Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Valmy]

(no mention of the far worse kosher of course).

Really? You are upset there is insufficient hatred of Jews among racist shitbags in the world? When are people finally going to stop this hypocrisy and start hating Jews!!!???

I thought you were going to say something about industrialized meat production or something.

Really they should be hating nobody.
But that they are protesting halal but not kosher highlights that its not actually animal rights that they're concerned about so much as having a stick to beat muslims with.

I would probably agree but from what you guys have been telling me the UK has eccentric and weird attitudes towards animals.

Again if they were protesting Kosher as well would their protest of Halal then by good and righteous? It seems to me if one is going to eat animals there probably are bad and worse ways to do it, it just seems a weird angle. You should kill animals to eat them in a different way!!!11

[Sheilbh]

I would probably agree but from what you guys have been telling me the UK has eccentric and weird attitudes towards animals.

Again if they were protesting Kosher as well would their protest of Halal then by good and righteous? It seems to me if one is going to eat animals there probably are bad and worse ways to do it, it just seems a weird angle. You should kill animals to eat them in a different way!!!11

Yeah - that's why I think it's mainly Islamophobic in motivation but if you frame it in an animal cruelty way (i.e. halal slaughter is unnecessarily cruel to the animal compared to other meat industry slaughter) then you reach a wider audience.

This isn't just a Brit thing though - the CJEU has ruled that it's not discriminatory to ban ritual slaughter. I think Flanders already has (again - halal is the target, but kosher is also banned).

The furthest it's got here has been a few councils only buying pre-stunned animals - and, as with headscarf (technically all visible religious symbols) bans, it's seen as pretty obviously Islamophobic or anti-semitic here.

[Zanza]

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20151214-why-do-brits-talk-about-the-weather-so-much

According to recent research, 94% of British respondents admit to having conversed about the weather in the past six hours, while 38% say they have in the past 60 minutes. "This means at almost any moment in this country, at least a third of the population is either talking about the weather, has already done so or is about to do so," says social anthropologist Kate Fox, who performed the studies in 2010 for an update of her book Watching the English.

Well, did you?

[viper37]

This isn't just a Brit thing though - the CJEU has ruled that it's not discriminatory to ban ritual slaughter. I think Flanders already has (again - halal is the target, but kosher is also banned).

Does ritual slaughter means only the slaughters made "at home", or does it include all slaughters?
And don't they stun the animal before cutting its throat?  I believe this is standard practice here.

the most hotly debated topic has been to force Muslims to abide by our sanitary laws - which is almost never done - , i.e., have the animal slaughtered outside of the place where it was grown and using proper techniques (stunning).

[The Brain]

I saw Kali sacrifices in Nepal. Shit seemed OK.

[Josquius]

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20151214-why-do-brits-talk-about-the-weather-so-much

According to recent research, 94% of British respondents admit to having conversed about the weather in the past six hours, while 38% say they have in the past 60 minutes. "This means at almost any moment in this country, at least a third of the population is either talking about the weather, has already done so or is about to do so," says social anthropologist Kate Fox, who performed the studies in 2010 for an update of her book Watching the English.

Well, did you?

When I read this I'd just woken up. So no. 6 hours seems much too short an amount of time, especially in these corona times where you don't have casual chats to people. Curious odd little study. I'm dubious.

This isn't just a Brit thing though - the CJEU has ruled that it's not discriminatory to ban ritual slaughter. I think Flanders already has (again - halal is the target, but kosher is also banned).

Does ritual slaughter means only the slaughters made "at home", or does it include all slaughters?
And don't they stun the animal before cutting its throat?  I believe this is standard practice here.

the most hotly debated topic has been to force Muslims to abide by our sanitary laws - which is almost never done - , i.e., have the animal slaughtered outside of the place where it was grown and using proper techniques (stunning).

That's where there's interesting own goals being scored by those moaning about halal 'for animal rights reasons' but ignoring kosher- the same groups usually make a big show of being pro-Israel, bigging up how much the left are anti-semitic, etc...
Under halal, yes, animals are stunned before the slaughter anyway so its really not a big deal.
Under kosher however it is forbidden to do this.

