Here is an article from the French journal 20 Minutes, translated by David Russell. Russell explains that it "concerns a controversy in a public school in a town outside of Lyon. Muslim pupils at the (public) school were refusing to eat meat that was not halal. The municipality responded that students who couldn't accept that would no longer be able to eat at the school cafeteria...and the parents of Muslim pupils are crying 'racism'!"
Here's the translation of the important points:
"Villefranche Sticks Its Foot in Its Mouth"There's controversy on the menu. The town of Villefranche-sur-Saone is threatening to expel from public school cafeterias Muslim pupils who refuse to eat non-halal meat (meat coming from animals not slaughtered according to prescribed ritual). The pupils' parents are finding this hard to digest...
This was all that was needed so that the smell of the affair would reach the noses of the MRAP (Movement Against Racism and for the Friendship Among Peoples). The regional head of this organization, Ahmed Kenniche, denounced the measure yesterday as "intolerable in every way, shape, and form". He continued: "To say that students must eat what they are given means that Muslims have to eat pork. We are thinking of filing a lawsuit...This is a form of discrimination because the measure is aimed at Muslims...All that we are asking is that our children have the right to not eat meat that is served, either because it is not halal, or because it might carry mad cow disease"...
The Villefranche town hall could not be reached for comment.
Russell comments: "Notice how the newspaper is already writing as if it is the city that has made a mistake by issuing the order...this in a country which prides itself on its radically secular school system. What is also interesting is that these pupils are obviously not 'forced' to eat anything that they do not want to...so what we are probably seeing here, 'bien sur,' is the start of a move to get the public schools actually to get proactive and PROVIDE halal meats for pupils...and then a little further down the line we'll probably see ALL French pupils eating halal meat because it will just be too costly to maintain a dual system."
Let them eat cake.
Or bring sandwiches.
Aren't they confusing two issues? I mean, pork is supposed to be forbidden, regardless of how it's slaughtered, while (for example) beef is OK. The cafeteria doesn't seem to have been serving pork, but rather have been serving beef that wasn't "properly" slaughtered.
I have to wonder if they're this concerned about Jewish students confronted with cheeseburgers...
http://www.fondationbrigittebardot.fr/site/fbb_a.php?Id=172&IdPere=
Here is a link to Briggite Bardot Foundation, they are an Animal Rights Org.......
Cheers
'The pupils' parents are finding this hard to digest'
Puns! Another thing those parents probably don't get.
I hate to be the devil's advocate, but what right does the school have to expel students who won't eat the meat? Would this upoar had taken place if school officials had minded their own business and let the kids do as they pleased? Why do these stupid officials feel the need to meddle in the eating habits of their Muslim students.
Million dollar question;
Can we attribute the nosy behavior of these school officials to their disdain towards North Africans,
...or to their being part of a nanny state that just can't mind it's own business?
Is there some sort of brown bag shortage in France that would prevent Muslims from bringing their own lunches?
When I was a little girl... (harps play and the screen becomes gauzy as we fade to another time and place: A school lunchroom)
Reform Jews would at least brown bag it during Passover, Catholics students seemed perfectly happy bringing a tuna fish sandwich on Fridays, and I don’t know how Indian students managed, but I assume that when they didn’t want beef they ate the veggies or brought something of their own.
Of course, I didn’t go to school in La Belle France.
Now I am afraid I must to go to Ebay and sigh over metal lunchboxes of Days Past: The Lone Ranger, Peanuts, the Wild, Wild West, Land of the Giants, and the Man from U.N.C.L.E…
Pardon me, Rublev, but it seems they will expel them from the public school cafeterias not the from the schools. I originally came down on the side of the Muslims, too, till I read the key word. I assume this does not mean that the kids are forbidden to eat their own food. If it does, then I wash my hands of both sides of the dispute.
The reason i gave the addy to Frances leading Animal Rights org in my above post is that Halal is grossly inhumane, and is often an issue for Animal Rights.
