Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Rochdale grooming trial: Nine men jailed

Can you tell us what concerned consumers should do when using cheap meat markets where almost all the meat is imported? Thanks.
Almost all imported meat slaughtered abroad is halal-compliant and stunned. If the label/butcher says it come from an Islamic country and you care about it, don't buy it - same as I don't buy stuff that comes from Israel because I care about that.
 
You could have checked the site more carefully before assuming he had made a valid point.

I am not calling anyone racist. I am calling the description of halal/kosher slaughter as letting the animal "bleed to death" a racist trope. I have been quite careful to assume that people have been taken in by racist/extremist Christian literature on this rather than being knowingly racist when they repeat it/act on it.

Any more straws you wanna grab at?

It is a valid point. I checked the link. If we can trust the accuracy of what Tesco tell us why can't we trust the Islamohippies(JHE would like that one lol) on that link? And it's more a rope than a straw, see my last post.
 
Almost all imported meat slaughtered abroad is halal-compliant and stunned. If the label/butcher says it come from an Islamic country and you care about it, don't buy it - same as I don't buy stuff that comes from Israel because I care about that.

I've already said I don't care about it. And if we go back a bit you'll find you were calling people racist for doing what you are now suggesting they do. Nevermind that some people can't afford to buy their meat from the kind of upmarket establishments that can give you the family tree and dietary history of the animal.

You've ruined 2 very interesting threads with your unfounded smears over the last day or so. Can't you go and do it on a boring shit one instead?
 
If you're rejecting it on welfare grounds, then you have to reject virtually all meat slaughtered in the UK. If that is your position, then you are an animal rights enthusiast, not a racist. If it not, then you have been misled by racists (given that I don't believe you are a racist yourself).
What has other meat got to do with it? Many people find it very hard to keep fully informed about every single food production practice, but never-the-less form opinions about certain processes, which they believe are worth taking a position on.

And appealing to the RSPCA as the arbiter of animal welfare is not the final word. For example, I know people who think that the RSPCA Freedom Food label does not go far enough in chicken welfare, since they do not require the chickens to have any time outdoors. These people would rather have free range chicken, believing it to be a higher animal welfare standard than the RSPCA requires.



Not sure what you mean by 'point 2'. Does what apply to them? Anyone has the right to not eat/serve halal/kosher meat. Whether it is racist or not depends on their justification for it, and their consistency in applying the same principles to other meat which has been killed in exactly the same way.
I meant my second point. I realise that I'd numbered the previous questions also, so I apologise for any confusion caused. You said a refusal to serve (stunned) halal/kosher would be racist. I think you're wrong. Even inserting the word "stunned", people are free to make decisions It doesn't make them racist, even unwittingly so. You seem to back-pedal on that yourself, when you say that it depends on their justification. Well, their justification is on welfare grounds. (That's certainly mine). And then you talk about consistency. It's not always possible to be consistent in food production. There is no legal definition for free range pork, for example. So some people might feel it's important to take a stance on chicken because they are well-informed on the issue, but can't make the same level of judgement on pork. So leave other meat out of the equation for now. Just on Halal and Kosher meat, is it racist for a cafe to refuse to sell it on welfare grounds?

I'm sorry if this seems like a derail, but I think there is a general principle here about culture and race on which you are wrong. It is relevant to the issue the thread is dealing with.
 
What is ridiculous is the position you've got yourself in where you cannot even admit the obvious possibility, that the pressures of profitability and demands for affordable meat, may produce a situation where both consumer and butcher are not at all fussed with their meat's provenance, so long as it at least superficially fits the bill. Is that your class blindness showing?

Louis MacNeice

p.s. the last sentence was a joke.
It's very well known (to those who care that most abattoirs do not stun properly because they are huge fucking factories expecting a higher throughput than is possible whilst maintaining professional standards.

