# The symbol of the Halal Certification Authority Australia



## rhen (8 August 2009)

I received this message by email yesterday and although I may not be as emotive as the author, I do believe *all should be aware of* "The symbol of the - HALAL CERTIFICATION AUTHORITY - AUSTRALIA", (verbatim):

The LHS symbol is that of the - HALAL CERTIFICATION AUTHORITY - AUSTRALIA

This is a Muslim Association that collects money from the Australian Food Industry for this symbol so that Muslims will purchase the product. Yet we are told the Muslim population are only one and a half percent of Australia's total!



On a recent radio talk-back show a well know host was alerted to this practice. He hit a stone wall when trying to find out HOW MUCH money was paid to this organization and WHERE the money went.



It was explained that by buying those marked products at least you are supporting a religion that is actively trying to destroy the Australian way of life or at the other extreme the money MAY be supporting terrorism. 



Many Australian Companies are paying this money including BEGA, CADBURY and many other well known companies.  Check before you buy.



DO YOU KNOW WHERE THAT MONEY IS GOING?



Until you know, support those companies that support the Australian way of life



I checked to see if this was another hoax and found:
http://www.fermex.com.au/img/File/Halal_2007.pdf
http://www.halalaustralia.com.au/FAQ.asp

An acquaintance responded to the email by checking one of the brands and, sure enough, there it was:

I have just checked our cheese and find that the Bega Brand does have the logo. 

I phoned Bega this morning and enquired re the logo.  They would not discuss, but wanted my name and address and said they would write to me.  I gave my name, but declined my address and said that our family would support Australian business but not religious  or overseas organisations,  I also said that I will be returning the cheese and complain to Coles besides not purchasing any of their products, in future.

It would appear that I was not the first to complain as the telephonist said that she had spoken to me before.  Of course I said that this was not true, but that the story of the logo was on the internet and going around Australia.

It is my intention to inquire by phoning the above company.


----------



## CanOz (8 August 2009)

Certified Halal is the same principle that the Jewish community use to certify food as Kosher, only this is the Muslim way to do this. There are certain foods that they do not eat, and they do not want those foods or traces of those foods in food that they buy. 

If food producers want to sell to that community, the second largest religious community in the world or something like that, then they must certify their plants and lines as Halal. This payment is part of the registration process, and if your factory uses certain proteins or processes certain proteins, they will also come to inspect your facilities.

In short, don't sweat it mate, your worried about nothing. In most countries both the Kosher logo and the Halal logo appear on many many foods. Its just that the rest of the world is catching up now, especially as western countries are more and mor populated with multi cultural people.

Cheers,


CanOz


----------



## Julia (8 August 2009)

I don't see this as particularly sinister.

Isn't it pretty much the same as companies paying the Heart Foundation to apply the "Tick" scheme to their products?

i.e. just manufacturers doing all possible to increase their market share.


----------



## jono1887 (8 August 2009)

Julia said:


> I don't see this as particularly sinister.
> 
> Isn't it pretty much the same as companies paying the Heart Foundation to apply the "Tick" scheme to their products?
> 
> i.e. just manufacturers doing all possible to increase their market share.




exactly, i seriously doubt its being used to fund terrorism or anything like that. I think we have to remove that stereotype that muslim = terrorist. its quite simply not true!


----------



## rhen (8 August 2009)

“The belief that one's own view of reality is the only reality is the most dangerous of all delusions." Paul Watzlawick 

The halal trade in Australia and terrorist financing
http://www.terrorfinance.org/the_terror_finance_blog/2007/01/the_halal_trade.html

Human Appeal,terrorist finance, and the importance of Australia
http://www.terrorfinance.org/the_terror_finance_blog/2006/08/human_appealter.html

I merely say one needs to be aware... not believe what you are expected to believe.
DYOR.

regards
rhen


----------



## Timmy (8 August 2009)

rhen, I am trying to understand what you are trying to say on this issue but finding your comments vague.  Can you clarify what your point is?  Is it just a general advisory to DYOR, in which case, thanks for the advice, or are you saying more than this?


----------



## Happy (10 August 2009)

Australia has Halal Certification Authority Australia (HCAA)
Should somebody know what Australian authorities don't know, best to contact Australian authorities 


http://www.halalaustralia.com.au/HalalAuthorities_Details.asp?OrgID=2

Halal Organisations

Halal Certification Authority Australia (HCAA) 

ABN 33068275203 ACN 068275203
Contact
Hajj Mohamed El-Mouelhy
Position
Chairman

Address
701/90 Pitt Street 
Sydney, New South Wales 2000
Australia
Postal Address
G.P.O. Box 3906
Sydney, New South Wales 2001
Australia
Email info@halalauthority.org

Web site http://www.halalauthority.org/

Company Profile 
For many years the Halal market place was desperate for a fast, efficient and effective Nationally integrated service to deal with Halal matters. In 1993 Halal Certification Services Pty Ltd was established to fulfil these requirements and quickly became indispensably the best partner in the Halal market place! HCS is an Islamic body appointed by the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) according to Federal legislation. Its distinctive green and gold certificates titled "Halal Certification Authority-Australia" and its matching logo are much sought after by those interested in Halal matters. HCS operates in all States.



Just wander if the same food can have Australian Heart Fundation accreditation, as well as Halal and Kosher Certification?


----------



## Julia (10 August 2009)

Happy said:


> Just wander if the same food can have Australian Heart Fundation accreditation, as well as Halal and Kosher Certification?




I don't see why not if said foods fulfil criteria of each certification.


----------



## johenmo (10 August 2009)

Been through Halal certification.  Very much doubt it's terrorism funding - better ways to do that!  Like CanOz says, same concept as Kosher but for muslims.

Non-Halal is Haram (I think that's the word) - think "dirty".  You can have Kosher and Halal and tick all on the same item


----------



## Happy (10 August 2009)

johenmo said:


> ...
> Non-Halal is Haram (I think that's the word) - think "dirty".  You can have *Kosher and Halal *and tick all *on the same item*





Maybe this can be used as plarform to reconcile their differences?


----------



## white_crane (10 August 2009)

Posting in magenta coloured font - now _that's_ terrorism!  ARRRGGGHHH!


----------



## gav (11 August 2009)

What should we be "aware" of? That Muslims have a criteria for the food they are allowed to eat?  Where is the harm in that?    In fact, having the Halal symbol may help Australian companies export their goods to Muslim countries, creating greater wealth in Australia and more Australian jobs.  There are some aspects of Islam that I do not agree with - such as the way they treat women, and a few other things that I won't go into on here... but a label on food?

Buying pirated copies of music and DVD's provides a huge source of income for terrorists.  Pirated music/movies also affects Australian music and film jobs.  Perhaps you should focus your efforts on this instead of a harmless label on food packaging.

Oh and if you want to support Australian companies that support AUSTRALIANS, then you should buy Bega over Murray Goulbourn products (such as Devondale).  Bega pays Australian dairy farmers better, has higher quality control measures for their raw product and treats dairy farmers with respect.  (I could write an essay on how bad Murray Goulbourn are, but I'll stick to the topic)


----------



## Tink (11 August 2009)

white_crane said:


> Posting in magenta coloured font - now _that's_ terrorism!  ARRRGGGHHH!





LOL - I agree

I read half way and gave up...

This is just another one of those pass it on emails..baaaa(insert sheep emot)


----------



## Happy (11 August 2009)

white_crane said:


> Posting in magenta coloured font - now _that's_ terrorism!  ARRRGGGHHH!




Couldn't Joe disable this option or make it automatically to change to blue even back to black like in the case of swear words?


----------



## xyzedarteerf (12 August 2009)

source

_Halal

Islam has laws regarding which foods can and cannot be eaten and also on the proper method of slaughtering an animal for consumption, known as dhabiĥa.

Explicitly forbidden substances

A variety of substances are considered as harmful (haraam) for humans to consume and, therefore, forbidden as per various Quranic verses:

    * Pork meat (i.e. flesh of pig)[Qur'an 2:173]. Pork may be eaten in any instance wherein it will save your life and there is no other sustenance.
    * Blood[Qur'an 2:173]. Blood may be consumed in any instance wherein it will save your life and there is no other sustenance.
    * All carnivores and birds of prey. Such animals may be eaten in any instance wherein it will save your life and there is no other sustenance.
    * Animals slaughtered in the name of anyone but Allah. All that has been dedicated or offered in sacrifice to an idolatrous altar or saint or a person considered to be "divine"[Qur'an 2:173] [Qur'an 5:3].
    * Carrion[Qur'an 2:173].
    * An animal that has been strangled, beaten (to death), killed by a fall, gored (to death), savaged by a beast of prey (except that which you may have slaughtered while it was still alive)[Qur'an 5:3].
    * The fish must die out of water and because of natural suffocation in the free air, on the ground or on the deck of the fishing boat. Otherwise, it's not halal.
    * Food over which Allah's name is not pronounced[Qur'an 6:121].
    * Alcohol and other intoxicants[Qur'an 5:90-91]._
[/SIZE]

i respect the belief but seriously folks how can one tell that some of the above did not happen to your food. How the Fk can you know the difference.


----------



## Happy (12 August 2009)

I wander what Australian Government body, which is supposed to look after welfare of animals is doing in regard to unnecessary animal cruelty that is performed to satisfy some culinary requirements?

Taboo subject?


----------



## Mofra (12 August 2009)

rhen said:


> It was explained that by buying those marked products at least you are supporting a religion that is actively trying to destroy the Australian way of life or at the other extreme the money MAY be supporting terrorism.



Does anyone else find this statement a little too "white power" for their liking?

If 99.9% of Islamic people can be slandered for the actions of a few, shouldn't us white males be banned from entering other countries given most serial killers fit the same profile? Where does it end?


----------



## Happy (12 August 2009)

Mofra said:


> ...
> 
> If 99.9% of Islamic people can be slandered for the actions of a few, ....





Hmm:  *few *= 100% suicide bombers

But I take your point.


----------



## johenmo (14 August 2009)

xyzedarteerf said:


> source
> 
> _Halal
> 
> ...




From what I was told by a muslim religious guy (was the religious part of the inspection team that inspected our factory), it comes down to knowingly partaking of non-halal food versus unknowingly.  If you know it's not halal, then it's a bad thing (Hara(a)m).  If you don't then it's (essentially) not.


----------



## Aargh! (14 August 2009)

Both Cadbury and Bega are available in the Middle East. I just checked the Bega shredded cheese in my fridge (it has the halal logo) and it's the same packaging as in Australia except for a small sticker with Arabic on it.

It could be that this particular certification provides these companies with an easier/cheaper avenue to provide additional income through the export to the Middle East market.


----------



## gooner (14 August 2009)

Happy said:


> Hmm:  *few *= 100% suicide bombers
> 
> But I take your point.




Suspect the Tamil Tigers, who invented suicide bombings, may disagree with your 100%


----------



## true blue (17 October 2009)

Food companies can simply reverse this by requiring the Halal Certification Authority to pay a Fee for permission to inspect their product for their requirements and another Fee to advertise their endorsement for their clients.  These Fees paid to Food companies would then provide income that would effectively reduce the cost of these foods to consumers, so everyone would be happier!  OK consumers, contact food companies with the Halal Certified logo on and suggest this!  They are sure to welcome such a suggestion which is a win/win situation because reducing costs to consumers generally increases sales!


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (17 October 2009)

Where do you do the course to be a halal certifier.