Even expelling them from the cafeteria "because they won't eat the meat" still sounds pretty silly to me. Why can't they eat their bad lunch in the cafeteria?
Even expelling them from the cafeteria "because they won't eat the meat" still sounds pretty silly to me. Why can't they eat their bad lunch in the cafeteria?
Correction!
Why can't they eat their bag lunch in the cafeteria?
I mean, why should they care what they eat or fail to eat when they are sitting in the cafeteria?
or because it might carry mad cow disease"...
After the insanity of islam, BSE will be an improvement.
Just in case you missed my post yesterday, here it is again:
I’ve read the posts asking for Jihadwatch readers to provide ideas for what we might do to help spread the word. From what I’ve seen so far, there are some great ideas and you have my complete support. I would suggest though that we’d be remiss in our efforts if first we didn’t recognize and show our tangible support and appreciation to Robert and Hugh for running the Jihadwatch site. They’re providing a great service and doing outstanding work--I think we should do what we can to help them continue that work.
With that said, I’m challenging all Jihadwatch readers to donate $100.00 (or whatever you can) to jihadwatch.org AND to send at least one of Robert’s books to someone (friend, foe, family, politician, etc.).
There’s a donation link in the left column on the home page and a link at the top of the page for purchasing books.
Please do what you can.
Islam is not a race, thus what the French do to resist is not racism. Let's label what it really is. That a whole population has to give way and give in so that a small segment can be accommodated is called supremacy and bigotry as in past "white supremacy" and in present-day "ethnic bigotry."
Muslims are supremacists and thus bigots as they view and treat non-Muslims with disdain, "hating them for their un-belief".
As a prophet (Jeshua Ben David) who is recognized (but not followed) by the Koran put it:
"Oh, are you as dull as they are? Can't you see that what goes into a person from the outside cannot make them unclean. It does not go into their heart, but into their stomach, and is always expelled, so that all food is clean enough. But whatever comes out of a person's mouth is what may make them unclean. For it is from your inside.... that evil things arise."
But that's hard to put on a French Muslim menu.
And even harder to get through their dull skulls.
Or, as the old r & b song put it (in a whole 'nother context):
"It ain't the meat, it's the motion..."
Actually I have to say that this is one of the worst articles I've seen on Dhimmi Watch. What are you thinking, Robert?
The first part of the translation (which I can only assume is reliable) clearly says: "The town of Villefranche-sur-Saone is threatening to expel from public school cafeterias Muslim pupils who refuse to eat non-halal meat."
Sounds like they're not even welcome to bring their own halal products with them. Expelled for refusing to eat something? What is that? Imagine the same policy were being applied to Jews who keep kosher! Picture the outcry!
It's not about radical Islam this time. It's about basic human rights.
I respect Jihad and Dhimmi watch too much to let you get away with an article that borders on hysteria. There are many more important things to discuss here than a trivial case like this.
Your sincere admirer,
--Cato
Playing the "race" card is just another tactical attempt to shield the Islamic ideology behind the laws that are designed to prevent discrimination based on race, religion, or creed. The "religion" facade is also wearing thin.
What is so incredible is that our ancestors had no such illusions about the true nature of the Islamic ideology, encompassing as it does and by admission of Muslims themselves, the spheres of politics, economics, social structure, culture, and the familiar Durkheim-like "religion".
Of course what the Muslims may not truly comprehend is how the French really feel about their food. Now that the Muslims have made it clear that they will never accept the French food, the French may finally understand how seriously they have blundered in allowing these invaders into their homeland.