(Though to be fair on the comparisons from what I hear most regular Jews in the country these days aren't too bothered about kosher slaughter. Its mostly just an issue for the orthodox)

[Duque de Bragança]

Around here, islamists hate Jews but side with them to preserve the hallal and kosher business, with some Jewish businessmen having interests in both.  Having the local islamist paying his hallal tax to "his" hated jews cracks me up.

As for criticizing hallal and not kosher, it does not carry the stigma of being an evil anti-semite. Some countries ban both, however, mostly a function of how many muslims and jews they have, plus the matança countryside tradition.

As for me, being used to the matança do porco, hallal or kosher-style, ritual slaughter does not bother me. I like to point out the contradictions of not just vegans who criticize it, yet in PC and woke fashion say nothing about halal or kosher.

This map of Europe and Turkey (the latter being completely irrelevant since it's a muslim country anyways).

Legal requirements for ritual slaughter in Europe 2018:
Red Stunning not required
Light green Post-cut stunning required
Turquoise blue Simultaneous stunning required
Dark green Pre-cut stunning required
Blue Ritual slaughter banned
Grey No data

As for no data, the countries being muslim, it does not take a genius to see if it's allowed or not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritual_slaughter#European_restrictions_on_ritual_slaughter

Double standard like vegans criticizing slaughter of animals but not saying a thing about halal and kosher slaughtering (clearly worse since the animal is not stunned) are more common than the jewish muslim dichotomy. Countries such as Denmark or more recently Belgium. I would be curious to see if it's really enforced in Belgium. I am skeptical, be it in Flanders or Wallonia.
In France, with huge muslim and jewish populations, this would be much more difficult to enforce. Besides, the old abuses such as bathtub ritual slaughter in the bathtub in social housing, or better in the shared showers/bathtubs in some in the older ones, or even last floor (for the poors) of old buildings is mostly gone.

[Sheilbh]

My area - so this is interesting:

UK to overhaul privacy rules in post-Brexit departure from GDPR
Culture secretary says move could lead to an end to irritating cookie popups and consent requests online
Alex Hern
@alexhern
Thu 26 Aug 2021 10.19 BST

Britain will attempt to move away from European data protection regulations as it overhauls its privacy rules after Brexit, the government has announced.

The freedom to chart its own course could lead to an end to irritating cookie popups and consent requests online, said the culture secretary, Oliver Dowden, as he called for rules based on "common sense, not box-ticking".

But any changes will be constrained by the need to offer a new regime that the EU deems adequate, otherwise data transfers between the UK and EU could be frozen.

A new information commissioner will be put in charge of overseeing the transformation. John Edwards, currently the privacy commissioner of New Zealand, has been named as the government's preferred candidate to replace Elizabeth Denham, whose term in office will end on 31 October after a three-month extension.

Dowden said: "Now that we have left the EU I'm determined to seize the opportunity by developing a world-leading data policy that will deliver a Brexit dividend for individuals and businesses across the UK.

"It means reforming our own data laws so that they're based on common sense, not box-ticking. And it means having the leadership in place at the Information Commissioner's Office to pursue a new era of data-driven growth and innovation. John Edwards' vast experience makes him the ideal candidate to ensure data is used responsibly to achieve those goals."

The GDPR data protection rules introduced by the EU in May 2018 are part of UK law even after Brexit, under the Data Protection Act.

The regulation imposes strict restrictions on what data controllers can do with individuals' personal data. It has been criticised by many for its over-reliance on consent-based permissions, which some argue has led to a boom in box-ticking but little meaningful protection of citizens.

The government hopes to prioritise "innovative and responsible uses of data", a spokesperson said, so that it can "boost growth, especially for startups and small firms, speed up scientific discoveries and improve public services."

Any future data regulation will also be aimed at convincing other nations that the UK's data protection is adequate by their own standards, to allow for free and easy transfer of information across international borders. The government announced six target nations for such adequacy agreements, including the US, South Korea and Australia.

Eduardo Ustaran, a co-head of the global privacy and cybersecurity practice at the law firm Hogan Lovells, said Edwards' appointment boded well for the government's plans.

"The UK is starting to show that there is room for diversion from EU data protection law whilst still retaining the GDPR as a framework. What this means in practice is that the way in which international data flows are approached is not identical to the way the same data flows are treated in the EU, but this doesn't necessarily mean that the protection is going away," Ustaran said.