TAFE ?

gg


----------



## inenigma (17 October 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Where do you do the course to be a halal certifier.
> 
> TAFE ?
> 
> gg




Saudi Arabia.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (17 October 2009)

inenigma said:


> Saudi Arabia.




thanks , I'll contact the embassy.

gg


----------



## ozbecool (30 October 2009)

*Re: HCAA - Halal Certification Authority Australia*




johenmo said:


> From what I was told by a muslim religious guy (was the religious part of the inspection team that inspected our factory), it comes down to knowingly partaking of non-halal food versus unknowingly.  If you know it's not halal, then it's a bad thing (Hara(a)m).  If you don't then it's (essentially) not.



If the above is true then it is just another prove that all those are just inventions of the man. Why ? Because they contradict themselves. Just an example : why fish should suffocate to be halal, whereas other animals shall NOT suffocate to be halal ? 

And if the motivation for all this is true - quote : _
"A variety of substances are considered as harmful (haraam) for humans to consume ..."_
then those Quranic verses shall be updated with other things like harmful food additives, drugs, tobacco etc. Or may be they are already - if yes then I would start buying products with HCAA logo now - at least I would know that I did what was reasonably achievable to protect my body from the outside world's food junk. But it will never happen - MONEY will protect those things from being included in any 'halal' like list of prohibited foods.

And here is a tough one for 'halal' aware people: do you take vaccinations ? If you do then you have a REAL problem because of the organic crap that is in them and the way they are prepared.

---
And I think Jesus was teaching people this:
"what comes out of your body (hatred, lies, bad words etc) is impure - not what goes into your body".
But it is so much easier to obey some man devised rules than to change your inner self and thus lift up / purify your character.
And I think Jesus said also something like this: 
"you condemn yourself because you value man originated rules more than God's"

 (Thanks The Creator of the Universe that I am a free man and can decide myself what to eat and what not to eat).


----------



## Sunder (30 October 2009)

*Re: HCAA - Halal Certification Authority Australia*



ozbecool said:


> (Thanks The Creator of the Universe that I am a free man and can decide myself what to eat and what not to eat).






> Romans 14:14: As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food* is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean.*



*

Good thing rather. I am somewhat impartial rasher of nice crispy bacon, and crab/lobster is one of my favourite seafoods.*


----------



## Putty7 (30 October 2009)

> If the above is true then it is just another prove that all those are just inventions of the man. Why ? Because they contradict themselves. Just an example : why fish should suffocate to be halal, whereas other animals shall NOT suffocate to be halal ?




My way of thinking on this means that the fish has been taken from the water fresh and died in a known way as opposed to have been poisoned etc and found dead  and consumed not knowing how it came to die.


----------



## ozbecool (2 November 2009)

Putty7 said:


> My way of thinking on this means that the fish has been taken from the water fresh and died in a known way as opposed to have been poisoned etc and found dead  and consumed not knowing how it came to die.




I agree but this applies to all other animal derived food as well. When you take the fish out of the water you can kill it quickly and thus save it suffering or let it suffocate and suffer. No offence but as long as a ritual / approach to food does not have a LOGICAL backing / reasoning it is childlish and unnecessary. 

But I realize that many people / organizations feel "good" and "better than  others" when they obey their group's rules. 

What is interesting is that if one combined the rituals / believes / traditions etc of most of the religion and non religion groups then you would end up with a total mess full of contradictions. I  did this once with horoscopes - I compared 'advices' for the same week from different magazines - the result was 'pure predictive nonsense'.


----------



## Putty7 (3 November 2009)

No offense taken, I was baptised a Catholic and think the Catholic Church are the biggest mob of opportunists and hippocrites ever to step on this earth, so religious arguments don't bother me, being an outsider looking in the Halal looks like a very old consumer food health guide, nothing more.


----------



## carlwilk (3 November 2009)

Have to agree with Putty7 on this one. Pork in particular putrifies much faster in hotter climates than other meats... so, in the times before refrigeration, the best thing to do was just to tell the populace to avoid it rather than providing an education on how far past its used by date it is. 

Much of the ritual washing that is practised prior to prayer in the Muslim faith is also for health. Long before modern housing with internal plumbing, there was a tendency not to wash very often. This wasnt just a phenomena particular to desert climates. Its part of the reason that we Australians make jokes about the English hiding their money under the soap. People just didnt wash very often in past times. It was even worse in climates with a limited water supply. By encouraging people to wash hands, feet, heads, faces, noses, mouth etc a couple of times a day you are in effect providing an education in good hygiene practices. 

Combine this with an education in what is the right thing to eat and you improve the overall health of your society.


----------



## jparrie (26 August 2010)

So in Australia we gladly pander to the whims of these backward, outdated cultures that insist on inflicting unnecessary suffering to animals? 

Halal/Kosher is nothing short of disgraceful conduct by humans towards animals and anyone inflicting such cruelty should be punished severely.


----------



## Happy (26 August 2010)

jparrie said:


> So in Australia we gladly pander to the whims of these backward, outdated cultures that insist on inflicting unnecessary suffering to animals?
> 
> ...




Like leaded petrol we used to love it, but it is not good any more.

Sooner we will find the way to stop animal cruelty the better.

 RSPCA in NSW comes to mind as soft on some cruelty cases, wander why all cruelty cases are not treated the same?


----------



## trish4 (11 April 2013)

Happy said:


> I wander what Australian Government body, which is supposed to look after the welfare of animals is doing in regard to unnecessary animal cruelty that is performed to satisfy some culinary requirements?
> 
> Taboo subject?




The Australian government is up to its neck in problems its breaching the human rights act that say basically that you can believe what you lie or nothing at all. May people like to say their own prayers over their food and the religious rituals of another religion haven prayed over their food is rather upsetting. What is more upsetting is Sikh's Hindu's and other cannot eat halal food at all. Then there are the Atheists and other non religious folk who does not want religion anywhere near their food. The other issue is one regarding the constitution section 116 where the government should not promote a religion at all and here they are ordering slaughter houses to become accredited and will not allow meat to leave the country unless it is accredited. Then we have the issue of cost which is passed on to go the consumer, we are paying a religious tax on our food. I suggest Australians really thing whether non Muslims should have to eat food that Muslims require and if they should have to pay the cost or whether the cost should be born by the people who require that food


----------



## spookearama (11 November 2013)

Julia said:


> I don't see this as particularly sinister.
> 
> Isn't it pretty much the same as companies paying the Heart Foundation to apply the "Tick" scheme to their products?
> 
> i.e. just manufacturers doing all possible to increase their market share.




It is very sinister and there have been links you need to read posted earlier, I for one do not need to pay for halal as it is against 99% of religions with the only one that wants it and needs it are  Islam. Did you know they slaughter animals while they are fully awake. Halal=Allah a pagan god. Also Halal is a religious tax and it supposed to be about meat and meat products. Tell me how sugar is meat by product. I have even seen Halal furniture which proves the halal certification is nothing but a money grabbing rort and part funds DO end up in the hands of terrorist organisations. Also the RSPCA is letter the laughter of our animals by the halal method is is against what the RSPCA stand for.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ae5_1365251256
http://www.restoreaustralia.org.au/


----------



## Wysiwyg (11 November 2014)

I have only today become aware of this practice and will not be purchasing a religion approved product from now on. Feel a bit deceived at the moment. I cannot believe that companies want to pay for a certificate to feature a label supporting a belief system that is inherently pervasive by subtle (halal cert., mosque preaching) and aggressive (Iraq mass execution killings, Bali bombings) means.

There is absolutely no need in a free society for religious approval of anything. Religious ideologies and dogma have no place in our lives without our consent. For this reason I will be checking every product I intend to buy and buying only religious free products.


----------



## Weatsop (12 November 2014)

Dear GOD.

Ok, Halal food rules were originally meant to make sure you're decent to your animal (you can't beat them to death, only kill them by cutting the jugular), and you don't have foul things in it.

The Halal certification dairies get is to show that they aren't putting gelatine in stuff. *Just like you do to get vegetarian or vegan approval labels.*

So they don't want critters who have been beaten to death, and they don't want skin-and-bone-slime in their yoghurt.

THE MONSTERS.

This entire "controversy" is bloody embarrassing. I really thought we were better than this.

An AUSSIE company wants to sell stuff to a different country, goes through a brief process to certify that yes, their product is what they say it is, and yes, will suite the market they're going for, and the AUSTRALIAN public* stop them from doing it.* Because, of course, Aussie dairy farmers are doing so well, they don't need no stinkin' foreign markets.

W
T
F?

*NOT EVERYONE ON EARTH IS LIKE YOU.* The world? It is ROUND. Some people don't like pig-fat being used to fluff up smoothies. Some people don't like to eat animals that have been tortured to death. Some people have different ideas on what animals are good to eat. They think guinea pigs are delicious in South America, and they think dogs taste great in Korea. Plenty of Veggos in Australia think you're wrong to eat baby lambs.

Who the hell are you people to tell other people what they should or should not eat??? How is it any of your god-damned business? And what in holy HELL does the stuff people eat have the SLIGHTEST thing to do with terrorism?

Ugh. Just... ugh.


----------



## Wysiwyg (12 November 2014)

Oh I believe I have to cave in to reasoning now. Theological Determinism. Sharia law has come to roost in Australia and as a non bull **** believing citizen I have to accept the new laws and approvals propagated and perpetuated by whom? That slippery little self confessed millionaire signing sharia law certificates of approval? Nuh. Never.We are voting with our money and it will never go to a religious group without willingly doing so.


----------



## Wysiwyg (12 November 2014)

Quote from the islamic council of W.A. My bold.



> Australia is a multicultural and multi-religious country. *The problem of Halal-Haram with respect to food thus becomes an issue because some non Muslims may not understand the problems and sensitivities of the Muslims.*  This is compounded by the fact that Australian manufacturers are either unaware of Muslims requirements or choose to ignore them as insignificant.



The problems and sensitivities? I see this as another common theme with this mob. They demand special privileges above and beyond everyone else. There are about 400000 (source: islamic council Victoria) islamic religious believers in Australia and they get to label an approval of what is okay and what is not in foods. Forever I thought the Australian Government, a non religious entity and voted in by the people, was the governing body on food standards. Indeed all Government Departments are non religious. 

Why is a minority religious group allowed to impose their Islamic Law via a stamp of approval on the food broader Australia eats?


----------



## Wysiwyg (12 November 2014)

Found a product in my cupboard that I saw had a different symbol to the Kangaroo or recycle symbols. The first time I have taken a close up and it is definitely an islamic law religious symbol. The product is exported as well as sold in Australia.


----------



## Value Collector (12 November 2014)

Wysiwyg said:


> Why is a minority religious group allowed to impose their Islamic Law via a stamp of approval on the food broader Australia eats?




They don't impose it, Manufacturers that meet the standard can request to have their product labelled as halal, The reason they do this is to market their products to those 400,000 people and the millions more in export markets.


----------



## Weatsop (12 November 2014)

Honestly, how does a certification that says there's no pork, no gelatine, and no animals that were beaten to death, make any difference to you whatsoever? What possible reason would anyone have to be offended over that?

"Tolerance" doesn't mean liking everything. You don't need to tolerate things you like. Tolerance means recognising that plenty of people will do things you don't like, but you need to get over yourself, and if it doesn't hurt anyone, then just get on with your life and not make theirs harder.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 November 2014)

Weatsop said:


> Honestly, how does a certification that says there's no pork, no gelatine, and no animals that were beaten to death, make any difference to you whatsoever? What possible reason would anyone have to be offended over that?




The fact that the producers have to pay someone for a certification that says this product is suitable for a certain group of people.

If producers could simply say " no pork, no gelatine, and no animals that were beaten to death" on their product and it would be acceptable to Muslims, I don't think there would be any problem at at. If it needs some "authorising body" to be paid for a particular certification, then there is a stench of commercial blackmail.