This is a concern for all animal welfare enthusiasts, and rightly so. Those who genuinely care about it - enough to inform themselves about the nature of the problem - do not pretend it only applies to stuff that is labelled halal/kosher. It's like saying we have to tackle the attitudes of Pakistani men towards white women but there is no need to tackle the attitudes of the police towards sex crimes. Why focus on one small part of the problem whilst ignoring the much bigger issue that makes the smaller one more likely to happen in the first place? :confused:

Back to the derail ... A butcher selling unstunned meat would have had to source it specially, very few butchers will have more than one local halal abattoir available to them, many will have none. If they're sourcing unstunned halal
 
What has other meat got to do with it? Many people find it very hard to keep fully informed about every single food production practice, but never-the-less form opinions about certain processes, which they believe are worth taking a position on.

And appealing to the RSPCA as the arbiter of animal welfare is not the final word. For example, I know people who think that the RSPCA Freedom Food label does not go far enough in chicken welfare, since they do not require the chickens to have any time outdoors. These people would rather have free range chicken, believing it to be a higher animal welfare standard than the RSPCA requires.



I meant my second point. I realise that I'd numbered the previous questions also, so I apologise for any confusion caused. You said a refusal to serve (stunned) halal/kosher would be racist. I think you're wrong. Even inserting the word "stunned", people are free to make decisions It doesn't make them racist, even unwittingly so. You seem to back-pedal on that yourself, when you say that it depends on their justification. Well, their justification is on welfare grounds. (That's certainly mine). And then you talk about consistency. It's not always possible to be consistent in food production. There is no legal definition for free range pork, for example. So some people might feel it's important to take a stance on chicken because they are well-informed on the issue, but can't make the same level of judgement on pork. So leave other meat out of the equation for now. Just on Halal and Kosher meat, is it racist for a cafe to refuse to sell it on welfare grounds?

I'm sorry if this seems like a derail, but I think there is a general principle here about culture and race on which you are wrong. It is relevant to the issue the thread is dealing with.
Read the fucking thread Danny. If your concern is on welfare grounds, then you should be refusing to serve (and eat) most other meat sold in the UK. It is virtually all halal compliant. (see Tesco letter to the EDL). It is very easy to ascertain whether meat is unstunned because it would have to be especially sourced and retailer would know (because they get asked this question a lot).

It's not me wriggling here, it's a bunch of people who can't admit that they fell for some propaganda shite, and that they are just as guilty of cultural relativism as the other type of cultural relativist that they so rightly dismiss. Get a fucking grip. Most of you are much, much better than this.
 
Back to the derail ... A butcher selling unstunned meat would have had to source it specially, very few butchers will have more than one local halal abattoir available to them, many will have none. If they're sourcing unstunned halal

Louis MacNeice mentioned your class blindness in his last post and I suspect that's also behind this. The cheaper meat markets don't source their produce locally, most of it comes from abroad, much of it off the back of a lorry, and there's no way for even the retailer to know where it came from.
 
It's not me wriggling here, it's a bunch of people who can't admit that they fell for some propaganda shite, and that they are just as guilty of cultural relativism as the other type of cultural relativist that they so rightly dismiss. Get a fucking grip. Most of you are much, much better than this.

1) I haven't fallen for anything. Unless they kicked the beast to death or put electrodes on its gonads I really don't care. So you're mischaracterising people again there.

2) What do you think cultural relativism means? I don't see how, even if you were right, this could be classed as cultural relativism.
 
Part 1: Yes (given that I regard religious/cultural differences as equivalent to 'race' in most circumstances).
I disagree quite strongly. Leaving aside the question of what "race" is for now, religious and cultural differences are not equivalent to it. There is absolutely nothing congenital, genetic or inherent about culture. You said to me earlier in the thread that "it is easy to throw around accusations of cultural relativism". Well, it is the sort of statement you make above that justifies the term. You are saying first of all that religion and culture are beyond criticism where you decide they are equivalent to race. Nonsense. If I criticise an aspect of a religion, that is a philosophy, a set of ideas. If I criticise an aspect of a culture, that is a behaviour or set of ideas. Behaviours and ideas are not immutable. They change. Nor are they a necessary part of anyone's being. There is no gene for particular cultural traditions. It is not a part of anyone's nature to belong to a particular culture. Indeed, I'd argue, to suggest so is itself racist.

