QuoteHalal Burger 'Discrimination' Stirs Debate in France
By BRUCE CRUMLEY Wed Feb 24, 5:10 pm ET
Perhaps it's time for France to take a deep breath.
First the country went through histrionics as parliamentarians bustled to ban the niqab - the face-covering garment that only a few hundred Muslim women wear in this nation of 65 million people. Then came President Nicolas Sarkozy's push for a debate on national identity, a move that critics claimed stigmatized immigrants and Muslims. Now France is demonstrating what looks like a neurotic obsession with Islam - if not outright Islamophobia - as it frets over the halal hamburgers that are sold in a handful of the 362 French affiliates of Franco-Belgian fast-food chain Quick.
The latest brouhaha was sparked by René Vandierendonck, the socialist mayor of the northern city of Roubaix, who this month railed against his local Quick outlet over its Nov. 30 decision to remove bacon burgers from its menu and replace them with a version using halal beef and a slice of smoked turkey. "It's discrimination" against non-Muslim customers, Vandierendonck said. The mayor has filed charges with justice authorities against Quick for what he says is prejudicial religious catering. He has also lodged a complaint with France's main antidiscrimination authority on the matter. "Yes to diversity, no to exclusion," Vandierendonck told Le Monde's website last week. "I congratulate Quick for adapting its offer to consumers by providing halal, but it goes too far when they propose only that."
Unsurprisingly, Marine Le Pen, vice president of France's far-right National Front Party, whose power base lies near Roubaix, has been quick to jump on the issue. France, she says, needs to be defended from Islam's growing influence. Quick's halal option is "an Islamic tax" on diners. Not to be outdone, members of the ruling conservative Union for a Popular Majority (UMP) have also fretted over Quick's menu change. UMP secretary general Xavier Bertrand says it is undermining France's secular, integrationist social model, while UMP parliamentarian Richard MalliÉ salutes Vandierendonck's "republican combat."
Critics of Vandierendonck point out that Roubaix's Quick outlet is one of just eight in France to adapt its menu to its predominantly Muslim customers and claim that the controversy, coming after those about Muslim dress and religious symbols, is evidence of a deep prejudice against Islam. "Would there have been all these resounding denunciations had Quick decided to position itself in, say, the biological food niche rather than halal?" asks Muslim consumer blog Al Kanz. "Would thematic Quick menus offering only Mexican or Chinese food make such noise in the media? No, assuredly not." (See an article on halal food advertising.)
Mayors in cities where other Quick restaurants have gone halal say the move provoked no problem or debate. Socialist politicians say Vandierendonck's theatrics are of a type with the divisive grandstanding they accused conservatives of using in the recent identity debate. Many French commentators note that fast-food diners can't tell whether the meat they're eating is halal, kosher or blessed by voodoo priests unless they're specifically told - making the beef over halal burgers seem a tad overdone. French KFC affiliates mostly buy halal-slaughtered birds, but there has been no controversy about that. And if people are really annoyed about bacon being dropped from a menu, they can always take their business to one of France's many other fast-food outlets.
I agree with the overall sentiment - it's one thing to offer 'special' food (whether halal, kosher, vegetarian or whatever craziness one believes in) as an alternative, it's quite another to axe the normal food and replace it with a hocus pocus version exclusively. France needs another anti-religious revolution.
The management of Quick and not the mayor of Roubaix should determine what is sold there.
Quote from: Zanza on February 26, 2010, 03:56:06 AM
The management of Quick and not the mayor of Roubaix should determine what is sold there.
I agree with that but there is a thing the article fails to mention that Quick is owned by the French investment firm CDC Capital Investissement, a 100 % subsidiary of the
Caisse des Dépôts, a French financial organization, owned by the French secular state which would be then paying some kind of hallal tax...
Not exactly a strategic sector warranting some kind of state control.
Quick was Belgian before that. There is another controvery surrounding the takeover by CDC in Belgium but I'll let the Belgians give the details ;)
Selling only hallal stuff is dumb if you ask me, even in Roubaix (near Lille/Rijsel :D lots of muslims there) or Marseille (ditto).