I think perhaps there may be a misunderstanding in the translation of the article. I do not believe that a school can force its students to eat what the cafeteria staff prepares, students are able to bring their own lunch and allowed to eat it in the cafeteria (this was the only place in school that we were allowed to eat as kids, likely because the school did not want a huge mess all over the school) maybe it is the muslim students who do not want to eat in a cafeteria where non halal meats and pork may be served, perhaps it is they who are threatening to remove themselves if all meat served is not halal....remember the woman in Florida who was fired for bringing a bacon sandwich to work...she was not trying to cram it down the throats of the muslim business owner, the food was for her own consumption but they did not even want pork products on the property...there is a sign on the door of my sons school which proclaims the school to be a "peanut free zone" because a child in the school has severe peanut allergies, forbidding peanuts because it could be life threatening to a child is perfectly understandable...but how long before we see "pork free zone" or "halal only" on the doors of our schools. If muslim students want to bring in halal fried camel and eat it in the cafeteria with the non muslim students I have no problem with that...as long as the muslim students understand that the person sitting next to them might be enjoying a ham and cheese.
Cato, I agree with you completely on this. Jihadwatch is one of my favorite websites, but I think Robert jumped the gun this time.
CATO AND RUBLEV
Have to politely disagree with you. Robert does well to bring these articles to our attention so we know what's going on. Guess the French in Villfrance sur Saone had had enough of Muslim Demands and decided to say 'NON!'
Well, I do not want to be a smart aleck... but Mr. Chambefort said:
>
... Andrée Chambefort, note que « tous les enfants doivent manger de tout (sic) les plats servis, même en petite quantité ».
Means: All children have to eat every meal which is served, even small quantitiies...
Excuse me for the typos.
To Morgane: Yes you are right, but I am sorry to say this article doesn't help our cause, because the Muslims can play the victims now.
I wonder if this is a private school(where children live on campus)...or are children in France not allowed to bring food from home? What if someone has a food allergy, can they "force" the child to eat what is prepared even though in extreme cases it could result in the death of the child? Something does not sound right about this.
USAgirl
The school system is quite different to the American system.
It's much more rigid than yours.
Private shools barely exist.
The children have to eat lunch in the so called "salle" where food is served but normally not with the same quality the French cuisine stands for.
Nevertheless, some children are allowed to have lunch at home if the head master agrees.
Our schools require that children eat in the cafeteria...but not that they eat what is served the the cafeteria, they may bring a lunch from home if they wish, but must consume it in the same room as everyone else. As I said what if a child has food allergies, certainly the school cannot force him to eat what is on the menu if doing so would harm his health.
One begins with changes in demands about the food served in school cafeterias, and ends, with a total makeover of the minds of men in the Bilad al-kufr, the Lands of the Infidels.
This gives new meaning to Brecht's famous phrase:
"Erst kommt das Fressen, dann kommt die Morale."
When Auden englished it as "Grub first, then ethics" he kept Brecht's Marxist meaning -- you need to eat first, for you can't philosophize to the sound of stomach rumbles. But once those borborygms cease..."
Applied islamically to the situation above, the meaning becomes tariqramadanishly sinister.
"When Auden englished it"
Posted by: Hugh at January 6, 2005 02:42 PM
'...englished it...'?????
The French come off looking just as culpable as the Muslims in this piece. I can just see the continuum being played out in the middle eastern media: first it was the hejab ban, now it's compelling Muslim students to violate their dietary laws.
This is a fabulous article. Being American, I think the French forcing kids to eat a little of everything on their plate is not a good idea, but, as long as everyone has to do it, so should the Muslim children.
Culture clashes like this are useful because they occur not in the political realm, but the social realm. Westerners are more likely to take notice of a cultural invasion when their daily lives are disrupted. I can just hear it: "Maman, I had to eat some of that disgusting pate that you know I HATE and little Mohammed did not! That is not juste."
If nothing else, the poor French kids who aren't Muslim will gain a bit of gastronomical independence.
Why can't they just brown bag their goat meat?
Wow, the brave French, fighting radical Islam by telling school children what to eat. What will they think of next? Of course, they can call us "racist" or "fascist" because terrorists who attempt genocide against all non-Muslims are put in Gitmo, and we actually fight terrorism. But what would I know, I'm just a simplistic American, and can't understand French nuance.