----------



## herzy (12 November 2014)

*They don't have to pay*. They choose to pay, because it makes commercial sense to expand their market by 400 000+... 

And it shouldn't affect you, but for some reason it seems to. 

I don't see how this is any different to butchers selling kosher meat. In fact, did you know that McDonalds is both kosher and halal? 

It's economics, not ideology. You're the ones taking issue with a non-issue, not Muslims imposing anything.


----------



## Weatsop (12 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> The fact that the producers have to pay someone for a certification that says this product is suitable for a certain group of people.
> 
> If producers could simply say " no pork, no gelatine, and no animals that were beaten to death" on their product and it would be acceptable to Muslims, I don't think there would be any problem at at. If it needs some "authorising body" to be paid for a particular certification, then there is a stench of commercial blackmail.




Like they pay for free-range egg certification? Or vegan certification? Or healthy-heart certification? Or fair trade coffee certification? Or dolphin free certification? Or the *Australian made* label? Or the Olympic-Games supporter logo?

*Where was your outrage, all these years?*

Christ, we're so scared of "mussies" we're actually getting our undies in a twist over some of the words on our food, in teeny tiny logos some of us hadn't even noticed.

*When did Australia get so gutless?*


----------



## SirRumpole (12 November 2014)

Weatsop said:


> Like they pay for free-range egg certification? Or vegan certification? Or healthy-heart certification? Or fair trade coffee certification? Or dolphin free certification? Or the *Australian made* label? Or the Olympic-Games supporter logo?
> 
> *Where was your outrage, all these years?*
> 
> ...




All those certifications are in fact a form of commercial blackmail, leaving the door open to any fringe group to stick their hands out for some producer cash. As I said, just write it on the label and don't pay anyone. What the producer pays for certification obviously gets added to the price, so the consumer pays for something that gives them little benefit.


----------



## Weatsop (12 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> All those certifications are in fact a form of commercial blackmail, leaving the door open to any fringe group to stick their hands out for some producer cash. As I said, just write it on the label and don't pay anyone. What the producer pays for certification obviously gets added to the price, so the consumer pays for something that gives them little benefit.




What stops me writing "fair-trade coffee" on my coffee, and lying about it? Doesn't that need to be checked?

And if I want to put that on my product, doesn't it make sense that I pay a small fee to cover the cost of checking?

Given the cost of certification for most of these things is a few thousand dollars, isn't the additional cost... basically zero, per unit? Especially as my coffee will now sell more units?

The SA dairy farmers spent a few thousand on certification, and got a $50,000 deal with Emirates. Now they've lost both, because people decided... what? That businesses shouldn't spend money to make money? What exactly did they do wrong?


----------



## SirRumpole (12 November 2014)

Weatsop said:
			
		

> What stops me writing "fair-trade coffee" on my coffee, and lying about it? Doesn't that need to be checked?




Yes, we have government departments that do that and courts where lying companies can be taken.

How do we know that the certifying bodies do any checking at all ? As long as they get their fees. I'm sure they don't want to lose valued clients because of a silly thing thing like non-compliance.


----------



## Weatsop (12 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes, we have government departments that do that and courts where lying companies can be taken.
> 
> How do we know that the certifying bodies do any checking at all ? As long as they get their fees. I'm sure they don't want to lose valued clients because of a silly thing thing like non-compliance.




But you don't think this particular kerfuffle, over this particular certification, has anything to do with anti-muslim bigotry? You think this is just general discontent with certification that just happened to boil over on this particular occasion?


----------



## SirRumpole (12 November 2014)

Weatsop said:


> But you don't think this particular kerfuffle, over this particular certification, has anything to do with anti-muslim bigotry?




Very likely yes. But maybe it's bought out a wider issue that needs airing.


----------



## Weatsop (12 November 2014)

...fair enough. Not 100% sure it's on topic, but fair enough...

See, I'd asked why people were so offended, and you came up with not-liking-certification. Unless you're saying that's why people are offended, then what...? uh...

Yeah. Never mind.


----------



## luutzu (12 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> All those certifications are in fact a form of commercial blackmail, leaving the door open to any fringe group to stick their hands out for some producer cash. As I said, just write it on the label and don't pay anyone. What the producer pays for certification obviously gets added to the price, so the consumer pays for something that gives them little benefit.




Not really. If producers could sell more, chances are they would lower prices. So without a Halal certification, Muslims wouldn't buy it, leads to less sales, could lead to higher prices to make up the margin.

But if it wouldn't, if the price is too high still, then you don't have to buy it. The producers would consider what is beneficial, losing you or losing the Muslims and others who don't care about it. Capitalism, its only colour is green, as the Americans would say.

Yea, trust the producers to certify their own products. Don't there will be enough gold stars to go around.


Thinking about it, I think I'll start to look for Halal and Kosher food. Beats eating meat product filled with pink slime - you know, the bits of meat left on bones and cartilages that's then boiled, chemically treated, spun and then ooze out at the end to be filler in most meat products.


----------



## Weatsop (12 November 2014)

Man, look at what goes into a sausage... 

Different cultures are ok with different disgusting stuff.

We eat lips-and-arseholes (aforementioned sausages); rotting glandular secretions (yoghurt); and insect vomit (honey). Gelatine, which is in heaps of stuff, is the goo you get from bones and skin. Wait, I've got a comic!





I'm not sure it's completely wrong that people want to have their product checked to make sure THAT'S not in it, if it's something they're not in to.


----------



## Value Collector (12 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> What the producer pays for certification obviously gets added to the price, so the consumer pays for something that gives them little benefit.




No, it's just a form of marketing, for example when coca cola sponsors a football match, they expect increased sales, which pays for the marketing.



SirRumpole said:


> Yes, we have government departments that do that and courts where lying companies can be taken.
> 
> .




So you would rather government bodies be established to do the checking? then we just pay for it though taxation



> How do we know that the certifying bodies do any checking at all ? As long as they get their fees



.

That's up to the people that take the certification seriously to worry about, if the company does a poor job of checking the market will lose faith in its certification, and producers will stop requesting certification.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 November 2014)

Weatsop said:


> Man, look at what goes into a sausage...
> 
> Different cultures are ok with different disgusting stuff.
> 
> ...




Well yes, you bring up a good point.

Should we have a "no rotting glandular secretions" certification authority, and a "No lips and arseholes" Certification Authority, or should we just have a government body paid for by the taxpayer that covers all matters of food purity ?

As I say, there is a plethora of little Certification Hitlers that would be putting their hands out for cash for a little label.


----------



## luutzu (12 November 2014)

Weatsop said:


> Man, look at what goes into a sausage...
> 
> Different cultures are ok with different disgusting stuff.
> 
> ...




dam, I really do not want to see how sausages, or yogurt, are made.

My dad has a neighbour who did some work at a sauce factory, over lunch I offered him some BBQ sauce and he said no thanks mate, I saw how it's made and since then, no sauce for me.

I didn't ask him how it's made because i enjoy sauces with my meat.


----------



## Value Collector (12 November 2014)

luutzu said:


> Thinking about it, I think I'll start to look for Halal and Kosher food. Beats eating meat product filled with pink slime - you know, the bits of meat left on bones and cartilages that's then boiled, chemically treated, spun and then ooze out at the end to be filler in most meat products.




When I was over seas with the army, the base we would sometimes stay at had a halal and a regular mess, I always ate there at the halal mess, because the lines were shorter and they served fish more often ;-)


----------



## Weatsop (12 November 2014)

Yeah, it's best not to think about it.

My policy is: I don't eat anything that has a face. Recognisable body parts are definitely a point against, but faces are right out.

Seriously do not understand high-end seafood. Why the hell is the fish's head still on, and why is the crab meat still inside the bloody crab?! Am I not paying you enough to fully prepare the food, so you need to make me do half the job?

I do not want my food looking at me. Prawns... they look so accusing.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 November 2014)

Value Collector said:
			
		

> So you would rather government bodies be established to do the checking? then we just pay for it though taxation




Yes I would. Where there is a financial relationship between the certifying authority and the applicant there is a much higher likelihood of bribery than there is via a government department.

Would you prefer a privatised police force ? Not that bribery doesn't occur in the police but if it was privatised there would be a lot less scrutiny.



> That's up to the people that take the certification seriously to worry about, if the company does a poor job of checking the market will lose faith in its certification, and producers will stop requesting certification.




How would the consumer know if the Authority does no checking ?


----------



## luutzu (12 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> When I was over seas with the army, the base we would sometimes stay at had a halal and a regular mess, I always ate there at the halal mess, because the lines were shorter and they served fish more often ;-)




It's more beneficial to not be prejudice isn't it? haha

Yea when i goes overseas I look for fish, or egg, and stay far away from meat. I heard from a family friend whose relative is a rubbish collector in Vietnam, the restaurants asks him put aside dead animals like cats and dogs they found from households and sell it to them at end of the day. So the chicken or beef you ordered might not be it. 

When got sick of fish, just have to close your eyes and hope this is not that restaurant.


----------



## Weatsop (12 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes I would. Where there is a financial relationship between the certifying authority and the applicant there is a much higher likelihood of bribery than there is via a government department.
> 
> Would you prefer a privatised police force ? Not that bribery doesn't occur in the police but if it was privatised there would be a lot less scrutiny.
> 
> ...




The old RSPCA certification for eggs got knocked on the head, didn't it, when people found out they weren't checking properly...?

Plenty of people will cheerfully blow the whistle on something like that, and the small cost / small (but a bit bigger) profit nature of that sort of thing would, I'd think, keep people reasonably honest, just because having your brand associated with dodginess is probably just not worth it.

Personally, I'm with you - any of that stuff should involve a fee to a government certification agency, rather than a company, with nice open books and auditing. 

But it's a pretty damn minor issue, I would have thought, when in THIS case we have an Australian company being hit over the head with what is, in effect, bigotry.


----------



## luutzu (12 November 2014)

Weatsop said:


> Yeah, it's best not to think about it.
> 
> My policy is: I don't eat anything that has a face. Recognisable body parts are definitely a point against, but faces are right out.
> 
> ...




My brother is like you, he just wouldn't eat anything he can't cut off with knife and fork.

Speaking of face or body parts... on our wedding ceremony, part of tradition is there have to be a BBQ-ed suckling pig - the whole pig minus internals. The face, the ears all the way to its curly tail, four legs with hoofs still on them. Fark. Tastes good though.


----------



## Julia (12 November 2014)

Weatsop said:


> W
> T
> F?
> 
> ...






Weatsop said:


> "Tolerance" doesn't mean liking everything. You don't need to tolerate things you like. Tolerance means recognising that plenty of people will do things you don't like, but you need to get over yourself, and if it doesn't hurt anyone, then just get on with your life and not make theirs harder.



I didn't see wysiwyg's comments as telling anyone what they should or should not eat.  Just his own declaration that he would not be purchasing anything with Halal certification.  That's his right, isn't it?  Hard to see why you need to respond so aggressively or tell anyone that they should 'get over themselves'.  

Just as you're entitled to your view, so are others to theirs.

Tolerance also applies to accepting simply that others might have different views to yours. not just that they should necessarily be obliged to like something because you say they should.



herzy said:


> It's economics, not ideology. You're the ones taking issue with a non-issue, not Muslims imposing anything.



Agree that it's economics, but if someone sees it through their own view of any particular ideology, and wishes to avoid that product, that's probably what's OK for them.