QuoteI agree with the overall sentiment - it's one thing to offer 'special' food (whether halal, kosher, vegetarian or whatever craziness one believes in) as an alternative, it's quite another to axe the normal food and replace it with a hocus pocus version exclusively. France needs another anti-religious revolution.
Firms can sell whatever the hell they want. Your faux-liberal veneer rubs off more every day.
Quote from: Martinus on February 26, 2010, 03:34:41 AM
I agree with the overall sentiment - it's one thing to offer 'special' food (whether halal, kosher, vegetarian or whatever craziness one believes in) as an alternative, it's quite another to axe the normal food and replace it with a hocus pocus version exclusively. France needs another anti-religious revolution.
I heard there are venues that only offer vegetarian food.
When will the vegan tyranny end? :mad:
Quote from: Zanza on February 26, 2010, 03:56:06 AM
The management of Quick and not the mayor of Roubaix should determine what is sold there.
Well, the management of Quick determines what should be sold there and how it should be sold, but this is subject to regulations concerning health, safety, consumer protection, non-discrimination etc. So your lassez-faire position is quite wrong taking into account the commercial environment in Europe (not to mention Germany, where the management of Aldi can't, for example, sell stuff on Sunday, so it's not the management of the chain, but politicians who decided he can't do this).
Quote from: Warspite on February 26, 2010, 04:57:44 AM
QuoteI agree with the overall sentiment - it's one thing to offer 'special' food (whether halal, kosher, vegetarian or whatever craziness one believes in) as an alternative, it's quite another to axe the normal food and replace it with a hocus pocus version exclusively. France needs another anti-religious revolution.
Firms can sell whatever the hell they want. Your faux-liberal veneer rubs off more every day.
This is an illusion in a highly-regulated European market. Firms can't sell whatever they want, they can't fire whoever they want, they can't refuse service to whoever they want, they can't even charge whatever they want.
The only question here is whether on its merits this warrants a state intervention or not, not whether by doing so we would lose some laissez-faire purity, because we lost it decades ago.
I don't see how its discrimination. The buisness clearly doesn't get many non-muslim customers so they're just tailoring what they sell to their market.
I don't think this fits the definition of discrimination, no. However, this is causing outrage, because it is perceived as a "concession" to islam, and thus a symptom of the creeping islamization (like the removal of piggy banks from some UK banks some time ago).
Why do non-muslim care if food is Halal or not? It's actually one more link in the chain of food salubrity.
But I support emasculation of Islam at every corner.
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 26, 2010, 06:59:25 AM
Why do non-muslim care if food is Halal or not? It's actually one more link in the chain of food salubrity.
But I support emasculation of Islam at every corner.
Err, have you read the article? It's not just about some method of preparation (like kosher vodka for example), but this means removal of bacon and other pork meat from the menu. Why would one not care about it?
Quote from: Martinus on February 26, 2010, 06:20:13 AM
I don't think this fits the definition of discrimination, no. However, this is causing outrage, because it is perceived as a "concession" to islam, and thus a symptom of the creeping islamization (like the removal of piggy banks from some UK banks some time ago).
Ah. Gay panic.
Quote from: Martinus on February 26, 2010, 07:43:18 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 26, 2010, 06:59:25 AM
Why do non-muslim care if food is Halal or not? It's actually one more link in the chain of food salubrity.
But I support emasculation of Islam at every corner.
Err, have you read the article? It's not just about some method of preparation (like kosher vodka for example), but this means removal of bacon and other pork meat from the menu. Why would one not care about it?
Nope.
Less Bacon is good for our hearts, tho I understand the outrage.
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 26, 2010, 06:59:25 AM
Why do non-muslim care if food is Halal or not?
I don't want to eat halal meat
Quote from: Martinus on February 26, 2010, 05:00:26 AM
Quote from: Zanza on February 26, 2010, 03:56:06 AM
The management of Quick and not the mayor of Roubaix should determine what is sold there.
