty version. This goes all the way back to Ray Honeyford who met the same shouty aggresive version over 30 years ago and the shouty aggressive version was the winning one. Cultural erosion is just that erosion, litlle by little, with occasional leaps and bounds.
Concern about animal rights is not 'Islamaphobic'. Am I anti semitic for wanting cruelly kiled Kosher meat banned?
What is hypocritical? If you start from the premise that meat eating exists then the idea is to ensure that the animals you breed for that purpose are treated well in life and dispatched as quickly and as painlessly as possible. That seems to be the humane route to take if one is a meat eater.
I think it's possible to extract from some where in your answer that you do disapprove and therefore agree that Jerry Springer the opera is an example of Christians being unable to adapt to western artistic expression.
Do you honestly believe that anybody who has read just a few of your posts believes that you give a toss about how animals are treated and slaughtered?
Only ones that will swallow this guff are your fellow extremists