Unstoppable migration?

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Damien

Emma Thompson seems to have done quite a bit to be fair.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_T...#Personal_life

Is she the woman who hates Britain?

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Is she the woman who hates Britain?

Yah.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Taf

You mean politicians?

Wasn't some guy going to buy an island in the Med for refugees? Or was that just another PR exercise?

No I think you mean Merkel and it wasn't an island in the Med it was Greece.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Damien

The way that's worded 'the meat must be intended for consumption by Jews or Muslims' makes me think it's isn't illegal to sell halal meat to non-Muslims or Jews as long as you can reasonably show you intended to provide it for Muslims or Jews. So if you set up a halal butcher in a area with a high Muslim or Jewish population then you would meet that requirement even if end up selling halal meet to people who don't qualify.

That's the way I'm seeing it too, especially as the most recent and easiest-found guidelines don't seem to feature the word "only". I don't really have much of a problem knowing food I eat is halal, it doesn't taste any different and when I'm that hungry the principles regarding whether or not the shop/restaurant should be preparing it for the majority or minority of its customers go out of the window - hunger comes first to be honest. And if they don't offer pork "in case it offends" etc I'll just go somewhere else, there are plenty of other places around here that sell bacon or sausages.

---------- Post added at 06:16 ---------- Previous post was at 06:05 ----------

Originally Posted by nomadking

There's your "ONLY".

Again, very vague. A politician saying what the government's position is, rather than stating an actual clear 'law'. If halal preparation was specifically and unequivocally for Muslim consumption 'only' you'd think it would be set out that way in some legal text. This not seemingly the case makes the interpretation quite ambiguous.

Originally Posted by nomadking

Each individual incident is unlikely to be reported individually. It may not be explicit in nature, just a matter of pork mysteriously disappearing from menus, rather than a statement saying "pork has been banned" or as with Islington Council they could just LIE.

Again, verified numbers of examples seem very hard to come by which leaves people free to interpret the situation as either "Many places are removing (or banning if you want to be dramatic) pork from their menus" or "A few places are removing pork from their menus", depending on political leanings.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Osem

No I think you mean Merkel and it wasn't an island in the Med it was Greece.

Which is in the Med.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Russ

That's the way I'm seeing it too, especially as the most recent and easiest-found guidelines don't seem to feature the word "only". I don't really have much of a problem knowing food I eat is halal, it doesn't taste any different and when I'm that hungry the principles regarding whether or not the shop/restaurant should be preparing it for the majority or minority of its customers go out of the window - hunger comes first to be honest. And if they don't offer pork "in case it offends" etc I'll just go somewhere else, there are plenty of other places around here that sell bacon or sausages.

---------- Post added at 06:16 ---------- Previous post was at 06:05 ----------



Again, very vague. A politician saying what the government's position is, rather than stating an actual clear 'law'. If halal preparation was specifically and unequivocally for Muslim consumption 'only' you'd think it would be set out that way in some legal text. This not seemingly the case makes the interpretation quite ambiguous.



Again, verified numbers of examples seem very hard to come by which leaves people free to interpret the situation as either "Many places are removing (or banning if you want to be dramatic) pork from their menus" or "A few places are removing pork from their menus", depending on political leanings.

The Law
The Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (England) Regulations 2015

Schedule 3
Interpretation
1. In this Schedule—
(a) “bovine animal” means an ox, bullock, cow, heifer, steer or calf;
(b) “bird” means a turkey, domestic fowl, guinea-fowl, duck, goose or quail;
(c) “killing in accordance with religious rites” means killing without the infliction of
unnecessary suffering—
(i) by the Jewish method (Shechita) for the food of Jews by a Jew who is licensed by
the Rabbinical Commission and holds a certificate for that purpose, or
(ii) by the Muslim method (Halal) for the food of Muslims by a Muslim who holds a
certificate for that purpose.
...
General prohibition
2. No person may kill an animal in accordance with religious rites without prior stunning unless it is a sheep, goat, bovine animal or bird killed in a slaughterhouse in accordance with this Schedule.

