Of course, that’s why the furore over unlabelled Halal meat. The other reasons just don’t hold up to scrutiny. At least, not according to Elizabeth Day.
Day considers the various options for objecting to supermarkets foisting halal meat onto unsuspecting consumers. The fact that some of us might not want to be forced to undergo religious ritual by proxy. This is dismissed even though for some – such as Sikhs, Halal is something their religion actively forbids. I am inclined to agree with her dismissal of the animal welfare point simply because mass slaughter of animals is pretty ugly and unpleasant however it is done. Those of us who consume meat are handing the responsibility for slaughter onto others. And, yes, I accept the charge of hypocrisy here.
But it is the third option that Day favours – this being the Guardian are we surprised?
It is the third argument that holds the key. The fuss over halal meat stems from a fear of otherness. It comes from an anxiety that we are being “taken over”, that our green and pleasant land is in danger of being overrun by people who are in some crucial, dangerous way Not Like Us. In truth, Muslims represent just 4.8% of the British population but eat 12% to 15% of all meat consumed. Supermarket halal makes simple consumerist sense.
No, it does not “make sense”. If supermarkets wish to cater for Muslim customers, then provide clearly labelled halal meat. It really is that simple. To force the rest of us to eat it unknowingly is wrong. Plain and simple. That is what the furore is all about and it is not some sort of Islamophobia to kick up a fuss – for 4% of the population are effectively forcing their dietary requirements on the rest of us. Fuck off already!
How many more of these articles is the ‘Guardian’ going to run?
And since when did progressives think that questioning what Big Business is putting in our food was a BAD thing?
They can process their bloody meat exactly how they want, i couldn’t give a stuff what any bugger else does, and i’ll reserve my right to spend my money where and with whom i see fit.
The more these people try to tell me what i think and do is wrong, the more i’ll do me own thing, ta everso.
Since M&S surrendered to some wingeing blighter on a till, too precious to serve alcohol, i haven’t stepped inside their door, and i won’t again.
I have news for retail business…the customer, that’s me sweety with my cash, is always right, you are not doing me a favour by allowing me to buy whatever tat you happen to be pedalling today.
Most of us shop on Sunday now so why not move the ‘weekend’ to start on Friday? It won’t affect most of us but it will give the 4% a Friday free to pray.
Why not cover all our girls in primary school? There is no religious compulsion not to do it and it will stop the 4% from feeling ‘different’.
Why not make Arabic the state language? There is no legal requirement to use English and it would help the little boys of the 4% to get more from their after-school lessons.
There must be a critical size for a minority, or perhaps an attitude? I heard a Sikh being told on Radio 2, in response to his claim that his religion forbade eating halal meat, that “perhaps it is a numbers thing?”, i.e. Sikh are too few to bother with but the 4% is (commercially?) significant.
I can’t, for the life of me, understand why these self-styled ‘progressives’ pander to an archaic mediæval religion which insists that women are mere possessions, girls can be forcibly married prior to puberty, there is no rape in marriage, stoning is appropriate punishment for adultery etc., – all things which they would decry in anyone else.
Could it be that they – the ‘progressives/Guardianistas, that is – hate the rest of us so much that they will adulate any cult which seeks our downfall?
Total & utter prats, every one of them, without exception.
I’s ship ’em all to Kabul or Kandahar and see how long they’d last preaching to their beloved converted…
It’s an argument that won’t last long. If I was running a supermarket I’d already be planning a small section for displaying non-halal meat (at a slight premium, of course) for the minority who object.
A perfect free market response and problem solved (until Graun readers think up some other absurd objection).
I deeply object to to having halal muck introduced into my food without my knowledge.
I am an atheist and an animal lover and I have no interest in eating meat that has been prayed over by some ginger bearded Satanist, let alone meat that has suffered and been treated with such cruelty.
If I liked pork it would almost be worth only ever eating pork because at least I would know with 100% certainty it was not halal.
Why should I eat Halal meat, if they want to eat it go to a halal butchers.