PS I almost never eat meat but have to admit to a weakness for good pork crackling.  Best I ever had was that on a roasted pig's head.  I did need to get the butcher to remove the eye, however.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (12 November 2014)

Julia said:


> I didn't see wysiwyg's comments as telling anyone what they should or should not eat.  Just his own declaration that he would not be purchasing anything with Halal certification.  That's his right, isn't it?  Hard to see why you need to respond so aggressively or tell anyone that they should 'get over themselves'.
> 
> Just as you're entitled to your view, so are others to theirs.
> 
> ...





I do not have a problem with Halal Certification as long as I'm not paying for it when I buy food. 

A reasonable answer to the kerfuffle would be for the Halal Certification Authorities to PAY the Food Manufacturers or Farmers for the certification, out of revenue from other activities.  

That seems fair and reasonable to me. 

gg


----------



## herzy (12 November 2014)

Julia said:


> I didn't see wysiwyg's comments as telling anyone what they should or should not eat.  Just his own declaration that he would not be purchasing anything with Halal certification.
> 
> That's his right, isn't it?  Hard to see why you need to respond so aggressively or tell anyone that they should 'get over themselves'.
> 
> ...




Yes, that's his right. And even if I find it ridiculous that he's bothered by it, it's his right. 

That said, he went beyond that when he started getting outraged that companies would pander to religious minorities. I think that comes not only from a place of xenophobia, but also shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation (i.e., economics). It's that that I object to. 

Couldn't care less what he purchases.


----------



## herzy (12 November 2014)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I do not have a problem with Halal Certification as long as I'm not paying for it when I buy food.
> 
> A reasonable answer to the kerfuffle would be for the Halal Certification Authorities to PAY the Food Manufacturers or Farmers for the certification, out of revenue from other activities.
> 
> ...




These companies aren't doing it because they have to. They're paying for it because it makes commercial sense. Luutzu explained it quite well. 

Like all the other labelings mentioned above (heart smart, free range, dolphin free, fair trade, etc), these are largely things the company pays for because it makes sense to do so (and thereby gives you cheaper products). 



luutzu said:


> Not really. If producers could sell more, chances are they would lower prices. So without a Halal certification, Muslims wouldn't buy it, leads to less sales, could lead to higher prices to make up the margin.
> 
> But if it wouldn't, if the price is too high still, then you don't have to buy it. The producers would consider what is beneficial, losing you or losing the Muslims and others who don't care about it. Capitalism, its only colour is green, as the Americans would say.
> 
> ...


----------



## SirRumpole (12 November 2014)

> These companies aren't doing it because they have to. They're paying for it because it makes commercial sense. Luutzu explained it quite well.




So people are being held hostage by vested interests. What I want to know is who guards the guards ? 

What assurance is there that the consumers are getting what they think they are getting ? Maybe there should be a law that if some banned substance is found in a certified food then the certifier can be sued or not allowed to certify any more. 

If people are paid money to certify a product, the onus is on them to ensure compliance.


----------



## herzy (12 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> So people are being held hostage by vested interests. What I want to know is who guards the guards ? What assurance is there that the consumers are getting what they think they are getting ? Maybe there should be a law that if some banned substance is found in a certified food then the certifyer can be sued or not allowed to certify any more.
> 
> If people are paid money to certify a product, the onus is on them to ensure compliance.




LOL

Are bakeries held hostage to provide gluten free bread? 

As for assurances... The ACCC, consumers and perhaps the market? Some certifications are quite reputable, others aren't. 

There is a law for that. It's called Misleading and Deceptive Conduct (among others) under Australian Consumer Law.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 November 2014)

herzy said:


> There is a law for that. It's called Misleading and Deceptive Conduct (among others) under Australian Consumer Law.




So who gets sued, the suppliers or the certification agency ?


----------



## Wysiwyg (12 November 2014)

herzy said:


> Yes, that's his right. And even if I find it ridiculous that he's bothered by it, it's his right.
> 
> *That said, he went beyond that when he started getting outraged that companies would pander to religious minorities. I think that comes not only from a place of xenophobia,* but also shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation (i.e., economics). It's that that I object to.
> 
> Couldn't care less what he purchases.



Nuh. It's the affiliation with a religious group that I reject. Never seen it before anywhere in Australia but accept I may have been unknowingly exposed to this halal dogma. *I accept the food and drug authorities of Australia which are non-religious to monitor and approve what food and drink is allowed. *

I completely reject the religious affiliation these companies have made for financial gain. I care f'n not about  Muslim dietary issues, dietary issues spawned of their religious scripture. The companies affiliated with the Islamic religion in Australia are off my list of products I purchase.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> They don't impose it, Manufacturers that meet the standard can request to have their product labelled as halal, The reason they do this is to market their products to those 400,000 people and the millions more in export markets.




So you are justifying the religious certification of food in one breath, while huffing and puffing on other threads about the evils of religion ?

I find that just a little hypocritical.

Surely one of the evils of religion is to enslave people to their ideas of what is good to eat or not, based not on nutritional criteria, but on some weird archaic teachings ?

We don't need multiple certification agencies holding their hands out for money, we just need government regulations of what should and shouldn't go into foods on nutritional grounds.


----------



## Value Collector (13 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> So you are justifying the religious certification of food in one breath, while huffing and puffing on other threads about the evils of religion ?
> 
> .




Yes, Because in a country that support religious freedom, which I also am a firm believer in, there is nothing wrong with having a private company get their products certified to show they meet certain standards.



> I find that just a little hypocritical.




Why?



> Surely one of the evils of religion is to enslave people to their ideas of what is good to eat or not, based not on nutritional criteria, but on some weird archaic teachings ?




Humane treatment of animals is not a teaching I wish to protest.

As for enslaving people to beliefs, I will protest the indoctrination of children, I will protest people being forced to stay in a religion through threats of violence against apostasy etc, etc I will openly debate the validity of the religion with anyone who wants to make claims it is real etc.

But I won't stop people practicing it as long as they are not harming anyone or infringing on the rights of others.



> We don't need multiple certification agencies holding their hands out for money, we just need government regulations of what should and shouldn't go into foods on nutritional grounds




It's a free market, we can have as many certification agencies as we like, nutritional grounds are different, there are many groups that have sorts of reasons to care about ingredients other than nutritional, If your products met their requirements, then advertising to them makes business sense, 

a 5 years certification, costs less than 1 prime time TV advertising spot lasting 20seconds. It seems like value to me.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 November 2014)

Value Collector;848217 (Religion and metaphysics thread) said:
			
		

> I am also in favour of the free market, I see nothing wrong with private companies marketing their produce to whom ever they want.




Marketing is one thing, commercial extortion is another. The fact that producers have to pay an external agency to say their product is suitable for a certain group of people is just a roundabout way of religion imposing itself on the free market. The market is no longer free, it comes at the cost of a licence fee to a religious organisation.

What is wrong with producers being able, of their own FREEWILL to write on their product that it is suitable for Muslims , without having to pay for that simple privilege ? If the consumer is not happy that the product satisfies the description, then they can take the supplier to court like anyone else.



			
				Value Collector said:
			
		

> the closest I have come to giving any praise to Islam, is on there early adoption of humane treatment of animals, that's it, nothing else.




It may have escaped your notice but the entire live cattle export trade to Indonesia (a Muslim country) was shut down due to their mistreatment of animals.


----------



## Value Collector (13 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Marketing is one thing, commercial extortion is another. The fact that producers have to pay an external agency to say their product is suitable for a certain group of people is just a roundabout way of religion imposing itself on the free market. .




They don't "have to" do it, no one forces them to do it. If they wanted they could probably just write it on there themselves, But it always is going to look better when it comes from an independent body who the members concerned trust.

for example, in the early 90's It became a big thing in the media that Tuna fishing was killing dolphins, and people who were concerned about that started avoiding eating tuna.

But not all fishing methods killed dolphins, getting the world wildlife fund to come and check your operations, and allow you to say "Dolphin safe, world wildlife fund approved" gives you a lot more creditability than just saving "trust us, we don't hurt dolphins"

It's not extortion.



> The market is no longer free, it comes at the cost of a licence fee to a religious organisation.




Provide me one example of a private company being forced to get certification. 



> What is wrong with producers being able, of their own FREEWILL to write on their product that it is suitable for Muslims , without having to pay for that simple privilege ?




They can do that if they like, but it would be less credible to a Muslim consumer than a certification from a company they trust.

Just like sunglasses or sun screen that says "Cancer Council approved"


----------



## SirRumpole (13 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> They don't "have to" do it, no one forces them to do it. If they wanted they could probably just write it on there themselves, But it always is going to look better when it comes from an independent body who the members concerned trust.




Independent body ?

Independent means that there is no financial or other relationship between the two parties. If the certifying authority receives licence fees from a company, how keen are they going to be to wipe that company's certification for non compliance ? How keen will they even be to do any testing ?Hush it all up and the consumers will never know any difference, we'll just take your money thanks.

OK , great for a "feel good" feeling for the consumers and a market for producers , but practically useless in terms of genuine consumer protection.



> But it always is going to look better when it comes from an independent body who the members concerned trust.




If they can't trust our country's laws and compliance regimes, they shouldn't be here in the first place.


----------



## Value Collector (13 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Independent body ?
> 
> Independent means that there is no financial or other relationship between the two parties. If the certifying authority receives licence fees from a company,.




Independent - 1, free from outside control; not subject to another's authority.

this is how I am using it.




> how keen are they going to be to wipe that company's certification for non compliance ? How keen will they even be to do any testing ?Hush it all up and the consumers will never know any difference, we'll just take your money thanks.




Is that really the point your worried about?

It's in the certification bodies interests to do the job correctly, because if the public loses faith in the accreditation, the producers wont want it, so will stop paying.



> If they can't trust our country's laws and compliance regimes, they shouldn't be here in the first place




Australia has no laws requiring food to be halal, and I wouldn't want there to be those laws.

so in a market where some products are and some aren't, what's wrong with labelling.



> they shouldn't be here in the first place




would you say the same thing to a Scottish immigrant who chose cancer council approved sun screen for his pale skin instead of another sun screen.

This sort of comment is when I wonder what your true problem with it is, It starts to get xenophobic when the comments like this come out.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> It's in the certification bodies interests to do the job correctly, because if the public loses faith in the accreditation, the producers wont want it, so will stop paying.




What the public doesn't know won't hurt them, so really the CA doesn't have any incentive to do testing as long as they get their fees. 



> Australia has no laws requiring food to be halal, and I wouldn't want there to be those laws.




Not the point I was making. If producers want to label their products suitable for Muslims without paying for Halal certification, their are laws in place (misleading advertising) that allow action to be taken against them if their claims are not true.



> This sort of comment is when I wonder what your true problem with it is, It starts to get xenophobic when the comments like this come out.




Well that's just a straw man. In case you haven't got the idea, what I have said could apply to ANY certifying agency not just Halal.

The essential point I'm making is that the relationship between a certifying agency and a supplier is not arms length, and not independent, there is a financial relationship which allows for bribery and or negligence and the consumer has little chance of finding out.


----------



## luutzu (13 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> ...
> 
> This sort of comment is when I wonder what your true problem with it is, It starts to get xenophobic when the comments like this come out.




VC, you're a very smart guy. But you can be slow sometime. haha


----------



## Calliope (13 November 2014)

Hooray VC, now have flushed out another xenophobe. I guess you apply the xenophobe label to all those who don't agree with you on all things Islamic.


----------



## luutzu (13 November 2014)

Calliope said:


> Hooray VC, now have flushed out another xenophobe. I guess you apply the xenophobe label to all those who don't agree with you on all things Islamic.




You'd guessed wrong.