Well, the management of Quick determines what should be sold there and how it should be sold, but this is subject to regulations concerning health, safety, consumer protection, non-discrimination etc. So your lassez-faire position is quite wrong taking into account the commercial environment in Europe (not to mention Germany, where the management of Aldi can't, for example, sell stuff on Sunday, so it's not the management of the chain, but politicians who decided he can't do this).
I love this "your position is correct but I will try to move the goalposts rather than acknowledge that i was wrong" approach! :lol:
It is very transparent.
Why can't you just say, "yeah, you are right and I was wrong?"
Quote from: Martinus on February 26, 2010, 05:14:28 AM
Quote from: Warspite on February 26, 2010, 04:57:44 AM
QuoteI agree with the overall sentiment - it's one thing to offer 'special' food (whether halal, kosher, vegetarian or whatever craziness one believes in) as an alternative, it's quite another to axe the normal food and replace it with a hocus pocus version exclusively. France needs another anti-religious revolution.
Firms can sell whatever the hell they want. Your faux-liberal veneer rubs off more every day.
This is an illusion in a highly-regulated European market. Firms can't sell whatever they want, they can't fire whoever they want, they can't refuse service to whoever they want, they can't even charge whatever they want.
The only question here is whether on its merits this warrants a state intervention or not, not whether by doing so we would lose some laissez-faire purity, because we lost it decades ago.
Some reasons for losing laissez-faire purity are better than others. We tell food sellers they have to sell in certain systems of weights and measures because it gives customers better information. We tell sellers they can't stick antifreeze in wine because it is poisonous.
We don't tell sellers they have to stock pork because that is no business of the state.
Quote from: Warspite on February 26, 2010, 09:16:54 AM
Some reasons for losing laissez-faire purity are better than others. We tell food sellers they have to sell in certain systems of weights and measures because it gives customers better information. We tell sellers they can't stick antifreeze in wine because it is poisonous.
We don't tell sellers they have to stock pork because that is no business of the state.
Agree that the default position should be non-intervention, and that the existence of some limited government intervention does not justify unlimited government intervention. When you are dealing with Socialists, though, they will often bring out that argument that business choice is an "illusion in a highly-regulated European market" and so try to justify ostensibly unjustifiable government intervention (like the one here, where Marti supports the efforts of the government to force a restaurant to offer bacon burgers) as "just more of the same intervention even you support."
There is no slippery slope, however, except on internet boards, and even then only with posters who have no actual facts or even logic to support their position.
Dumb decision? Yes. Should government intervention be required? Hell no. If you want to look at all capitalist, let the money do the talking, and let the company take the suggested nosedive in sales when non-muslims get fed up and stop purchasing.
Government should only get involved in something systemic; if the company decided it would only sell to muslims or only hire muslims, that would be grounds for government intervention here. Instead, all I'm hearing described is a tighter focus on a target market.
QuoteThe latest brouhaha was sparked by René Vandierendonck, the socialist mayor of the northern city of Roubaix, who this month railed against his local Quick outlet over its Nov. 30 decision to remove bacon burgers from its menu and replace them with a version using halal beef and a slice of smoked turkey. "It's discrimination" against non-Muslim customers, Vandierendonck said. The mayor has filed charges with justice authorities against Quick for what he says is prejudicial religious catering. He has also lodged a complaint with France's main antidiscrimination authority on the matter.
:shifty:
Somebody should sue Burger King to make them put the Angry Whopper back on the menu. Its removal is clearly discrimination against jalapeno lovers.
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 26, 2010, 06:59:25 AM
Why do non-muslim care if food is Halal or not? It's actually one more link in the chain of food salubrity.
But I support emasculation of Islam at every corner.
Tithing or not tithing to Islam (halal meat has to declared so by some muslim cleric for money which goes to the islamic institutions) and there's the issue of cruelty to animals for the ritual slaughter to some people.