Part 2: Yes and no. In the UK most halal/kosher meat is stunned: blanket condemnation is based on racist propaganda. To be strictly accurate though, Jhatka requires that the animal is killed instantly with a single blow (not sure how that is not a form of ritual slaughter, but never mind), and these are the grounds given for her not eating halal. I presume this means that she avoids most meat in the UK unless it is known to have been killed by a bolt through the head (rarely used in UK abattoirs for animals other than cattle, and not always then). Her husband then chose to add the racist trope. She's a much better thinker than he is, so I'm not ascribing his views to her.
"Yes and no"? I think you mean "no". You must do unless you also think your own statement that you're "not sure how Jhakta isn't ritual slaughter" is racist.
Part 3: I think you've been fooled by racists, and a refusal to serve (stunned) halal/kosher would be racist, albeit unknowingly so.
I've covered this above.

You need to think harder about race and culture, and the differences between the two.
 
Read the fucking thread Danny.
I have done.

If your concern is on welfare grounds, then you should be refusing to serve (and eat) most other meat sold in the UK.
Or I'm racist?

It is virtually all halal compliant. (see Tesco letter to the EDL).
Does it not embarrass you that you need to use the EDL in support of your point? They, too, are confused about the distinction between culture and race.

It's not me wriggling here, it's a bunch of people who can't admit that they fell for some propaganda shite, and that they are just as guilty of cultural relativism as the other type of cultural relativist that they so rightly dismiss. Get a fucking grip.
You're wrong.
 
Halal meat zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz boring. this shit is an injustice to a serious topic. I thought trying to dig your way out of a big fucking hole was widely accepted as dumbness...

weren't we discussing serious sexual abuse and the implications of these various current scandals, the ramifications of conflating culture/race/religion and the importance of people discussing this topic instead of just letting the wiberal "nothing to see here" or fascist types hijack and dominate the discussion?
 
It's very well known (to those who care that most abattoirs do not stun properly because they are huge fucking factories expecting a higher throughput than is possible whilst maintaining professional standards.

This is a concern for all animal welfare enthusiasts, and rightly so. Those who genuinely care about it - enough to inform themselves about the nature of the problem - do not pretend it only applies to stuff that is labelled halal/kosher. It's like saying we have to tackle the attitudes of Pakistani men towards white women but there is no need to tackle the attitudes of the police towards sex crimes. Why focus on one small part of the problem whilst ignoring the much bigger issue that makes the smaller one more likely to happen in the first place? :confused:

Back to the derail ... A butcher selling unstunned meat would have had to source it specially, very few butchers will have more than one local halal abattoir available to them, many will have none. If they're sourcing unstunned halal
how do you square the final paragraph of your post with the first paragraph? it seems to me that your argument, such as it is, that it is very difficult to find unstunned meat in the uk is undermined by your unforced admission that MOST abbatoirs DO NOT stun properly. as opposed to your shrill refrain that people would have to search about to find unstunned meat.
 
Halal meat zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz boring. this shit is an injustice to a serious topic. I thought trying to dig your way out of a big fucking hole was widely accepted as dumbness...

weren't we discussing serious sexual abuse and the implications of these various current scandals, the ramifications of conflating culture/race/religion and the importance of people discussing this topic instead of just letting the wiberal "nothing to see here" or fascist types hijack and dominate the discussion?

Agree with most of that, but I don't see any "fascist types" on this thread. To be fair I don't think even YMU suggested that.
 
Agree with most of that, but I don't see any "fascist types" on this thread. To be fair I don't think even YMU suggested that.

Hah :D

That's not what I meant! I meant in society as a whole, it wasn't a dig at ymu and others, i was talking about the importance of this being discussed in society at large without the topic being diverted from and the victims being forgotten in favour of an excuse to bring up any old shit and divert from discussing the relevant issue(s).