The last part of the first paragraph in the original article:
________
Dans une lettre datée du 8 novembre 2004, dont 20 Minutes a obtenu copie, l’adjointe aux affaires scolaires, Andrée Chambefort, note que « tous les enfants doivent manger de tout (sic) les plats servis, même en petite quantité ». Et de conclure la missive: « ... faute de quoi je me verrai dans l’obligation de ne plus accepter vos enfants au restaurant scolaire ». Ni plus ni moins.
________
Quick high-school French translation:
In a letter dated 8 November 2004, which 20 Minutes obtained a copy of, the deputy for education matters, Andree Chambefort, notes that "all the children must eat of all (sic) the dishes served, even a small quantity." And the end of the letter: "for want of which I am locked into an obligation of not accepting your children in the school cafeteria." No more no less.
This suggests that the parents are being told that their children must eat at least some of all the foodstuffs served them.
If that's the case, there is indeed a problem here. A brown bag alternative must be made possible. Forcing the entire school (or school district, or country) to adopt a halal diet is an egregious response.
I have received these messages from David Russell, who sent me the original translation:
I admit that the tone of the article was "cheeky" with the various references to food, etc... (that's France, what do you want?). But let me put the issue into a context that perhaps an American would understand: Imagine if a group of Muslim students at a public school in Boston started to complain that the school lunch program did not provide halal meat. I don't think that a public, secular school anywhere should be expected to provide food for pupils in that public school according to the dietary rules of their religion. Imagine if Catholic students in the USA started demanding that public schools in America serve only fish on Fridays...imagine the outcry. Furthermore, in this article we see once again that Muslim families are putting the onus on the French school system to bend to their wishes. The reaction of the school district in question is maybe a bit heavy handed, or ham handed, but it shows a frustration in France about how to deal with a challenge to what Americans would call a "separation of church and state", without specifically targeting any one group. Perhaps the school should have put it more delicately..."we will not serve school lunches in a public grammar school to please the dietary rules of all religions". But I disagree with Cato that this is not an important issue. In many ways, France sees the danger in its midst, but is unwilling or unable to confront it directly, for all kinds of reasons, but to go into that I would have to write a long article!
There's perhaps a misunderstanding of what's going on. No one is actually forcing Muslim students to eat non-halal meat. I even made a note of this in my first comment. How can you force a kid to eat anything that he or she doesn't want to eat? After all, this is France, not Iran, yet. Perhaps the original article was not clear enough. What you have is a situation where Muslim pupils are basically refusing to eat state provided school lunches because the meat is not halal. Let me repeat...I hardly think that the school is forcing the pupils to eat non-halal meat. I think that the original article is not clear enough in expressing this matter. So let's get to the real point: Muslim students are refusing to eat state provided school lunches on the grounds that it does not fit their dietary rules. Also, to make another thing clear...the students are not being expelled from the school, they are being "expelled" from the cafeteria, whatever that may mean. This seems to me a klunky re-run of the Muslim "headscarf" controversy. In order to get the Muslim girls to stop wearing headscarves, they were not admitted to class if they were wearing one. So here, they are being invited to eat their lunch elsewhere if they cannot eat what the state funded school system is serving them.
Meredith says:
" Halal is grossly inhumane, and is often an issue for Animal Rights."
In defense of halal ritual practice ...
These accusations are also often directed at Jewish ritual slaughter known as Shechita.
I don't know much about halal ritual slaughter. What I do know is from my experience working in a American meat packing plant as a youth. I heard the horrible stories of the "killing floor" where frightened, distressed animals are shot in the head with a bolt gun, swept off their feet, turned upside down and disembowled as they move down a conveyor. As you might imagine this is very ugly and terrifying for animals who are about to be brought to their end. Too bad it is all too common in the US.
McDonald's anyone?
If you want to eat meat my friend, something is going to have to die. Maybe someone can figure out a way to cause death in livestock by playing Barry Manilow records -- until then they will kill them in various ways in a place appropriately named the slaughterhouse.
OT:
CAIR-CANADA Sued for $1 Trillion
http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/
"Oh, are you as dull as they are? Can't you see that what goes into a person from the outside cannot make them unclean. It does not go into their heart, but into their stomach, and is always expelled, so that all food is clean enough. But whatever comes out of a person's mouth is what may make them unclean. For it is from your inside.... that evil things arise."