We ceased shopping in ASDA where the vast majority of their meat was Halal because of the area we lived in, we flatly refuse to use M&S and since Subway announced they use Halal meat we never frequent there either, our local paper announced this week that Pizza express are using Halal chicken in our area so we won’t be going there any more either.
It’s our money and we spend it in non halal shops, because that’s our right.
‘Muslims represent just 4.8% of the British population but eat 12% to 15% of all meat consumed’
Does anyone know the source for this figure?
I bought a leg of (English) lamb on Saturday and no-one asked my religion; I can’t imagine how one would set about getting reliable figures to inform such a statement – unless, of course, someone, somewhere, got it arse-about-face and quoted the figures for sales of halal meat.
I suspect that, rather like the obesity statistics, this is a deduction wrapped in an extrapolation inside a theory.
This paper by the House of Commons Library is interesting Religious Meat Consumption.
Especially interesting is the comment that it might be uneconomic to produce Kosher meat because unwanted parts of the slaughter animal are sold on the general market and informed consumers might not then buy it.
EAT MORE PORK!
Obvious, innit?
I don’t think I’ve ever read such an ignorant racist piece of crap as that in a year. And this in the paper that employs Polly Toynbee, Seamus Milne, Owen Jones and George Monbiot.
I’m a vegetarian but if I did eat meat I would have a serious problem with unlabelled Halal or Kosher meat being sold to me without my knowledge. I have a more general problem with religious organisations being granted exceptions from laws that everyone else has to abide by. We have laws regarding methods of animal slaughter for a reason. We have laws against discrimination on the grounds of race, sex and sexual orientation for a reason. If religious people think that our reasons are based on mistaken evidence, let them make their case and have the law changed in light of their superior evidence. It could be that Halal and Kosher methods of animal slaughter really are just as humane as the legal method, but if these religious minorities cannot demonstrate that this is so, I see no reason to allow them to ignore the law just because their imaginary friend insists.
Well of course government – that thing you don’t believe in – should have regulations – another thing you don’t like – to require full disclosure on the label, so that the consumer can see whether the item contains ritually slaughtered meat or GM produced ingredients. But hey, that would be big government telling businesses what to do. And we could never have that, could we. Another conservative libertarian mugged by reality. You’d have to have a heart of stone not to laugh out loud.
“Another conservative libertarian mugged by reality. You’d have to have a heart of stone not to laugh out loud.”
And yet the government voted not to enforce halal labelling. So your solution has failed.
And the BBC are making it seem that one of the reasons the vote failed wasn’t because our masters decided it wasn’t the best option. But because they were scared of being accused of discrimination.
Another brutal totalitarian mugged by the reality of not just politics, but the lefty politics he claims to support.
And you’re seeing the problems of government regulation. For consumers: when the government starts regulating stuff it introduces moral hazard – people stop thinking for themselves and rely on the government. But the government can’t possibly cover every single eventuality.
And for producers: they know government regulation tricks consumers into peace of mind, so they have no need to go over and beyond the state mandated minimum. So they very rarely do.
I’d suggest looking into the work of Gabriel Kolko to learn what regulation actually is, and not simply repeat the fairy-tale propaganda about it, which anyone with half a a brain can see is clearly false. Kolko being an anti-capitalist lefty should hopefully mean his views hold some water with you.
I never mentioned more regulation. None is required. So, nice strawman, but no cigar. Likewise your feeble attempt to label me.
“Likewise your feeble attempt to label me.”
But if you’re not a good little lefty, surely the only alternative is a baby-eating conservative?
Two dimensional thinking. Pathetic, really.
I refuse to eat halal babies.
‘And yet the government voted not to enforce halal labelling. ‘
Does the British government have the authority to decide on how food is labeled? It might well be an EU issue, it was over the horse meat farrago.
It woulde be useful to have a list of acceptable ‘phobes.
As a principle I’ve thought of being agin eveything but it is rather tiring.
My religion requires me to cut Guardian writers’ throats, but I am discriminated against.