"What the UK government is testing is our ability to recognise that the protection of personal data around the world comes in different shapes and forms, but can still be effective. The appointment of John Edwards as the next information commissioner is a vote for no-nonsense and pragmatism for the future of data protection regulation."

So this is incredibly vague

The only real proposal I've seen is around relaxing the rules for small businesses and charities which I think is a reasonable shift. In a way charities should be subject to very stringent rules because they can process quite sensitive data (health, race and ethnicity, political views etc). But I am aware that - especially small charities - find it very challenging and will often just say "no" to new projects or offers to help because that is easier than understanding what they need to do to be compliant. I have done some pro bono advising of charities and they have a huge amount of challenges and questions with this area.

I think the consent and cookie piece is slightly misleading. That's a separate European law - it is being made into a new regulation but this was meant to have been done at the same time in GDPR (finalised in 2016, take effect in 2018). They are still drafting and every Presidency announces finalising this is a priority (for different reasons) but I wouldn't anticipate it any time soon. But you need consent, unlike the rest of GDPR which is designed to reduce the consents you need - and it is annoying. From my perspective my big issue with it is that I don't think it works in the way we'd want - I think people are even more likely than ever to just click "accept", which is not ideal and the ICO receives about 30 complaints a year about cookies v over 100,000 about nuisance marketing. I think the UK will diverge here and hopefully in a thoughtful way ( ).

I think there is definitely scope to move away from pure GDPR in a way that is easier for businesses to actually operationalise and for individuals to actually understand - you can only imagine the thrilled reception I get at parties when I tell people I'm a data lawyer And I think a lot of that has been really bad implementation - this should be a good liberating, empowering law but I think most people feel it as a burden and a hassle.

Separately I don't necessarily think there's much of a risk to adequacy from these types of changes - I think the bigger risk is that the CJEU is going down a path with a few judgements that is making transferring data out of the EU more and more difficult (in part I think this is a bit of a power grab by the CJEU but that's a separate issue). Adequacy is not really concerned with how much your law is like GDPR, that's why I think it's a bit of a red herring for the UK diverging - the risk isn't our data privacy laws it's Five Eyes and our intelligence services law/interceptions (most of which has been designed in response to ECtHR rulings).

There's always been a bit of "have cake and eat it" about the EU and adequacy because they basically say you need to have good rule of law and human rights, privacy legislation, an independent regulator and a way for individual's to seek redress over the use of their information. Of course, national security and intelligence is an entirely national competence - so none of the requirements the EU has for the rest of the world actually apply to EU member states, except through the ECtHR which is relatively relaxed compared to the CJEU.  GDPR does not apply to European intelligence agencies - neither does e-Privacy or any other European data legislation and it sort of does apply to law enforcement but in a more relaxed way and as implemented by the member states.

So I remember dealing with American lawyers who would get frustrated about that they do have a legal framework around this sort of data gathering etc that is actually more robust and developed than most EU countries. I remember them getting particularly annoyed on a project when a Dutch lawyer noted that apparently according to official stats the Netherlands has more active wiretaps than the FBI

[Sheilbh]

I don't get the hypocrisy of vegans not criticising halal - they don't agree with slaughtering animals for meat at all. If they're ethical vegans and they think that's wrong in general why would they care about whether one version is more "humane" or not - they're basic position would be that they're all inhumane and wrong.

That's where there's interesting own goals being scored by those moaning about halal 'for animal rights reasons' but ignoring kosher- the same groups usually make a big show of being pro-Israel, bigging up how much the left are anti-semitic, etc...
Under halal, yes, animals are stunned before the slaughter anyway so its really not a big deal.
Under kosher however it is forbidden to do this.

I agree with Jake - I don't think they care and if I had to guess they'd probably turn on Orthodox Jews at some point for them failing to "integrate".

On stunning - I think it's about 50/50 on halal and there's differences within the community. So the Halal Monitoring Committee prohibits stunning because in their view it causes unnecessary suffering to the animal before slaughter (same as the Kosher position) and it is apparently quite common for, for example, the voltage to be wrong so the animal is dead before it gets to the halal slaughterman. But other halal groups think it is permissible.