Update: the mayor of Roubaix has withdrawn his suit and is negotiating with the state-owned Caisse des dépôts, Quick's main shareholder, to provide a non-halal offer.
http://www.challenges.fr/actualites/entreprises/20100226.CHA1734/le_maire_de_roubaix_retire_sa_plainte_contre_quick.html (http://www.challenges.fr/actualites/entreprises/20100226.CHA1734/le_maire_de_roubaix_retire_sa_plainte_contre_quick.html)
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 26, 2010, 08:50:16 AM
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on February 26, 2010, 08:44:46 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 26, 2010, 06:59:25 AM
Why do non-muslim care if food is Halal or not?
I don't want to eat halal meat
Why not?
For the same reason islamic finance funds do not want to invest into alcohol, tobacco and sex industry - I don't want my money spent on products which would enrich causes I find objectionable (in this case, some muslim cleric which ensures the meat is halal).
I doubt DP's objection is that but we might never know.
Seems pretty simple.
Government requiring restaurant to be halal = outrage
Restaurant management deciding to go halal = no outrage
Don't like halal = don't eat there
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on February 26, 2010, 04:15:37 AM
Quote from: Zanza on February 26, 2010, 03:56:06 AM
The management of Quick and not the mayor of Roubaix should determine what is sold there.
I agree with that but there is a thing the article fails to mention that Quick is owned by the French investment firm CDC Capital Investissement, a 100 % subsidiary of the Caisse des Dépôts, a French financial organization, owned by the French secular state which would be then paying some kind of hallal tax...
Not exactly a strategic sector warranting some kind of state control.
Quick was Belgian before that. There is another controvery surrounding the takeover by CDC in Belgium but I'll let the Belgians give the details ;)
Selling only hallal stuff is dumb if you ask me, even in Roubaix (near Lille/Rijsel :D lots of muslims there) or Marseille (ditto).
So a state owned consortium owns Quick, meaning France has state-owned fast food joints?
God France sucks.
Quote from: Malthus on February 26, 2010, 10:41:40 AM
Seems pretty simple.
Government requiring restaurant to be halal = outrage
Restaurant management deciding to go halal = no outrage
Don't like halal = don't eat there
:yes: Incidentally, is there some cultural/historical reason I'm missing why it seems like French go whine to the government about
everything they find objectionable?
I should make bacon cheeseburgers today.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 26, 2010, 10:47:58 AM
Quote from: Malthus on February 26, 2010, 10:41:40 AM
Seems pretty simple.
Government requiring restaurant to be halal = outrage
Restaurant management deciding to go halal = no outrage
Don't like halal = don't eat there
:yes: Incidentally, is there some cultural/historical reason I'm missing why it seems like French go whine to the government about everything they find objectionable?
That's just the way it is. Centralisation in all aspects of life.
Burger + bacon = fat.
Burger + turkey = yuk.
Quote from: starbright on February 26, 2010, 11:12:45 AM
Burger + bacon = fat.
Burger + turkey = yuk.
What about Burger + turkey bacon? Some of that stuff is pretty good.
Tamer the compound manager in Alexandria told me he could get me anything, until I asked for Bacon.
Pretty much every food cart on the street in Philadelphia is halal. Never even considered it would be an issue. :huh:
I don't think they are using meat certified by a cleric or anything, just indicating the use of beef or turkey bacon rather than pork.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on February 26, 2010, 10:47:20 AM
So a state owned consortium owns Quick, meaning France has state-owned fast food joints?
God France sucks.
I agree. I would much better like to live in a country like America, where many big companies are owned by consortia controlled by the Chinese or the Saudi governments. :)
Quote from: Malthus on February 26, 2010, 10:41:40 AM
Seems pretty simple.
Government requiring restaurant to be halal = outrage
Restaurant management deciding to go halal = no outrage
Don't like halal = don't eat there
Is halal any different tastewise?
It all seems the same to me...though I do love a halal chicken place back in Newcastle I think thats just because its nice in its own right rather than anything halal has done.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on February 26, 2010, 01:05:26 PM
Pretty much every food cart on the street in Philadelphia is halal. Never even considered it would be an issue. :huh:
I don't think they are using meat certified by a cleric or anything, just indicating the use of beef or turkey bacon rather than pork.
That's retarded. Pig is the magical animal. Turkey bacon FTL.