My dig about holes and digging was probably more directed at ymu (and phil of course), unfairly or not i dunno, it's still interesting bunfightery and it just wouldn't be urban if this kinda crazy tangent stuff didn't happen, it certainly clarifies one or two things a bit....
 
Hah :D

That's not what I meant! I meant in society as a whole, it wasn't a dig at ymu and others, i was talking about the importance of this being discussed in society at large without the topic being diverted from and the victims being forgotten in favour of an excuse to bring up any old shit and divert from discussing the relevant issue(s).

My dig about holes and digging was probably more directed at ymu (and phil of course), unfairly or not i dunno, it's still interesting bunfightery and it just wouldn't be urban if this kinda crazy tangent stuff didn't happen, it certainly clarifies one or two things a bit....
sorts out the wheat from the chaff, the sheep from the goats usw.
 
I disagree quite strongly. Leaving aside the question of what "race" is for now, religious and cultural differences are not equivalent to it. There is absolutely nothing congenital, genetic or inherent about culture. You said to me earlier in the thread that "it is easy to throw around accusations of cultural relativism". Well, it is the sort of statement you make above that justifies the term. You are saying first of all that religion and culture are beyond criticism where you decide they are equivalent to race. Nonsense. If I criticise an aspect of a religion, that is a philosophy, a set of ideas. If I criticise an aspect of a culture, that is a behaviour or set of ideas. Behaviours and ideas are not immutable. They change. Nor are they a necessary part of anyone's being. There is no gene for particular cultural traditions. It is not a part of anyone's nature to belong to a particular culture. Indeed, I'd argue, to suggest so is itself racist.

I haven't been following the debate that proceeded this, but just a few words about the above analysis. As you implicitly note, 'race' is a rather slippery concept: the findings of the Human Genome Project suggested that is greater genetic variation within "races" than between them and melanin variations hardly are an adequate explanation of racism as tje English/Irish, Hutu/Tutsi, Serbian/Croatian, Greek/Turkish conflicts reveal. Racism is therefore far more deeply inbedded in "cultural" (in the broadest sense) conflicts than any sort of pseudo-scientific category. This is not to say that "cultural" practices (which as you say are dynamic and heterogeneous) are beyond the realm of criticism, but it does rather illustrate that issues of race and cultural are imbricated and hence the latter sort of criticisms are not immune from racism.

Whilst I think cultural relativism is a deadend, I think there is a point that people who often claim to disavowal it often are only universalising their own cultural 'particularisms' and in the process failing to critically evaluate their own cultural practices, making them both the mirror image of the 'cultural relativist' they are attacking and potentially bolstering racism in the process. The anti-halal stance on grounds of animal welfare is potentially an indication of this. Frankly anybody who eats meat can STFU about the cruelness of halal - the commerical meat industry is just very cruel to animals: halal, kosher or regular. I'd suggest that somebody utterly unconcerned with the meat industry in general but particularly concerned about the cruelness of halal in particular (not leveling this accusation against you personally, like I said I haven't read the previous corrispondence) has on some level internalised some sort of racist prejudice (its hardly any surprise that the EDL campiagn around this issue, nor that in the 1970s the NF organised 'animal welfare' demos to protest kosher food).

So the question of whether cultural criticism is racist is always a contextual one, never one that can be answered a priori in the negative or positive.
 
I've always found the two most vocal groups concerning jewish people being a race apart are fascists and hassidim/ashkenazi fundamentalists...fucking strange

edit : i know it's off topic,but the threads waaay off topic anyway.Religious dietry requirements...who gives a fuck,apart from those who abide by them...

Not strange at all. Ashkenazis, innit?
 