I really don't know why people would have problems with Halal or Kosher certified food. It doesn't make economic sense, it doesn't make nutritional or ethical sense either. 

It seem some of us have a problem with it because it appear like Halal or Kosher food require some magic Islamic or Jewish ingredient, and if they're neither Muslim nor Jewish, they'd catch the fanatical bug from it.

Anyway..


----------



## Value Collector (13 November 2014)

Calliope said:


> Hooray VC, now have flushed out another xenophobe.:




I don't think rumpole is a xenophobe, I am just saying it heads that way when it becomes more about where people come from rather than the facts about the subject under question



> I guess you apply the xenophobe label to all those who don't agree with you on all things Islamic




No, I didn't mention it until he said "they can go back to where they came from"


----------



## Value Collector (13 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> It may have escaped your notice but the entire live cattle export trade to Indonesia (a Muslim country) was shut down due to their mistreatment of animals.




I am not comfortable naming whole countries as being one religion or another, Indonesia is no more a Muslim nation than we are a Christian one.

But if the animals were mistreated, then it is not halal. In that case having halal inspections would have been a good thing.


----------



## Value Collector (13 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> The essential point I'm making is that the relationship between a certifying agency and a supplier is not arms length, and not independent, there is a financial relationship which allows for bribery and or negligence and the consumer has little chance of finding out.




it's seems funny that your so apposed to halal certification, but you haven't started a thread about the Heart tick.

Can you answer me this though, would you have told the pale skinned Scottish guy in the example I gave to go home because he looked for sun screen with the cancer council approval, over one labelled as meeting Australian standards?


----------



## herzy (13 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> So who gets sued, the suppliers or the certification agency ?




Whoever is being misleading to consumers would get sued. This would probably be the certification agency in this case, unless the producer/company is complicit. 

It's a good point you raise, but I'm not sure why you focus so much on halal - does it really bother you if something labelled halal isn't truly in conformity with halal standards? 

You correctly identified that companies themselves could label their food as (uncertified) halal, and be sued for misleading or deceptive conduct if it were not in fact halal. It's a good point. I think the problem comes in where Muslims will trust an Imam or certification agency certification rather than a company's word - for that reason, the consumer (here, Muslims) would feel more assured if a product has a reputable halal certification rather than a company's assertion. In the same way that kosher food needs to be blessed by a rabbi, and I wouldn't necessarily trust a company that said their paper was produced using sustainable forrestry, and would prefer to trust the FSC-certification backed by WWF. 

Although *technically* a company would be sued for misleading/deceptive conduct, certification bodies generally provide a reputable  service - which obviously costs something. 

That brings me back to my earlier comment: the companies aren't forced to do this, either because they're held hostage or otherwise. It's purely based on consumer demand... 




Wysiwyg said:


> Nuh. It's the affiliation with a religious group that I reject. Never seen it before anywhere in Australia but accept I may have been unknowingly exposed to this halal dogma. *I accept the food and drug authorities of Australia which are non-religious to monitor and approve what food and drink is allowed. *
> 
> I completely reject the religious affiliation these companies have made for financial gain. I care f'n not about  Muslim dietary issues, dietary issues spawned of their religious scripture. The companies affiliated with the Islamic religion in Australia are off my list of products I purchase.




Why? Certain demographics want their product to be certified in a certain way. Obviously verifying that it complies costs money. Companies calculate that it's worth their while to certify, so they do it. I don't really like money going to religious institutions either, but that's merely a by-product of the religious *followers* - not religious institutions profiteering.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> it's seems funny that your so apposed to halal certification, but you haven't started a thread about the Heart tick.




It's one of those issues that comes up from time to time and the Halal issue bought up the general concept of certification.

The Heart foundation tick doesn't bother me as much, because they (and the Cancer Council with sunglass certification) do work which benefits us all, where as Halal and Kosher only benefit (if there is any benefit apart from adhering to their archaic ideas) a minority who have strange and immoral beliefs as you yourself have said. 

The Heart Foundation and Cancer Council are no less prone imo to slackness when it comes to checking whether the products they certify actually comply. They could probably rationalise any slackness by saying "the money goes to research etc and if we have to spend it checking on people then there is less available for more productive ends". If Halal or Kosher said that, were would we think the money was going ?



> Can you answer me this though, would you have told the pale skinned Scottish guy in the example I gave to go home because he looked for sun screen with the cancer council approval, over one labelled as meeting Australian standards?




If anyone who comes here and doesn't trust our consumer protection laws then they have a right to lobby to change those laws, not set up a competing system that suits a particular minority instead of the whole population.


----------



## Value Collector (13 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> If anyone who comes here and doesn't trust our consumer protection laws then they have a right to lobby to change those laws, not set up a competing system that suits a particular minority instead of the whole population.




You side stepped the question then,.. would you have gone to the "he shouldn't be here then" response, if it was a white Scottish man, making a personal selection based on private certification?

------

There is no government halal programme with which the certification in question is competing.

There is however federal government standards and regulations in relation to sunglasses and sunscreen with which the cancer council standards compete with.

------

Also is it just certification groups giving ticks of approval when products meet certain standards your against? or when a celebrity or sports team get paid a 100 times that amount to add credibility to a brand are you against that also?


----------



## SirRumpole (13 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> You side stepped the question then,.. would you have gone to the "he shouldn't be here then" response, if it was a white Scottish man, making a personal selection based on private certification?




I would tell the white Scottish man that the Certification cost on his sunglasses would be added to the price, in which case he would immediately agree that my plan was better.



> Also is it just certification groups giving ticks of approval when products meet certain standards your against? or when a celebrity or sports team get paid a 100 times that amount to add credibility to a brand are you against that also?




Of course , sports accreditations are just a con. They get paid money, they endorse. You don't actually believe that most people would turn down a wad of cash for saying nice things about a product do you ? How do we know that Ricky Ponting actually takes his Suisse vitamins every morning or that Brett Lee really does eat Weet-Bix ?


----------



## Value Collector (13 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> I would tell the white Scottish man that the Certification cost on his sunglasses would be added to the price, in which case he would immediately agree that my plan was better.




Ok, you side stepped the question again, but the fact that you wouldn't make a comment about him going home if he wasn't happy, means I was on the right track, there was a little racism in your response. But, I will leave it at that, I just hope you have picked up on it, I am not saying your a bad person, just that you need to recognise it. Even my father whom I love and respect lets things slip like that, I point it out to him also, slowly he is getting it.

-------------

Halal certification doesn't make products more expensive though.



> Of course , sports accreditations are just a con. They get paid money, they endorse. You don't actually believe that most people would turn down a wad of cash for saying nice things about a product do you ? How do we know that Ricky Ponting actually takes his Suisse vitamins every morning or that Brett Lee really does eat Weet-Bix




So since celebrity tv spots cost 100 times more for the endorsement, not to mention the tv exposure time, and don't even promise to do any work, why would you start with the certification groups, who are much cheaper than any celebrity TV spots, and at least actually do some work.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 November 2014)

Value Collector said:
			
		

> there was a little racism in your response




Islam is not a race as I'm sure you know. It's a religious philosophy which you have attacked either directly or by implication with your rants against religion.

What I don't like is the intrusion of religion into our society and people's lives, whether it be Jewish groups wanting to erect wires on poles so they can carry goods outside on Fridays, Christians telling me I have no right to choose the time of my own death, or Islamic wackos enslaving  their followers to arcane practises and ingratiating their beliefs into our food supply. The races of the people who have those silly ideas makes no difference to me, so I'd be grateful if you removed the slur you attached to me.

And I can't help a little smile at the delicious irony of a so called "religious" person that you think I am attacking the intrusion of religion, while an avowed atheist like yourself is quite happy for it to be perpetuated throughout our society, at least if people can make a buck out of it.

Anyway, I think we have done this subject to death, but maybe we can find something else to argue about tomorrow.


And fxTrader, is this post sufficiently "apologist" for you ?


----------



## luutzu (13 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Islam is not a race as I'm sure you know. It's a religious philosophy which you have attacked either directly or by implication with your rants against religion.
> 
> What I don't like is the intrusion of religion into our society and people's lives, whether it be Jewish groups wanting to erect wires on poles so they can carry goods outside on Fridays, Christians telling me I have no right to choose the time of my own death, or Islamic wackos enslaving  their followers to arcane practises and ingratiating their beliefs into our food supply. The races of the people who have those silly ideas makes no difference to me, so I'd be grateful if you removed the slur you attached to me.
> 
> ...




I don't think it's ironic to be an Atheist and defend people's right to practise their religion. I think that makes the person a  Libertarian. 

Ironic is when :
"An old man turned ninety-eight
He won the lottery and died the next day
It's a black fly in your Chardonnay
It's a death row pardon two minutes too late...

It's like rain on your wedding day
It's a free ride when you've already paid
It's the good advice that you just didn't take..."

Don't think Alanis know it either. I don't know it either.


----------



## herzy (13 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> What I don't like is the intrusion of religion into our society and people's lives, whether it be Jewish groups wanting to erect wires on poles so they can carry goods outside on Fridays, Christians telling me I have no right to choose the time of my own death, or Islamic wackos enslaving  their followers to arcane practises and ingratiating their beliefs into our food supply. The races of the people who have those silly ideas makes no difference to me, so I'd be grateful if you removed the slur you attached to me.




The only one that bothers me in there is the euthanasia point - because that's the only one that affects me. 



SirRumpole said:


> And I can't help a little smile at the delicious irony of a so called "religious" person that you think I am attacking the intrusion of religion, while an avowed atheist like yourself is quite happy for it to be perpetuated throughout our society, at least if people can make a buck out of it.




Yes, it is ironic - but not in an hypocritical way. As VC says, he supports the right of people to believe in religion (and is defending against perceived bigotry here) - even if he thinks it is inherently ridiculous. 

I'm the same. I personally believe religion and spirituality to be baseless and problematic - but I will defend their right not to be vilified by association.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 November 2014)

luutzu said:


> I don't think it's ironic to be an Atheist and defend people's right to practise their religion. I think that makes the person a  Libertarian.




Well fine then if he supports people practising a philosophy he has described as "evil and immoral". I would hope good people would speak out against this sort of thing.


----------



## luutzu (13 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Well fine then if he supports people practising a philosophy he has described as "evil and immoral". I would hope good people would speak out against this sort of thing.




He will speak for himself about that but I don't he support in the sense of agreeing with the practice, he just support their right to practice it.

Kinda like me saying I don't eat chicken feet, I don't sell chicken feet, but eating or selling chicken feet doesn't break any legal code... and so if you add some sauce, steam it silly and managed to charge people $5.50 for 5 feet, then good on ya (ya sickos). [it actually tastes pretty good, haha]


----------



## SirRumpole (13 November 2014)

luutzu said:


> He will speak for himself about that but I don't he support in the sense of agreeing with the practice, he just support their right to practice it.




Sure, it could be like taking pictures of your kids naked in the bathtub and showing them to your mates or putting them on the net.

What harm does it do ? The kids are quite happy playing in the bath and will even smile for the camera, and if the mates just take a perv are they doing any harm ?

Encouraging the spread of enslaving practises like only eating certain foods or wasting your time praying 5 times a day only encourages the spread of the ideas behind those acts. If gives them a veneer of respectability which they don't deserve.


----------



## Wysiwyg (13 November 2014)

herzy said:


> I'm the same. I personally believe religion and spirituality to be baseless and problematic - but I will defend their right not to be vilified by association.



Greetings. The statement of associating with religion. I don't understand the separation of religion and  practitioner. Is that what you mean?


----------



## Value Collector (13 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Islam is not a race as I'm sure you know.
> 
> ?