Several councils have admitted to it. Islington gave the LIE that it was to avoid extra costs in deciding who shouldn't be given pork. The reason it is a lie is that the other meats(eg lamb, chicken) would also have to be Halal. It is not stated that they are Halal, therefore the claimed problem still exists. If it is all Halal then that must have been a requirement of the menu, thereby automatically banning pork.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by pip08456

Which is in the Med.

But is NOT an island.

It borders the Aegean Sea and Ionian Sea too but that wasn't the point.

[Taf]

General prohibition
2. No person may kill an animal in accordance with religious rites without prior stunning unless it is a sheep, goat, bovine animal or bird killed in a slaughterhouse in accordance with this Schedule.

So that statement makes halal and schechita slaughter Illegal in the UK because it causes "unnecessary suffering"? Very badly worded law IMHO.

---------- Post added at 19:44 ---------- Previous post was at 19:43 ----------

Originally Posted by Osem

But is NOT an island.

But it has a lot of islands... in the Med

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Taf

So that statement makes halal and schechita slaughter Illegal in the UK because it causes "unnecessary suffering"? Very badly worded law IMHO.

---------- Post added at 19:44 ---------- Previous post was at 19:43 ----------



But it has a lot of islands... in the Med

It sure does, but I'm not sure they can cope with the outcome of Merkel's madness and the migrants will need to head through the mainland to get elsewhere.

... and to think the Greeks already hated the Germans before their demise at the hands of the EU...

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Taf

So that statement makes halal and schechita slaughter Illegal in the UK because it causes "unnecessary suffering"? Very badly worded law IMHO.

---------- Post added at 19:44 ---------- Previous post was at 19:43 ----------



But it has a lot of islands... in the Med

How is it badly worded? It says "in accordance with this Schedule". The Schedule goes on to specify the conditions for things like restraint, killing, and handling which would indicate what was "necessary".

[Taf]

Originally Posted by nomadking

How is it badly worded? It says "in accordance with this Schedule". The Schedule goes on to specify the conditions for things like restraint, killing, and handling which would indicate what was "necessary".

it says

“killing in accordance with religious rites” means killing without the infliction of unnecessary suffering—

But slashing an animal's throat without first stunning it is, in my belief, inflicting unnecessary suffering.

Originally Posted by nomadking

The Law
The Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (England) Regulations 2015
Several councils have admitted to it. Islington gave the LIE that it was to avoid extra costs in deciding who shouldn't be given pork. The reason it is a lie is that the other meats(eg lamb, chicken) would also have to be Halal. It is not stated that they are Halal, therefore the claimed problem still exists. If it is all Halal then that must have been a requirement of the menu, thereby automatically banning pork.

I don't see where the law forbids non-Muslims/Jews from being sold Halal/Kosher meat though. All it seems to cover is that such meat is only allowed to be produced if it's intended for Muslims and Jews which is obviously the case.

It doesn't state anywhere though that it can't be sold to anyone else though. Without a explicit law banning it I assume it's therefore legal.

Any Halal butcher could easily state they aim to serve Muslims but there is no legal requirement for them to refuse service to non-muslims nor check their religion anyway.

[Russ]

Again, that's how I've been reading it.

Originally Posted by Damien

I don't see where the law forbids non-Muslims/Jews from being sold Halal/Kosher meat though. All it seems to cover is that such meat is only allowed to be produced if it's intended for Muslims and Jews which is obviously the case.

It doesn't state anywhere though that it can't be sold to anyone else though. Without a explicit law banning it I assume it's therefore legal.

Any Halal butcher could easily state they aim to serve Muslims but there is no legal requirement for them to refuse service to non-muslims nor check their religion anyway.

Could you imagine the uproar if they tried to?

[nomadking]

It would be the slaughterhouse that has the responsibility. German has a quota system so that it cannot be misused.