Is this what you tell Jews who keep kosher? Oh, I forgot, this was originally directed at Jews who followed laws of kashrut, hoping they would abandon the G-d of Israel for "Yeshua ben JOSEPH."
If someone were to attempt to force my children to eat non kosher foods I'd tell them to cram it and file a law suit. I don't care how much you dislike Muslims, this is wrong -- period!
Sorry, but it sounds to me like you're talking ot of your as*!
Kemaste wrote: "If you want to eat meat my friend, something is going to have to die. Maybe someone can figure out a way to cause death in livestock by playing Barry Manilow records -- until then they will kill them in various ways in a place appropriately named the slaughterhouse."
Modern slaughterhouses kill cattle by applying a blast of pressurized air to the cranial foramen (the "soft spot" where the bones of the skull meet), destroying the brain in a fraction of a second.
I believe that rendering an animal halal requires only that a blessing be performed before slaughter.
Temple Grandin ( www.grandin.com ), perhaps America's foremost livestock handling facilities designer, recently wrote in the Jerusalem Post that she considers Jewish ritual slaughter extremely humane.
Hi everyone,
Sorry to be out of commission right when we are getting started, but, it's better now.
Update:
Mike has the freedom of religion information and is working on putting that together.
Suzi has pulled all the information together concerning the new immigration vote that is coming up. Still need someone to put all of it together with facts and figures on how many OTM, (other than Mexicans) have crossed the border.
And the amount of illegals still here, where abouts--unknown, purpose for being here--unknown.
Mom and Libby'smom are looking into Islam in the public school system---this will go to Rublev, for mass e-mailings and letters to the Secretary of Education.
Greg and Chuck are looking for "friendly news programs, radio and web sites, we can send information to and hopefully get Robert on them.
Rikki is pulling together information on the "hate Speech" law in England, so we can look at that and also getting information on who we might be able to endorse there.
We still need someone else in the U.K. to look up "friendly news sites".
Need a volunteer to look up Sharia law in Canada, put something together showing what cause and effect this will have on Canadian laws.
Son of walker is reworking his flyers and they should be done soon.
Still need someone to work on womens rights in Islam. Highlight the lack of and the abuse, ie, honor killings, female mutilations, stonings, etc.
This will go to all the major women's rights groups.
Also, need someone to work on the gay issues in Islam. I'd like to send this out to Act Up.
They will take it and forward the information along to their various groups.
Someone mentioned getting the VFW's involved. Could we have someone look into that for us?
I believe it was Informed Christian?
Another thing I'd like to get to tie into Islam in the schools is a list of college professors that have written, made speeches promoting Islam in the schools, calling for the end of Isreal or have known terrorist ties.
Also, we need to get more of the posters in the U.K. in touch with Rikki, so we can get everything organized there.
I also need to hear from the posters from the Netherlands to let me know what you would like to do there and what we can forward over to you to get you started.
Australia, same thing, let me know what info you need.
Contact me at Susan_b356@yahoo.com
Kemaste-
'Jeshua' ('Yeshua', whatever...) was trying to be known mainly as a member of the Old Testament lineage of the house of David (or at least his documenters made it so) to fulfill the Old Testament prohecies which would make this messiah claim legit. 'Joseph', technically, was not his father, according to the tale, but stepfather. (His true 'father' was in heaven, as the gospels tell it, so you could say: 'Jeshua ben Yaweh' (or 'EL'), if you want to be a strict constructionist.
All dietary restrictions of the Koranic law are able to be voided during times of need, and even pork can be consumed if it all that is available. So, the point is:
-this is merely another tactic to confuse, torment, pester and undermine the infidels.
The French are simply inept at handling someone as deviously subtle as they are.
I suggest they serve only croissants.
Bone appetite.
I happen to find all of this ritualistic killing to be quite demented.