And curry is a food, but I am sure if you hear someone say "Curry Muncher", you will know its a racial slur and not a comment about eating habits. You saying "they can go home" is a direct comment towards immigrants, and obviously the vast majority of Muslim immigrants tend to be Arab, you also eluded that you wouldn't have said it to a white Scotsman.




> It's a religious philosophy which you have attacked either directly or by implication with your rants against religion.




Yes, play the ball, not the man. Attack the religious Ideas, and the people who are using them to harm others or infringe on your rights. A private company getting halal certification doesn't infringe your rights, and doesn't harm others.



> What I don't like is the intrusion of religion into our society and people's lives, whether it be Jewish groups wanting to erect wires on poles so they can carry goods outside on Fridays, Christians telling me I have no right to choose the time of my own death, or Islamic wackos enslaving  their followers to arcane practises




I will protest all those things vigorously right beside you. 



> And I can't help a little smile at the delicious irony of a so called "religious" person that you think I am attacking the intrusion of religion, while an avowed atheist like yourself is quite happy for it to be perpetuated throughout our society, at least if people can make a buck out of it.




As I repeatedly have said, I am pro religious freedom, I don't care if Tink or Pav want to build 1000 churches and worship every day, as long as I don't have to pay for it, I don't care if they build religious schools, I just wish the government didn't fund them, I don't care if Muslims don't want to eat pork, and I don't care if a company wants to label it's food to let them know there is no pork, as long as it doesn't cost me anything.



> Anyway, I think we have done this subject to death, but maybe we can find something else to argue about tomorrow.




I am sure we will, but eventually you'll agree with me, Because your smart and I'm right ;-)


----------



## Value Collector (13 November 2014)

luutzu said:


> I don't think it's ironic to be an Atheist and defend people's right to practise their religion. I think that makes the person a  Libertarian.




If there was a triangle, and in one corner there was libertarianism, the other socialism, and the other conservative capitalism, I think I would fall dead in the centre of that triangle.

I Believe in the free market principle, but understand we need some regulations.

I don't like the concept of socialism, But understand we need a safty net and social services, etc.

I want the maximum rights for everyone, but understand we need rules to live together.

I despise religion, but understand I have no right to tell others how to live, hence I support religious freedom.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 November 2014)

Value Collector said:
			
		

> you also eluded that you wouldn't have said it to a white Scotsman.




I would have if the Scotsman had strange religious views that he wanted to inculcate into our food supply.


----------



## herzy (13 November 2014)

Wysiwyg said:


> Greetings. The statement of associating with religion. I don't understand the separation of religion and  practitioner. Is that what you mean?




Welcome! 

I'm not sure what you mean? I don't associate with religion, or support it - but I find the abject objection to halal certification to be inappropriate and misguided. 



SirRumpole said:


> Encouraging the spread of enslaving practises like only eating certain foods or wasting your time praying 5 times a day only encourages the spread of the ideas behind those acts. If gives them a veneer of respectability which they don't deserve.




Interesting. On the flip side, it's a bit harsh to facilitate some peoples' religious beliefs and not others. I don't think the State should have any role here. As such, as above - free market. Companies will do what consumers want. I don't know if that's really encouraging the spread, but rather facilitating the exercise of their beliefs. 

Would you support banning all forms of religious practice? 



SirRumpole said:


> I would have if the Scotsman had strange religious views that he wanted to inculcate into our food supply.




Haggis. Both religious and strange.


----------



## Value Collector (13 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Well fine then if he supports people practising a philosophy he has described as "evil and immoral". .




At the end of the day, it's peoples right to live how they want. I am not going to force people to give up their religion, I will have open conversations,  I will listen to them talk and then explain to them why their ideas are silly, 

As I said as long as they are not causing harm to others or infringing on the rights of others, their private beliefs are their right.



> I would hope good people would speak out against this sort of thing




I do speak out.

When it comes to indoctrinating children into a baseless religion, I am against that, But you can't do anything about it unless it's really harmful stuff happening, especially if the rest of society believe religion is a good thing. But that's why I am so against religion in schools, I want one place of learning to be free of religious woo, Tink and Pav don't want that.

I want the government to be 100% secular, and support no religion.

there is lots of religious things I don't like, But I want to attack the ideas, not the people, I consider most believers to be victims of crime, they are only believers because they were lied too. Of all the things we can attack islam for, Halal is not what we need to focus on.


----------



## Value Collector (13 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> I would have if the Scotsman had strange religious views that he wanted to inculcate into our food supply.




What do you think halal is?



> if the Scotsman had strange religious




So you would be fine if they were more familiar ideas.


----------



## herzy (14 November 2014)

Excellent post VC, nailed my thoughts in one.


----------



## Calliope (14 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> I am not going to force people to give up their religion, I will have open conversations,  I will listen to them talk and then explain to them why their ideas are silly




Generosity of spirit or just  a pompous ass.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 November 2014)

Value Collector said:
			
		

> When it comes to indoctrinating children into a baseless religion, I am against that, But you can't do anything about it unless it's really harmful stuff happening, especially if the rest of society believe religion is a good thing. But that's why I am so against religion in schools, I want one place of learning to be free of religious woo, Tink and Pav don't want that.
> 
> I want the government to be 100% secular, and support no religion.
> 
> there is lots of religious things I don't like, But I want to attack the ideas, not the people, I consider most believers to be victims of crime, they are only believers because they were lied too. Of all the things we can attack islam for, Halal is not what we need to focus on.




Most indoctrination of children happens at home. So the parents say to their kids "the Australian government lets us have our religious food, so therefore they agree with our religious practise and it must be good". = children grow up more indoctrinated.

Halal is an idea, not a person. I haven't heard you attack the idea that it is immoral to shackle people to arcane ideas that certain food is bad for them because God told them it was.

But sure, when it comes to freedom of choice, people should have it. And cracking down on religious foods by law is probably not the way to go about it. But neither is saying that silly bits of religious practise like Halal and Kosher is fine and religions should be able to make bucks out of fooling people that foods other than what they proscribe are "evil".

Just be a bit consistent and say that these practises are ridiculous like you say of other religious practises. Do you have a vested interest in the Halal industry by any chance ?


----------



## SirRumpole (14 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> What do you think halal is?
> 
> 
> .




I think it's a strange religious idea.

What do you think it is ?


----------



## Value Collector (14 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Just be a bit consistent and say that these practises are ridiculous like you say of other religious practises.?




Some of the halal rules, especially those relating to the humane treatment of animals are certainly not ridiculous, If when it comes to avoiding pork, I see that as kooky, but no more kooky than other religions avoiding red meat on Fridays, or people that avoid opening an umbrella in doors, It's just another kooky superstition to me, But one which people are free to have.

Offcourse I am against people being forced to practice it, but that why I spend time pointing out the weaknesses in peoples religious beliefs, I won't force them to give it up, but I hope over time society can see the silliness.



> Do you have a vested interest in the Halal industry by any chance




No, I don't. 

A company I am a shareholder in has a couple of product lines with halal certification, That's the closet link I would have.

It was actually in response to that company getting Halal certification that I went and did all my research on Halal, I even spoke to a representative from the certification body and a few Muslims to find out some information, because at first I was a bit angry they had done it, but after learning what its all about, I am actually fine with it.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 November 2014)

> Halal is often used in reference to foods, i.e. foods that are permissible for Muslims to eat or drink under Islamic Shariʻah. The criteria specify both what foods are allowed, and how the food must be prepared. The foods addressed are mostly types of meat and animal tissue.
> 
> The most common example of non-halal (or haraam) food is pork. While pork is the only meat that cannot be eaten by Muslims at all (due to historically, culturally, and religiously perceived hygienic concerns), foods other than pork can also be haraam. The criteria for non-pork items include their source, the cause of the animal's death, and how it was processed.
> 
> ...




Woo woo.

How on earth is a Halal authority going to guarantee that any meat eaten by a Muslim in this country has been killed by a Muslim preceded by a call to a mythical being (according to you ), especially in a secular country like Australia and considering all the abattoirs around the country ? Or guarantee that Allahs name has been correctly pronounced before the slaughter ?

This certification is so much bs, to try and get more sales and mollify a few deluded people out there in religion land.

Certification must only include TESTABLE criteria, otherwise the certification is worthless.

I'm surprised that you think the idea has any respectability at all.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 November 2014)

And furthermore, requiring that a person of a particular religious faith is employed for a certain purpose, could well breach our Anti Discrimination laws. Another step in the road to religions overriding our laws.


----------



## Value Collector (14 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Woo woo.
> 
> How on earth is a Halal authority going to guarantee that any meat eaten by a Muslim in this country has been killed by a Muslim preceded by a call to a mythical being (according to you ).




I am not sure if that is a requirement for certification, there is probably some niche product lines that offer that.

However from my discussions I believe, for meat to be halal certified Australia it just has to be shown that the slaughter house has systems in place to ensure no undue stress in caused to the animal prior to slaughter, the animal is stunned by non-lethal means, before being killed by a swift cut to the throat severing it's major veins and air ways. ( which is exactly as the RSPCA recommends, and is the practice for most slaughterhouses ).

The meat product is also free of swine products and other harem products like alcohol.

Here is a slaughter house certified as halal, it's exactly the same as a normal Australian slaughter house. they go in the box, they get stunned, roll out of the box, and have their throat cut, next animal.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> I am not sure if that is a requirement for certification, there is probably some niche product lines that offer that.
> 
> However from my discussions I believe, for meat to be halal certified Australia it just has to be shown that the slaughter house has systems in place to ensure no undue stress in caused to the animal prior to slaughter, the animal is stunned by non-lethal means, before being killed by a swift cut to the throat severing it's major veins and air ways. ( which is exactly as the RSPCA recommends, and is the practice for most slaughterhouses ).
> 
> ...





So is the machine that does the stunning killing etc a Muslim ?


Is should be obvious that if the Halal certifiers are prepared to modify their demands for the Australian market, then the beliefs that they allegedly have could also be toned down to nothing if they wanted to.

What a con. I think I may start a "No Halal in this food" certifying authority. I'd make a fortune.


----------



## Value Collector (14 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> I'm surprised that you think the idea has any respectability at all.




the muslims early adoption of animal welfare rules is respectable, all the other superstitious aspects aren't respectable.

But I am not going to outlaw things based on respectability, in my view you have the right to any practice you want no matter how silly as long as it doesn't harm others or infringe on the rights of others.


----------



## Value Collector (14 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> So is the machine that does the stunning killing etc a Muslim ?
> 
> 
> .




The guy with the knife kills the animal, that machine is a non lethal captured bolt stunner.



> Is should be obvious that if the Halal certifiers are prepared to modify their demands for the Australian market, then the beliefs that they allegedly have could also be toned down to nothing if they wanted to.




It's up to the people who care about halal to decide what they want their certifying body to do, I believe the council is open with members in that faith, and Muslim leaders around Australia helped put the rules together.

But as for us, why do we care if they are watering their rules down?

That's a good thing I think?


----------



## SirRumpole (14 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> the muslims early adoption of animal welfare rules is respectable, all the other superstitious aspects aren't respectable.
> 
> .




Animal welfare is not a purely Islamic idea. It should be a common principle in our society. If all the other stuff is superstition as you say, I don't see why we need it, and I certainly don't see why people should have to pay for it, or be under any pressure to get a certification which, as I have shown is meaningless.

Face it VC, this sort of stuff is just unnecessary in our society, and a con, an extortion racket based on myths. Have a think about it and I think you'll get the idea.