I don't think it's forbidden in one and allowed in the other so much as, from my understanding, there's a single body responsible for kosher in the UK/for the Orthodox Jewish community while there's a lot of groups within the Muslim community who offer different interpretations of halal.

Edit: And incidentally that map doesn't entirely disabuse me of the idea it might be primarily motivated by not liking Muslims much (with a few exceptions).

[garbon]

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20151214-why-do-brits-talk-about-the-weather-so-much

According to recent research, 94% of British respondents admit to having conversed about the weather in the past six hours, while 38% say they have in the past 60 minutes. "This means at almost any moment in this country, at least a third of the population is either talking about the weather, has already done so or is about to do so," says social anthropologist Kate Fox, who performed the studies in 2010 for an update of her book Watching the English.

Well, did you?

What had you bringing this up 6 years after the article and 11 years after her studies?

That said, yes, I believe it. So much weather talk.

[Agelastus]

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20151214-why-do-brits-talk-about-the-weather-so-much

According to recent research, 94% of British respondents admit to having conversed about the weather in the past six hours, while 38% say they have in the past 60 minutes. "This means at almost any moment in this country, at least a third of the population is either talking about the weather, has already done so or is about to do so," says social anthropologist Kate Fox, who performed the studies in 2010 for an update of her book Watching the English.

Well, did you?

What had you bringing this up 6 years after the article and 11 years after her studies?

That said, yes, I believe it. So much weather talk.

The only person I spoke to today other than "officialdom" (I was getting my second vaccine jab) started the conversation with "It's surprisingly cold, isn't it?"

I believe the study as well.

.
..
...

Also bought a Duck from Morrisons for £5.00 - allegedly a "this week only" offer rather than a mistake by the Store if anyone else in Britain wants to try their local Morrisons and see.

[Sheilbh]

What had you bringing this up 6 years after the article and 11 years after her studies?

That said, yes, I believe it. So much weather talk.

Yeah it's pretty standard on work calls as small talk waiting for everyone to arrive. Especially now we're all WFH so have slightly different weather

Also rather sobering tweet from a former British diplomat:

John Casson
@JohnCassonUK
The big goals I worked on for 20 years in UK foreign policy:

stay & lead in the EU

help young Arabs get free of authoritarians

@FCDOGovUK innovative & impactful not timid & transactional

be a development superpower

leave Afghanistan well.

A chastening list of failure.

Despite cuts to the aid budget I think we will still be above average in that area (I think it's gone from the UN recommended 0.7% of GDP to 0.5% of GDP) but no longer what we were. And on the rest I'm not sure that any have really been achieved in any significant way - of course I think it is worth questioning if they were the right big goals/strategic priorities for the UK.

[Josquius]

With aid there's such a problem in communication.
There was an article I spotted lately about the Indian navy training in the channel- the comments were packed of stupid people going "Thats our ship, we paid for it!". There's just this idea so deep set that aid is just handing out free money to other countries for zero reason.
Britain really is awful at communicating to its people why government does what it does.

[Sheilbh]

Yep - and it is a real disconnect as well between the effectiveness. I have friends who have worked in the sort of international organisation/NGO sector in various countries and DfID were genuinely one of the most respected aid agencies and considered one of the most effective as well (interesting - Japanese also very, very highly rated aid agency which I had no idea about).

[Duque de Bragança]

I don't get the hypocrisy of vegans not criticising halal - they don't agree with slaughtering animals for meat at all. If they're ethical vegans and they think that's wrong in general why would they care about whether one version is more "humane" or not - they're basic position would be that they're all inhumane and wrong.

Soft bigotry of low expectations... 
Their silence is deafening and coward. Even the radical vegans will go to huge lengths to avoid the question, much less attacking muslims but no problem to go after a butcher.

Edit: And incidentally that map doesn't entirely disabuse me of the idea it might be primarily motivated by not liking Muslims much (with a few exceptions).

Since you had decided previously the "reason", facts should not matter. 
Though you degraded "islamophobia" (bogus concept anyways fear is not hatred/not liking) to not liking Islam, a cult in dire need of an aggiornamento at the very least, is so vague.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

Around  here, most of the people who really hate North Africans and Black african muslims, don't really care about hallal or kosher. Were the latter atheist or catholic they would still hate them.