I apologize (only to non-Muslims) if I offend any that might find comfort in this practice.
I grew up on a farm. We did not perform ritual slaughter. If any asked the lot of us, we wouldn't have a clue as to what they meant.
The reality was we needed protein and our neighbors bartered for our services while we were recompensed.
The idea of sacrifice never entered the minds of my family members as we sliced the throats of chickens and pigs. The cattle got the .22 plunger to the brain.
It was just food for us.
Maybe my family is demented? I seriously doubt that.
Hum. Bolt gun to the head or having head sawed off? Bolt gun to the head please.
Interesting to see Mr. Spencer redirect the discussion by adding:
["So let's get to the real point: Muslim students are refusing to eat state provided school lunches on the grounds that it does not fit their dietary rules. Also, to make another thing clear...the students are not being expelled from the school, they are being "expelled" from the cafeteria, whatever that may mean. . . So here, they are being invited to eat their lunch elsewhere if they cannot eat what the state funded school system is serving them."]
I wonder - are the students that refuse to eat state provided meals "expelled from the cafeteria" for the manner in which they refuse?
Cafeteria antics can get quite messy . . .if you get my drift. Considering the source of the discord . . .it's probably an exaggerated and diliberate if not disruptive manner of "refusal" .
I'm in agreement with those that mentioned the "brown bag option" . . .worked for me!
Hugh - "tariqramadanishly" - very creative! LOL!
There's that "racism" term used one more time in the wrong content. Are some of these people that stupid that they think Islam is a race?
Perhaps a dictionary for every Muslim is in order.....Could it be possible that they've actually been eating pork products in Western nations for years now, courtesy of those who don't choose to bow to their wishes, dishing it out to them anyway, already mixed in with their meal?
Perhaps they should start acting accordingly, in a way that correlates with a civilized people, before the lunch lady with the brown orthopaedic shoes starts spiking their food with the dreaded non-halal pork meat. Imagine the humiliation they'd suffer, especially after the demanding and uncooth behavior they display.
First of all Halal means permissible.
The process of slaughtering an animal is called Zabah.
The process is simple-- A rough version
First is a ahort prayer
Keep the animal tied or held and slit the throat with a very sharp knife. There is no head cutting.
Only the arteries and veins of the throat ety are cut off.
And let the blood come out completely of the body.
The main reason for this is because blood in veins carries all the impurities of the body and thus has to come out otherwise if the animal is shot or killed is a sudden way , the blood doesnt come out completely and clots in the body as a result the toxins in the blood stream do not come out. Thus the meat we consume still has toxins which can affect our health in some way or other.
This is known as Zabah. Animal meat is allowed for muslims only after it is slaughtered in the above way.
In absence of this vegetables or fruits can be consumed.
xyz,
What is the purpose for sawing off the head of an infidel? Is there a short prayer prior to the slaughter? Is the meat consumed or the carcass discarded as so much trash?
You explanation of Halal and Zabah only confirms my impression that Islam is the most singularly, ridiculous religion ever conceived by a desert madman.
"The main reason for this is because blood in veins carries all the impurities of the body and thus has to come out otherwise if the animal is shot or killed is a sudden way , the blood doesnt come out completely and clots in the body as a result the toxins in the blood stream do not come out. Thus the meat we consume still has toxins which can affect our health in some way or other."
Uahahaha!!
Just look at this Muslim stone age nonsense...
you call carbondioxide a toxin?
Man, you must have quite a lot of toxins in YOUR blood since you are such a stupid ignorant moron.
As I understand it, NO "halal" meat is produced in Britain due to laws about humane slaughtering methods, as described by Paul above, where death is instantaneous and the animal does not suffer.
CGW
I think you'll find Halal meat is produced in UK legally and illegally.
There has been a substantial increase in livestock rustling in the UK and much of it is going to illegal slaughter houses. There has been much opposition to this slaughter in the UK by bodies like the RSPCA and compassion in world farming.