Also, isn't virtually every can of mixed nuts or other nondescript food item in America kosher-certified to some extent? I remember a classic thread with Lucianus back in the old days about this. Nobody here seems to care that you "can't" buy non-kosher cashews...
Well it's a bit different - I don't hate Judaism as much as I hate Islam, for one.
One thing someone pointed out to me, though, is that pretty much 90% of all nuts sold in Poland come from Iran - so now I carefully check the bags for the crop origin, and don't buy it if it comes from there.
Quote from: Martinus on February 26, 2010, 01:09:21 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on February 26, 2010, 01:05:26 PM
Pretty much every food cart on the street in Philadelphia is halal. Never even considered it would be an issue. :huh:
I don't think they are using meat certified by a cleric or anything, just indicating the use of beef or turkey bacon rather than pork.
That's retarded. Pig is the magical animal. Turkey bacon FTL.
It makes perfect sense. :huh: The owner/operators are mostly Muslim. A fair minority of their customers are (mainly Black) Muslims. The overwhelming majority of their other customers don't care. And there are plenty of other places to seek out "the magical animal" if one so desires...
Quote from: Tyr on February 26, 2010, 01:09:01 PM
Is halal any different tastewise?
Do you believe that bacon, ham or other pork tastes different from turkey or beef?
Quote from: Martinus on February 26, 2010, 01:16:17 PM
Well it's a bit different - I don't hate Judaism as much as I hate Islam, for one.
:lol:
Quote
One thing someone pointed out to me, though, is that pretty much 90% of all nuts sold in Poland come from Iran - so now I carefully check the bags for the crop origin, and don't buy it if it comes from there.
My cashews are some unholy mixture of Indian, Vietnamese, Indonesian, and Brazilian nuts. :huh:
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on February 26, 2010, 01:16:38 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 26, 2010, 01:09:21 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on February 26, 2010, 01:05:26 PM
Pretty much every food cart on the street in Philadelphia is halal. Never even considered it would be an issue. :huh:
I don't think they are using meat certified by a cleric or anything, just indicating the use of beef or turkey bacon rather than pork.
That's retarded. Pig is the magical animal. Turkey bacon FTL.
It makes perfect sense. :huh: The owner/operators are mostly Muslim. A fair minority of their customers are (mainly Black) Muslims. The overwhelming majority of their other customers don't care. And there are plenty of other places to seek out "the magical animal" if one so desires...
Ok. From your post, you made it sound like halal was the only kind of meat you could get in the area.
I was once forced by circumstance to eat non-pork sausage (I was stuck at lunchtime in a very "Southern" neighborhood). I threw up a little in my mouth.
Quote from: Tyr on February 26, 2010, 01:09:01 PM
Is halal any different tastewise?
It all seems the same to me...though I do love a halal chicken place back in Newcastle I think thats just because its nice in its own right rather than anything halal has done.
Beef Bacon is the worst curse ever placed on humanity.
Quote from: Martinus on February 26, 2010, 01:08:04 PM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on February 26, 2010, 10:47:20 AM
So a state owned consortium owns Quick, meaning France has state-owned fast food joints?
God France sucks.
I agree. I would much better like to live in a country like America, where many big companies are owned by consortia controlled by the Chinese or the Saudi governments. :)
:mellow:
Quote from: Martinus on February 26, 2010, 01:17:32 PM
Quote from: Tyr on February 26, 2010, 01:09:01 PM
Is halal any different tastewise?
Do you believe that bacon, ham or other pork tastes different from turkey or beef?
:unsure:
Halal doesn't just mean acceptable meats. There's halal and non halal chicken too.
Halal Chicken taste exactly like non-halal Chicken.
Thats the my point earlier. Unless you are actually looking to eat pork, Halal vs non-halal isn't differente taste wise.
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 26, 2010, 02:16:21 PM
Halal Chicken taste exactly like non-halal Chicken.
Thats the my point earlier. Unless you are actually looking to eat pork, Halal vs non-halal isn't differente taste wise.
That's always been my experience. Dunno why the marti's of the world want the gubmint to save us from differences that are meaningless. I guess he just loves Big Government.