----------



## Value Collector (14 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Animal welfare is not a purely Islamic idea. It should be a common principle in our society..




offcourse, I am only giving them a bit of credit, because amongst all the nasty stuff they managed to get something right.



> If all the other stuff is superstition as you say, I don't see why we need it,




Me and you don't need, nobody probably needs it, but they want it, and it doesn't break my rule against harm or infringement on the rights of others.



> and I certainly don't see why people should have to pay for it, or be under any pressure to get a certification which, as I have shown is meaningless.




None one is under pressure to get it anymore than they are under pressure to do any marketing.

And the certification isn't meaningless, It helps people that don't want to eat pig products avoid pig products.



> Face it VC, this sort of stuff is just unnecessary in our society, and a con, an extortion racket based on myths. Have a think about it and I think you'll get the idea




Is the fact that something is unnecessary mean we should ban it? I do all sorts of unnecessary things.

It's not a con, Its not extortion, lots of things are based on myths, and I have thought about it a lot.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 November 2014)

Value Collector said:
			
		

> And the certification isn't meaningless, It helps people that don't want to eat pig products avoid pig products.




The certification is meaningless because producers can just write on their products that they contain no pig. They can do this for nothing, why should they have to pay someone for that ? That's why its extortion.

The religious freaks have stirred up their slaves to believe that they can't trust us, our laws or our inspection regimes. 

Religious certification divides our society along religious grounds. I thought you said you were against things that divided our society.


----------



## Value Collector (14 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> The certification is meaningless because producers can just write on their products that they contain no pig. They can do this for nothing, why should they have to pay someone for that ? That's why its extortion.
> 
> .




I am not going to keep rehashing this, WWF, Cancer council, peta etc all add credibility to claims, so do the people that care about those groups, care about the endorsement.



> The religious freaks have stirred up their slaves to believe that they can't trust us, our laws or our inspection regimes.




Which laws are you talking about?



> Religious certification divides our society along religious grounds. I thought you said you were against things that divided our society




religion in general does, certification doesn't.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Which laws are you talking about?
> 
> .




I've said it before, but to rehash, the laws of false or misleading advertising. ie if someone says their product contains no pork but it does, they can be sued for false or misleading advertising. What legal protection does Halal certification offer above our own laws ?


----------



## Value Collector (14 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> I've said it before, but to rehash, the laws of false or misleading advertising. ie if someone says their product contains no pork but it does, they can be sued for false or misleading advertising. What legal protection does Halal certification offer above our own laws ?




Halal isn't just about not containing pork, as I said the credibility that's added by knowing a company has consulted a body you trust who know all the specific details you care about, and that body has given them the thumbs up, gives consumers more confidence.

That's all it is, and regardless of the group your subscribed to, that would have value to you, and it has value to the producer to gain exposure to that group.

Anyway, I think I have lost interest in this subject unless you have any new information.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> ...gives consumers more confidence.




What it gives them is false confidence because the Halal authority can never check on most of the religious woohoo that is supposed to make up the entirety of the Halal regime.

But if you are happy for people to be fooled once again by religion, that's up to you.


----------



## Value Collector (14 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> What it gives them is false confidence because the Halal authority can never check on most of the religious woohoo that is supposed to make up the entirety of the Halal regime.
> 
> .




It would be a higher level of confidence than a company that just self certifies, would you not agree to that?


----------



## SirRumpole (14 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> It would be a higher level of confidence than a company that just self certifies, would you not agree to that?




Sigh. Here we go again...

If a company self certifies there are always people going to try to catch them out. The Consumer protection agencies for a start. If a customer or one of these agencies catches the company out, they can be sued.

If there is a certifying agency, there is a financial relationship between the company and the certifyer. It's up to the certifying agency to do the checking, but if they find non compliance, they remove the certification and they don't get their money any more. That applies to Halal, the Cancer Council and whoever else. Money changing hands means corruption. Leave it to the market (you like free markets don't you ?). A random check every now and then is just as good as a certifying agency that receives money regularly. In fact, the Halal council could randomly check if food advertised as Halal actually is, and if not could take the suppliers to court. But they want their regular blood money from the companies don't they ?


----------



## Value Collector (14 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Sigh. Here we go again...




no, we are not, this will be my last post.



> It's up to the certifying agency to do the checking, but if they find non compliance, they remove the certification and they don't get their money any more.




It's not just about being a watch dog, it's also about helping a company, which wants to comply, learn what's on and what's not, 



> Money changing hands means corruption




Money changing hands doesn't automatically mean corruption, 



> . Leave it to the market (you like free markets don't you ?).




The certifying bodies are part of the market.



> A random check every now and then is just as good as a certifying agency that receives money regularly




No government body regulates halal food production, and I don't really want one doing it.

. 







> In fact, the Halal council could randomly check if food advertised as Halal actually is, and if not could take the suppliers to court. But they want their regular blood money from the companies don't they ?




they do random check on the companies that have got their certification, giving them the responsibility for the entire market, but not giving them a source of funding or ability to remove certification would not be practical. 

How are they going to take anyone to court, if they have no funds?

If these are your only gripes, I think you are way over reacting, I have said my piece and am now bored.


----------



## luutzu (14 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Sigh. Here we go again...
> 
> If a company self certifies there are always people going to try to catch them out. The Consumer protection agencies for a start. If a customer or one of these agencies catches the company out, they can be sued.
> 
> If there is a certifying agency, there is a financial relationship between the company and the certifyer. It's up to the certifying agency to do the checking, but if they find non compliance, they remove the certification and they don't get their money any more. That applies to Halal, the Cancer Council and whoever else. Money changing hands means corruption. Leave it to the market (you like free markets don't you ?). A random check every now and then is just as good as a certifying agency that receives money regularly. In fact, the Halal council could randomly check if food advertised as Halal actually is, and if not could take the suppliers to court. But they want their regular blood money from the companies don't they ?




Oops. Greenspan was wrong about companies always doing the right thing when they self-regulate. If you can't trust a banker who can you trust ey?

Nothing is stopping any manufacturers from printing that they reckon their product is Halal, just the Arabs and Muslims who might pay for that product will not pay for it on that basis.

I think you do have a valid reason to be concern about Halal or Kosher food *at the beginning* - I mean, could be insulting to eat perceived "Muslim" or "Jewish" food, but after what VC, Herzy, SmellyTerror... and others have been saying, I don't think you should be concern anymore.

If we're seriously concern about what goes into (y)our food, maybe look into Genetically Modified products that's not being labelled, that's being added and mixed in with "normal" food. At least I don't think they are labelled as GMO in Australia. Now those guys literally play with nature right there.

I don't know much about GMOs, sounds like there's nothing to worry about as it's just science speeding up evolution - maybe... but who knows.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 November 2014)

Value Collector said:
			
		

> How are they going to take anyone to court, if they have no funds?




The Islamic church has no funds ? Like the Catholic Church has no funds ?



> If we're seriously concern about what goes into (y)our food, maybe look into Genetically Modified products that's not being labelled




This is not a matter of what goes into foods, it's a matter of religious "law" intruding into a secular society, among other things, and demanding blood money for a share of a market.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 November 2014)

Australia's consumer protection laws at work

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-13/accc-warns-egg-producers-over-free-range-claims/5886770


----------



## Wysiwyg (15 November 2014)

I did what I stated I would do and bought only food without the islamic law logo attached. $270 worth of food products which normal meat, fruit and vegetables was about two thirds. Products that I swapped for other brands were Fantastic crackers (religious cert. logo) to Sakata crackers (no logo) and Bega cheese (religious cert. logo) to Select Tasty cheese which is a Woolies brand but minus the religious logo.


----------



## SirRumpole (15 November 2014)

Wysiwyg said:


> I did what I stated I would do and bought only food without the islamic law logo attached. $270 worth of food products which normal meat, fruit and vegetables was about two thirds. Products that I swapped for other brands were Fantastic crackers (religious cert. logo) to Sakata crackers (no logo) and Bega cheese (religious cert. logo) to Select Tasty cheese which is a Woolies brand but minus the religious logo.




I've decided to avoid religious branded food wherever possible. I don't mind buying products certified by the cancer council or heart foundation because they do work that benefits us all, but I'm not going to support religions that have no benefit to me because I'm not one of their group.


----------



## Value Collector (15 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> but I'm not going to support religions that have no benefit to me because I'm not one of their group.




Your not supporting religions when you by halal stuff.


----------



## SirRumpole (15 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Your not supporting religions when you by halal stuff.




So we don't support the Heart foundation when we buy HF certified food ?

The certification costs get added to the price of the goods, minimal as they may be they are still there.

So where does the certification fee for Halal go to ? Not to any organisation that I would get a benefit from.


----------



## Value Collector (15 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> So we don't support the Heart foundation when we buy HF certified food ?
> 
> .




No, The company pays a fixed fee to the HF, you buying units after that does not produce an extra return to the HF, and the HF might charge $25K, So if the company sells 3,000,000 units, that's less than 1cent per unit. 

But even then your not paying for that fraction of a cent per unit, the company is expecting to sell more units based on the certification, so that fraction of a cent per unit is being offset by more sales.



> The certification costs get added to the price of the goods, minimal as they may be they are still there.




No, it would be coming from the companies marketing budget. Just like the cost of TV ads don't get added to the price of goods, the companies make investments in marketing to increase sales, which produce extra profits which pay for the investment in the marketing.

Not to mention that increased sales can lead to increased scale and a reduction in the production cost per unit. so halal opening more expect ops, means a reduction in production cost



> So where does the certification fee for Halal go to ? Not to any organisation that I would get a benefit from




It would be going mostly to wages, rent, phone, internet, utilities and transportation of the certifying body. 

If you want to maximise benefit to you, choose the product based on quality and price, not whether it has been certified, I mean picking an inferior product or paying $1 extra to avoid Halal would be just silly. So I say ignore Halal, and just make decisions on quality and price.


----------



## herzy (15 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> No, The company pays a fixed fee to the HF, you buying units after that does not produce an extra return to the HF, and the HF might charge $25K, So if the company sells 3,000,000 units, that's less than 1cent per unit.
> 
> But even then your not paying for that fraction of a cent per unit, the company is expecting to sell more units based on the certification, so that fraction of a cent per unit is being offset by more sales.
> 
> ...




One could go a step further, and point out that a community boycott of halal products will actually make products more expensive - it creates division in the market, where two companies have to provide the same product (one halal certified, the other not), which is obviously going to be more expensive for everything.


----------



## Calliope (15 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> No, The company pays a fixed fee to the HF, you buying units after that does not produce an extra return to the HF, and the HF might charge $25K, So if the company sells 3,000,000 units, that's less than 1cent per unit.
> 
> But even then your not paying for that fraction of a cent per unit, the company is expecting to sell more units based on the certification, so that fraction of a cent per unit is being offset by more sales.
> 
> ...




But VC you promised yesterday;  



> this will be my last post.




I'm afraid your credibility has been devalued.

Sigh!!!


----------



## Value Collector (15 November 2014)

Calliope said:


> ;
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I did say unless he brought up new information, this is a different angle he is attacking it from here, I was growing tired of the "certification is meaningless because they get paid angle".

I knew that wasn't his real problem with it, so wasn't interested anymore in that line of conversation.


----------



## SirRumpole (15 November 2014)

Value Collector said:
			
		

> No, it would be coming from the companies marketing budget. Just like the cost of TV ads don't get added to the price of goods,




Surely that statement is either totally incorrect or very naive. All business costs are factored in to the price of goods. Advertising is a recognised business expense for tax purposes, I'm sure certification fees are as well. You may as well say salaries don't get added to the price of goods.



			
				herzy said:
			
		

> One could go a step further, and point out that a community boycott of halal products will actually make products more expensive -* it creates division in the market,*





The requirement for religious certification has already created division in the market along religious grounds.