There was an undercover documentary aired a few months ago where Muslims were shown cutting the throats of goats in a dirty old shed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2961623.stm
True Brit:
That covers the illegal part. Are you sure about the legal side? I remember some posts/links from awhile back about the controversy - muslims agitating to be able to circumvent UK laws. If you could provide any links, I'd appreciate it.
Thanks.
CGW
I meant links to the actual current status of in-effect laws regarding the issue.
Maybe they should just read their own Qur'an and then they'd find theres actually no problem in the first place.
"Made lawful to you this day are AtTayyibât [all kinds of Halâl (lawful) foods, which Allâh has made lawful (meat of slaughtered eatable animals, etc., milk products, fats, vegetables and fruits, etc.). The food (slaughtered cattle, eatable animals, etc.) of the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) is lawful to you and yours is lawful to them."
Sura 5:5
Kc
CGW
Here's a link to UK Gov site relating to law on religious slaughter. As far as I know this type of slaughter has always been allowed on religious grounds, that's why there's all the fuss now with RSPCA etc because IT IS legalon the grounds of religion and it's becoming more widspread. RSPCA etc are wanting it made illegal because like always it's one rule for them and another for us, but that's not the point it's the cruelty aspect. We've fought long and hard to get animal welfare made better in this country and it goes against the grain and everything that has been achieved if slaughter without stunning is allowed because of a religion. Others not of Jewish or Islamic religions could and would be be prosecuted for carrying out slaughter in this manner. It just makes a joke of the laws.
http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/cgi-bin/htm_hl.pl?DB=hmso-new&STEMMER=en&WORDS=religi+slaughter+&COLOUR=Red&STYLE=s&URL=http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si1995/Uksi_19950731_en_19.htm#muscat_highlighter_first_match
CGW
I tried the link from here and it doesn't work unless it's copy pasted. If you can't get it to work try this http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/legislation/uk.htm
then type religious slaughter in the search and it's the first entry from the search.
Cheers
XYZ
As for you, I suggest you buy a book on anatomy and physiology and study the arterial and venous systems and find out how a body works. how toxins are filtered out of the body through the liver and kidneys. Blood carries oxygen to the muscles and organs via the fine veins called capillaries. There will always be some blood in the tissue's (flesh) and organs of a carcass so your reasoning is B*** SH** If you eat meat you are eating some blood, so if you believe that blood is harmful you better become a vegetarian quick.
It's over 30 years since I did my nursing training but those are the basics. I'd have to refer back to my books to refresh my memory to enlighten you further, but don't take my word, ask any nurse, doctor or vet, or even go visit a humane slaughterhouse.
Stunned animals are also bled, the only difference is they are (hopefully) unconscious before the knife is used and are not aware of what is happening to them by then, but their hearts still beat, which pumps the blood out of the body. It's like you being on an operating table, you're still alive but you don't feel the surgeons knife. Any living creature that has a nervous system feels pain because pain is the bodies early warning system which alerts the conscious to an injury, infection or disease, a dilema that could be life threatening, endangering one's very survival, the very thing that makes the world go round and perpetuates existance on this planet.
Animals have far superior senses to humans, for example it's been recently discovered that dogs can detect the early stages of cancer in people through their extremely heightened sense of smell. They can detect someone who is several minutes away from an epileptic fit, before the person themselves feels the onset. The value of animals in this world is much maligned by humans, just because they may not have the capacity for reason that we know of and generally do not have the physical attributes of speech or dexterity of hands ( the exceptions being parrots, primates and similar) they are considered emotionally unfeeling and insensitive to pain, but I beg to differ, what they may lack in some departments they excell beyond humans in others. They certainly aren't devoid of the feelings of fear, pain and suffering and how any rational human being cannot empathise or exercise compassion towards another creatures physical and mental pain and suffering is beyond me.
These medieval superstitious myths and legends make me sick, it's like Koreans who torture dogs by prolonging their death by slowly hanging them, because they think it makes their meat more tender and all the other superstitious clap trap that encourages people to torture and kill animals because of their ridiculous beliefs. Bears kept in cages having bile tapped from them, cats boiled alive, snakes skinned alive and their blood squeezed from them. etc. etc. etc. Mankind's capacity for barbaric cruelty towards all living creatures including his own kind beggars belief.