Quote from: Martinus on February 26, 2010, 06:20:13 AM
I don't think this fits the definition of discrimination, no. However, this is causing outrage, because it is perceived as a "concession" to islam, and thus a symptom of the creeping islamization (like the removal of piggy banks from some UK banks some time ago).
That reeks of Daily Mail bullshit. My bank:
http://www.natwest.com/personal.ashx
Has a piggy bank on their banner for ISAs and does indeed give them away. No other bank would allow a piggy gap to develop between them and Natwest.
QuoteThat's always been my experience. Dunno why the marti's of the world want the gubmint to save us from differences that are meaningless. I guess he just loves Big Government.
There is an argument not over taste, but over animal welfare to do with halal meat and, more particularly, kosher meat.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 26, 2010, 11:14:14 PM
There is an argument not over taste, but over animal welfare to do with halal meat and, more particularly, kosher meat.
And the argument is ... :huh:
Quote from: citizen k on February 26, 2010, 11:29:13 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 26, 2010, 11:14:14 PM
There is an argument not over taste, but over animal welfare to do with halal meat and, more particularly, kosher meat.
And the argument is ... :huh:
The meat tastes worse when the animal screams.
Quote from: citizen k on February 26, 2010, 11:29:13 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 26, 2010, 11:14:14 PM
There is an argument not over taste, but over animal welfare to do with halal meat and, more particularly, kosher meat.
And the argument is ... :huh:
Islam requires the animal to be alive when it's slaughtered and slaughter has to be with a very sharp knife (I believe it's sharpened ever 10 kills) slitting the throat. In the UK (a major halal meat exporter) though not most of Europe that's taken to mean that general the animal can be stunned and then have its throat slit - though this is a pretty strongly contested bit of Sharia law so both co-exist. There aren't, alas, any labels to distinguish them. Judaism is, I believe, more strict and stunning isn't allowed - I think it's largely because the stunners are electric and so cause a blemish on the skin of the animal which is forbidden.
I believe that under British animal welfare law were it not for their religious significance both non-stunned halal butchery and kosher slaughter would be illegal. Generally non-Halal, non-Kosher meat will come from an animal that was stunned and so died painlessly. That's especially the case because I believe the slit throat non-stunned method can leave the animal dying for a while.
How do the French slaughter their swine?
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 26, 2010, 11:36:22 PM
Quote from: citizen k on February 26, 2010, 11:29:13 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 26, 2010, 11:14:14 PM
There is an argument not over taste, but over animal welfare to do with halal meat and, more particularly, kosher meat.
And the argument is ... :huh:
Islam requires the animal to be alive when it's slaughtered and slaughter has to be with a very sharp knife (I believe it's sharpened ever 10 kills) slitting the throat. In the UK (a major halal meat exporter) though not most of Europe that's taken to mean that general the animal can be stunned and then have its throat slit - though this is a pretty strongly contested bit of Sharia law so both co-exist. There aren't, alas, any labels to distinguish them. Judaism is, I believe, more strict and stunning isn't allowed - I think it's largely because the stunners are electric and so cause a blemish on the skin of the animal which is forbidden.
I believe that under British animal welfare law were it not for their religious significance both non-stunned halal butchery and kosher slaughter would be illegal. Generally non-Halal, non-Kosher meat will come from an animal that was stunned and so died painlessly. That's especially the case because I believe the slit throat non-stunned method can leave the animal dying for a while.
Good thing those people don't realize how silly they look with their sky fairy taboos. Grown people... it would be sad if it wasn't so amusing.
Quote from: The Brain on February 27, 2010, 04:20:15 AM
Good thing those people don't realize how silly they look with their sky fairy taboos.
How do you think they'd react if they realized how silly they look to modern Westerners? I'm guessing they might not take it so well. Maybe even kill themselves.
Ok, so far two good arguments against eating halal/kosher food:
- I don't want to contribute money to religious functionaries who are on the expense list of producing this kind of food,
- animal cruelty.