561289_201803053273423_100003311907183_329193_1894710980_n.jpg
 
I'd suggest that somebody utterly unconcerned with the meat industry in general but particularly concerned about the cruelness of halal in particular (not leveling this accusation against you personally, like I said I haven't read the previous corrispondence) has on some level internalised some sort of racist prejudice (its hardly any surprise that the EDL campiagn around this issue, nor that in the 1970s the NF organised 'animal welfare' demos to protest kosher food).
On this and your other comments, you need to really read the thread and how the issue came up. There's a context. It is a tangent, but at the heart of it lies the absolute certainty of some (very few, as it happens) that culture and religion are the equivalent of race, and that any criticism is therefore racist. This is hogwash. You are right to say that racists do latch onto culture. But there is a fundamental point at stake here, and that is the tendency of some people who see themselves as anti racists viewing cultural identity as a biological phenomenon, or as being functionally inseparable from one.

I don't want to prolong the Halal/Kosher issue, but while there are certainly people for whom it is a part and parcel of their bigotry, that is not necessarily so for all who refuse to eat Halal/Kosher meat but who eat other meat. A poster here whose wife is Sikh will not eat Halal/Kosher meat. For ymu, her Sikh principle of Jhatka might itself be racist. Indeed, despite saying that criticism of religion and culture is equivalent to racism, ymu ridiculed the Sikh belief that Jhakta is the antithesis of ritual slaughter. This is the hole that she'd dug herself.

The earlier part of the thread is where (if you'll excuse the expression) the real meat is.
 
My mum doesn't like kosher meat because there's too LITTLE blood in it :eek:

Worst food I've ever had was a piece of lamb's liver in a kosher household. It'd been washed in cold water, and then seared in a frying pan and cooked until it had the texture and taste of old boot. If the piece had been bigger, I'd have patched my sole with it! :D
 
Worst food I've ever had was a piece of lamb's liver in a kosher household. It'd been washed in cold water, and then seared in a frying pan and cooked until it had the texture and taste of old boot. If the piece had been bigger, I'd have patched my sole with it! :D

It's a common joke amongst my family that kosher catering is all mammoth portions but pretty mediocre quality. :D
 
to be honest, i'm jewish, but there's plenty of things about the jewish religion i don't like, and this is one of them. i don't know how anyone can object to stunning the animals :( I am sure most religious Jews wouldnt have a problem with stunning them either. A lot of people probably don't even know they're not pre-stunned.

Thing is, I'd far rather slaughter a chicken with a knife or hatchet then parboil the poor fucker the way waterbath stunning does. One of the reasons abattoirs use it is that it makes the poultry easier to pluck.
 
It's a common joke amongst my family that kosher catering is all mammoth portions but pretty mediocre quality. :D

We always used to rib my nan that her love of spicy food was her making up for having had her tastebuds blanded out during childhood. She absolutely loathed potatoes because that was one of the main things they ate as kids, along with cabbage.
And yep, agree about the mammoth portions, like that makes up for the rest of it! :D
 
On this and your other comments, you need to really read the thread and how the issue came up. There's a context. It is a tangent, but at the heart of it lies the absolute certainty of some (very few, as it happens) that culture and religion are the equivalent of race, and that any criticism is therefore racist. This is hogwash. You are right to say that racists do latch onto culture. But there is a fundamental point at stake here, and that is the tendency of some people who see themselves as anti racists viewing cultural identity as a biological phenomenon, or as being functionally inseparable from one.

My point was that the notions of 'race' and biological phenomena are not important in most modern discussions of racism and to introduce them and to contrast them to 'culture' obscures rather than clarifies the issues at stake.
 
This may (or may not) be of interest to folk; kosher slaughterers discussing the process. There is some blood, but no actual footage of the animal being killed, in case anybody's a wee bit squeamish.



They seem to believe it is the blood pressure that goes quick, so for them it is a bleeding out method. Remember there are far fewer kosher slaughter houses than there are halal, because the Jewish population is considerably smaller and stunning is not used here, so you're quite likely to have unstunned meat should you go kosher (in fact there might only now be one or two serving the whole UK).


The Yanks had a fun name for it - "fatal traumatic hypotension" (yes, I know! :) ). Loss of blood is so massive and so fast that everything (including consciousness, apparently) shuts down.
 
Back
Top Bottom