To all other JWers sorry for the OT rant but it's a subject very close to my heart.
True Brit:
I understand now. Thanks for the clarification on the facts. When you think about the fox hunting issue as opposed to this, the mind boggles.
CGW
I should have been more clear: I meant the hullabaloo surrounding the fox hunting issue.
http://www.fondationbrigittebardot.fr/site/fbb_a.php?Id=172&IdPere=
The Briggite Bardot Foundation are the leading Animal Rights org in France. Write to them Halal is cruel where ever.
Thousands of Aussie sheep endure a 2(up to 6 weeks) hell ride on a boat for obscene rituals like Ramadan and just general Halal eating.
These boats have been known to self combust due to shit , piss fumes in the heat and sink at sea etc...
This has come about due to the the the Muslims not accepting frozen carcasses from Oz, so they can themselves perform their Halal ritual.. This is a huge issue in Oz atm... It gets a lot of media attention.. This is a bit OT sorry
Kemeste
Hey mate i practice what i preach im vegetarian.. :)Also im not sure if Oz exports them to Isreal.
http://www.islamicconcerns.com/halalmeat_problem03.asp
is an interesting site from Islam Animal Righters
Allowing schools to be overrun by Islam is not the way to go, but a warning to the French: Enforcing atheism isn't the answer. The only way to effectively fight "Islamitization" is to encoutrage truly free relgion.
A further clarification from David Russell:
a) I think a lot of readers got the impression that the French were trying to force feed pork to Muslim students, or something like that, because of the sentence "students who refused to eat non-halal meat". This is exactly what the journalist wrote. But in my original comment, I said that the tone of the article was favorable to the complaining parents. Thus, I think the journalist intentionally chose these words to make the grievances of the Muslim students appear justified. The reaction of some readers showed that this tactic was "well chosen". In fact, I could even say that in much of the journalism concerning such issues here in France, the journalist will go out of his way to make the Muslims look like the aggrieved party. The journalist could just as easily have written: "the Villefranche school informed the parents of Muslim students that if their children could not eat meat that was non-halal, they would have to eat elsewhere." But of course the journalist chose to express this idea in terms more inflammatory and more favorable to the aggrieved students and their parents.
b) A few "cultural comments" are called for, to clear things up for readers. First of all, if a child is enrolled in a French public school, the pupil must have lunch in the school cafeteria. There is no such thing as "brown bagging it", or "going home for lunch", as might be the case in America. So the kid has to eat in the cafeteria, and has to eat what is served (from what I understand, the food is actually very good, by the way).
c) The problem was very straightforward. Muslim students were not being served halal meat, and they said that their rights were being abused. It seems that some readers did not understand this. Yet again, Muslims were basically demanding that halal meat be served in a French public school. If that is not "in the spirit" of this website, then I do not know what is.
d) An update. I found a follow-up to this story in another small newspaper on Friday. The paper is called "Lyonplus". The website is www.lyonplus.com. Unfortunately, today, Monday, I couldn't find the "Friday version" on the web. They only seem to show that day's version on their site each day. And there are no archives. Anyway, here is the update: First of all, it's important to know that the school district had ALREADY suspended the serving of pork. So no pork was served to Muslims, or to any other students. (Had this emboldened the Muslim students to demand more special treatment?) (What about those French students who wanted to have pork? What about their rights?) This issue has been solved by the mayor of the town, who signed a special order permitting the pupils' parents to pick up the kids at lunch time and bring them home to have a (supposedly halal) lunch at home. End of story. This newspaper did explain the problem slightly differently than the first article. The key sentence in lyonplus says "The parents refuse to let the cafeteria serve them (their children) non-halal meat" ("Ils refusent, en effet, que celle-ci leur serve de la viande non-halal." Lyonplus, Friday 7 January 2005, page 3.)