Will have to start avoiding places that serve that kind of food. :)
I recall that the American coffee chain Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf has all their snack food certified kosher. Same deal pretty much, they paid a rabbi to oversee or bless the food or whatever it is they do.
I doubt anyone in the priesthood of any organized, conservative religion would approve of your lifestyle choices, Marcinek.
I don't know why you fly off the handle about everything so much.
Quote from: Jaron on February 27, 2010, 05:18:47 AM
I doubt anyone in the priesthood of any organized, conservative religion would approve of your lifestyle choices, Marcinek.
Err, that's pretty much my point, idiot. I don't want my money to go to these people, so I won't pay a dime for anything that's certified as "kosher" or "halal".
The market closest to my home has almost exclusively stands that have bearded butchers who advertise "halal" meat. One or two also advertise their produce in cyrillc, e.g. kolbasa.
Buying meat from street stands. :yuk:
Deutsche, Deutsche treht nicht ein! Hier verkäuft ein...
Also, an advice could be: don't live in the islamic poor's ghettos. :)
Quote from: Martinus on February 27, 2010, 06:03:49 AM
Buying meat from street stands. :yuk:
It's not a street stand. It's a daily grocery market, like there are several in Vienna. Some sell fresh meat, some sell fresh vegetables, or other stuff. Many offer lamb or chicken kebabs or sausages or balkans food to go or sit.
It's like this, but much smaller:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naschmarkt
Quote from: Martinus on February 27, 2010, 06:04:46 AM
Also, an advice could be: don't live in the islamic poor's ghettos. :)
Well, for what I pay for my current 40 sq meter appartment I could probably rent a penthouse in Warsaw, but unfortunately, prices are different in Vienna. And there's not many areas who will not have a fair amount of Muslims, as 7-10% of Viennese are following Islam (1/4 is without religion, less than half are Cathoholics).
Quote from: The Brain on February 27, 2010, 06:12:54 AM
Quote from: Syt on February 27, 2010, 06:12:10 AM
Some sell fresh meat,
Yeah, and some don't.
I buy my meat in the supermarket, so chances are I get the worse deal.
Quote from: Martinus on February 27, 2010, 05:57:20 AM
Quote from: Jaron on February 27, 2010, 05:18:47 AM
I doubt anyone in the priesthood of any organized, conservative religion would approve of your lifestyle choices, Marcinek.
Err, that's pretty much my point, idiot. I don't want my money to go to these people, so I won't pay a dime for anything that's certified as "kosher" or "halal".
You don't really have a point. You're just bitching as usual. I dare say there are probably a great many things you buy that help finance people who would object to you personally. For personal or political reasons if not religious, so your approach is ineffective.
Quote from: Syt on February 27, 2010, 06:15:03 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 27, 2010, 06:04:46 AM
Also, an advice could be: don't live in the islamic poor's ghettos. :)
Well, for what I pay for my current 40 sq meter appartment I could probably rent a penthouse in Warsaw,
I somewhat doubt it. I believe Warsaw was recently declared one of the more expensive capitals of the EU when it comes to property prices and rents.
Just out of curiosity, how much are you paying? (If you don't mind sharing this).
Quote from: Martinus on February 27, 2010, 07:52:17 AM
Quote from: Syt on February 27, 2010, 06:15:03 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 27, 2010, 06:04:46 AM
Also, an advice could be: don't live in the islamic poor's ghettos. :)
Well, for what I pay for my current 40 sq meter appartment I could probably rent a penthouse in Warsaw,
I somewhat doubt it. I believe Warsaw was recently declared one of the more expensive capitals of the EU when it comes to property prices and rents.
Just out of curiosity, how much are you paying? (If you don't mind sharing this).
I was of course slightly facetious. Depending on part of town you can expect 15-25 EUR/apartment square meter (including taxes and "side costs" - garbage, usually heating lump sum, water, but not power), depending on part of town. I pay less. My district has over 40% immigrants (people without Austrian citizenship or born outside Austria; the statistic does not count children of immigrants with Austrian apssport). City average is 33% with lowest districts having 20%.
I sell shrimp out of a truck.
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 27, 2010, 08:29:45 AM
I sell shrimp out of a truck.
A co-worker in Germany used to do that. 5 EUR/plastic shopping bag.
Quote from: Syt on February 27, 2010, 08:29:33 AMI was of course slightly facetious. Depending on part of town you can expect 15-25 EUR/apartment square meter (including taxes and "side costs" - garbage, usually heating lump sum, water, but not power), depending on part of town. I pay less. My district has over 40% immigrants (people without Austrian citizenship or born outside Austria; the statistic does not count children of immigrants with Austrian apssport). City average is 33% with lowest districts having 20%.
Well, you are an immigrant too, so fit right in. :P
Quote from: Zanza on February 27, 2010, 09:02:46 AM
Well, you are an immigrant too, so fit right in. :P
Yes. :P
According to official statistics, in 2008 there were 545,000 immigrants in the city (out of 1.6 million).
By origin, the 10 largest countries are:
- Serbia/Montenegro (110,000)
- Turkey (75,000)
- Germany (40,000)
- Poland (38,800)
- Bosnia-Herzegovina (31,000)
- Czech Rep. (20,000)
- Croatia (19,000)
- Romania (16,000)
- Hungary (13,000)
- Macedonia (10,000)
To get an accurate picture of walking down a street in my neighbourhood you have to remember that many second generation (sometimes third generation) immigrants speak their parent's language in everyday conversation with friends. In fact I hear Turkish now from the kids in the soccer cage across the street.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 26, 2010, 11:36:22 PM
Quote from: citizen k on February 26, 2010, 11:29:13 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 26, 2010, 11:14:14 PM
There is an argument not over taste, but over animal welfare to do with halal meat and, more particularly, kosher meat.
And the argument is ... :huh:
Islam requires the animal to be alive when it's slaughtered and slaughter has to be with a very sharp knife (I believe it's sharpened ever 10 kills) slitting the throat. In the UK (a major halal meat exporter) though not most of Europe that's taken to mean that general the animal can be stunned and then have its throat slit - though this is a pretty strongly contested bit of Sharia law so both co-exist. There aren't, alas, any labels to distinguish them. Judaism is, I believe, more strict and stunning isn't allowed - I think it's largely because the stunners are electric and so cause a blemish on the skin of the animal which is forbidden.
I believe that under British animal welfare law were it not for their religious significance both non-stunned halal butchery and kosher slaughter would be illegal. Generally non-Halal, non-Kosher meat will come from an animal that was stunned and so died painlessly. That's especially the case because I believe the slit throat non-stunned method can leave the animal dying for a while.
http://www.grandin.com/ritual/rec.ritual.slaughter.html
This is a good website re: humane ritual slaughter.
I really don't care how the animals that die to stock my refrigerator are killed, as long as it's not too unsanitary.
Quote from: dps on February 27, 2010, 09:53:38 AM
I really don't care how the animals that die to stock my refrigerator are killed, as long as it's not too unsanitary.
I think we already established in this thread that religious people are idiotic savages - no need to remind us. :)
Quote from: dps on February 27, 2010, 09:53:38 AM
I really don't care how the animals that die to stock my refrigerator are killed, as long as it's not too unsanitary.
Well the sanitary angle is the reason for halal and kosher butchery. In the context of their times slitting the throat of a still living animal with a very sharp knife was best in terms of health of the meat and, actually, in terms of kindness. The blemish thing, for example, was so that you didn't beat the animal to death which was common.
I do care though. I think we've got a duty of care and don't think animals should suffer anymore than is strictly necessary during their death. Similarly I'd support far stricter rules on animal rearing.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 27, 2010, 08:00:17 PM
I think we've got a duty of care and don't think animals should suffer anymore than is strictly necessary during their death. Similarly I'd support far stricter rules on animal rearing.
Having looked into this some more after the last Languish discussion dealing with animal feed, I would say we are past the point of diminishing returns in terms of animal food value per dollar spent raising it, and wouldn't mind seeing some sane laws in that regard... or at least a public awareness program so people know what effect animal husbandry decisions have on the quality of their food.