So answer me this, what did Muslim people eat before Halal foods came on to the market in Australia ? Did they import all their foods from overseas, or did they eat the horrible heathen stuff ? If they did eat non-Halal foods, even a morsel, are they condemned now to a horrible fate in Hell ? Can any Muslim in Australia guarantee that they have never eaten "unholy" food ? If they can't, then they are all doomed by the Koran to suffer the consequences.

Really this religious stuff is so much nonsense. Legitimising it in our society is only adding to the fraud.



			
				Value Collector said:
			
		

> I knew that wasn't his real problem with it, so wasn't interested anymore in that line of conversation.




I suppose you are going to call me a racist again for opposing religion superstition ?

There are many reasons why religious food certification in a secular society is unacceptable. I've presented quite a few of them which you haven't managed to refute.


----------



## Calliope (15 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> I did say unless he brought up new information, this is a different angle he is attacking it from here, I was growing tired of the "certification is meaningless because they get paid angle".
> 
> I knew that wasn't his real problem with it, so wasn't interested anymore in that line of conversation.




Yes, I understand. When you become fixated on a topic it is difficult to move on while there are still some stones unturned.


----------



## Value Collector (15 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Surely that statement is either totally incorrect or very naive. All business costs are factored in to the price of goods. Advertising is a recognised business expense for tax purposes, I'm sure certification fees are as well. You may as well say salaries don't get added to the price of goods.
> 
> 
> 
> .




No most production businesses have little control over their selling price, the market decides that, So they are not free to just keep raising prices as they see fit. but when it comes to marketing, which certification is part of, it generally works as follows.

a company establishes how much the market will be willing to pay for a product, then they work out how much it would cost to produce the unit, if the market will pay $1.50 and they can produce it for $1.00, they will put the product into production, because they can make a 33% margin.

Obviously though now that it's in production, they know the more units they sell, the more opportunities to make their 33% margin and if they can increase scale they can reduce production cost to maybe $0.95 increasing the profit margin to 37%. So they are willing to reinvest a portion of profits into their marketing budget, to grow sales.

The marketing budget will be spent on all sorts of things to promote the product, whether than be in store samples, TV, Radio, Newspaper ads, paying someone to organise and manage a facebook page or other social media, sports sponsorship, news letters, prize competitions and many more including certification.




> So answer me this, what did Muslim people eat before Halal foods came on to the market in Australia ? Did they import all their foods from overseas, or did they eat the horrible heathen stuff ?




Their local halal butcher and halal deli probably had the meat market cornered, certification is a way for other companies to bust into that market.

and yes, a lot of trusted brands would be imported and sold in Muslim owned stores, if you have been to western Sydney you know what I mean, certification lets Aussie companies compete with these trusted brands.

and for every thing else they would have just taken a lot of time researching ingredents I guess or avoid products that they weren't sure about, certification lets the companies that met standards to be an easy choice, eg more sales.





> If they did eat non-Halal foods, even a morsel, are they condemned now to a horrible fate in Hell ? Can any Muslim in Australia guarantee that they have never eaten "unholy" food ? If they can't, then they are all doomed by the Koran to suffer the consequences.




You would have to ask a muslim what they believe,


----------



## SirRumpole (15 November 2014)

Value Collector said:
			
		

> and yes, a lot of trusted brands would be imported and sold in Muslim owned stores, if you have been to western Sydney you know what I mean, certification lets Aussie companies compete with these trusted brands.




I doubt if a few Muslim corner shops could supply the whole market so there would be a lot of stuff Muslims eat that could not be guaranteed to be Halal. Which sort of makes the whole Halal thing irrelevant anyway.

And, if Certification fees are a tax deduction to the companies, you and I Joe taxpayer are paying for it , like it or not.


----------



## Value Collector (15 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> And, if Certification fees are a tax deduction to the companies, you and I Joe taxpayer are paying for it , like it or not.




It's no different to any other marketing expense, do you consider the tax payer is paying for TV adds when companies choose to play them?

If it leads to higher sales and more exports, there will be increased profit and higher taxes, So your argument in just silly. Companies do it to maximise their earnings, not reduce them.

-------

you really are clutching at straws with these arguments.


----------



## Wysiwyg (15 November 2014)

Fact :- The companies paying for islamic logos are aiming at a specific consumer.
Fact :- The specific consumer number is minute in Australia. (approximately 400000 people)

This could mean

* the consumers in countries with islamic law are the main target.
* the companies have an islamic religious management. 
* companies want to capitalise on the attention islam is increasingly receiving.
* companies foresee Australia integrating islamic law into the constitution.


----------



## SirRumpole (15 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> If it leads to higher sales and more exports, there will be increased profit and higher taxes, So your argument in just silly. Companies do it to maximise their earnings, not reduce them.
> 
> -------
> 
> you really are clutching at straws with these arguments.




Yes I understand your position completely

Religion is evil and immoral except when a company you own shares in can exploit it for greater profit.

How does it feel living off the earnings of immorality and evil ?


----------



## herzy (15 November 2014)

Wysiwyg said:


> Fact :- The companies paying for islamic logos are aiming at a specific consumer.
> Fact :- The specific consumer number is minute in Australia. (approximately 400000 people)
> 
> This could mean
> ...




Ridiculous. What's the connection to Islamic law in the constitution? 

This could also mean:
- companies are trying to increase the target market of their product
- this is a purely commercial decision


I have a much bigger issue with Tony Abbott's religious counsellors in schools, if you're worried about religion getting into politics/law.


----------



## luutzu (15 November 2014)

Wysiwyg said:


> Fact :- The companies paying for islamic logos are aiming at a specific consumer.
> Fact :- The specific consumer number is minute in Australia. (approximately 400000 people)
> 
> This could mean
> ...




That's crazy man. 
Having your products Halal certified open it to some 1.4 Billion new potential customers. While not all businesses have the reach, all would want that potential market - 1/4 of the world's. 

If the company is smart enough, I wouldn't be surprise if it uses two kinds of packaging for the same food - one for the terrorists and one for the infidels.


----------



## Value Collector (15 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> How does it feel living off the earnings of immorality and evil ?




Is that question for me or the straw man your attempting to construct.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman


----------



## SirRumpole (15 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Is that question for me or the straw man your attempting to construct.
> 
> https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman




Whatever suits you, but just to wrap up with your Scotsman example, if a Scotsman said to me "only a Scotsman can tell if a haggis contains oatmeal", I would say to him "rubbish, we have perfectly good analytical laboratories in this country that can tell with utmost precision, the complete contents of any haggis, and if that is not good enough for you, tough luck, go somewhere else". 

 So tell me again why are Muslims the only people qualified to say whether a food contains no pork ?


----------



## Value Collector (15 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> So tell me again why are Muslims the only people qualified to say whether a food contains no pork ?




What I will tell you again, is that its not just about not containing pork, there are quite a few different rules, 

Also things fried in pig fat or containing certain parts of animals may make something not halal, seeing the halal certification means they don't have to worry about checking, going through all the ingredients, it means someone whom they trust knows the rules has checked it for them.


----------



## Wysiwyg (16 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Also things fried in pig fat or containing certain parts of animals may make something not halal, seeing the halal certification means they don't have to worry about checking, going through all the ingredients, it means someone whom they trust knows the rules has checked it for them.



All scientifically tested by mohammed (another) in his inner city 10th floor apartment. A minute trace leading to a sharia law breach and the ensuing guilt, penance, punishment.


----------



## Bintang (16 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> What I will tell you again, is that its not just about not containing pork, there are quite a few different rules,
> 
> Also things fried in pig fat or containing certain parts of animals may make something not halal, seeing the halal certification means they don't have to worry about checking, going through all the ingredients, it means someone whom they trust knows the rules has checked it for them.




About 2 years ago a 'bakso' (Indonesian meatballs) vendor in Jakarta was closed down when it was discovered that his meatballs contained pork. The funny thing about this was that prior to the discovery his 'bakso' was highly popular because it tasted so good.

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2012/12/14/s-jakarta-vendors-sold-beef-bakso-with-pork.html


----------



## DB008 (16 November 2014)

An intelligent Muslim's opinion on this. And from the daily mail...(LOL).


*We Muslims should be appalled by the sale of halal meat by stealth*



> When I walk into a restaurant, I’m usually a hungry customer. It shouldn’t be important to the waiter what my religion is.
> 
> I could be a Muslim, a Christian or a Jedi warrior. Whatever my beliefs, I have a right to enjoy my meal without any hidden agendas.
> 
> ...




http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2623879/We-Muslims-appalled-sale-halal-meat-stealth.html#ixzz3JAybnhcZ


----------



## SirRumpole (16 November 2014)

DB008 said:


> An intelligent Muslim's opinion on this. And from the daily mail...(LOL).
> 
> 
> *We Muslims should be appalled by the sale of halal meat by stealth*
> ...




That would appear to be an official endorsement by an Imam that there is no need for Halal certification. JUST DON'T EAK PORK and Muslims have fulfilled their obligations. 

The rest of the Halal Certification is rubbish. Officially.


----------



## Value Collector (16 November 2014)

DB008 said:


> An intelligent Muslim's opinion on this. And from the daily mail...(LOL).
> 
> 
> *We Muslims should be appalled by the sale of halal meat by stealth*
> ...




I did a little bit of reading on the author of the article, I wouldn't say he represents the thinking of the majority, The author is not really published in any Muslim papers (other than his own news letter) and actually had to sue a Muslim papers because they were claiming he wasn't a real Muslim.

Just like any religion you are going to get a load of different opinions, just look at the wide differences in Christianity when it comes to birthcontrol.

Just because a free thinking woman that labels herself a Christian goes in the news paper and says birth control is ok, doesn't mean catholic doctrine suddenly changes.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 November 2014)

Value Collector said:
			
		

> Just like any religion you are going to get a load of different opinions,




Yes , there are moderates and extremists, so why go with the views of the extremists ?

Unless some people can see dividends disappearing before their eyes.


----------



## Value Collector (16 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes , there are moderates and extremists, so why go with the views of the extremists ?




I go with the view of freedom of religion, and also freedom to choose to eat or not eat what ever you want. 

You really have to stop making references to my investments, the fact that a company that I own shares in has a few products that are halal certified doesn't affect my opinion this.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> I go with the view of freedom of religion, and also freedom to choose to eat or not eat what ever you want.
> 
> You really have to stop making references to my investments, the fact that a company that I own shares in has a few products that are halal certified doesn't affect my opinion this.




And you really must stop calling people racist for opposing religious superstition.


----------



## Value Collector (16 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> And you really must stop calling people racist for opposing religious superstition.




People??? I only used the term racism in relation to you. 

And I have stopped, I only mentioned in relation to a specific comment, which you yourself admitted you would not have made if the person was white. 

I don't think your "racist", I think it had more to do with mild xenophobia. But look i am not interested in going down this road again, just think about the real reasons you are opposed to it, you haven't really given any solid reasons yet.


----------



## Calliope (16 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> . But look i am not interested in going down this road again, just think about the real reasons you are opposed to it, you haven't really given any solid reasons yet.




And to date after an avalanche of posts going nowhere, you haven't provided *any solid reasons* why you favour halal labelling, except, maybe, vested interests, which would make sense. 

I admit I am biased. I love pork spare-ribs.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 November 2014)

Value Collector said:
			
		

> you haven't really given any solid reasons yet.




I'm almost speechless. I think you have a comprehension problem, but let me summarise

Religious certification-

* creates a divided society on religious lines
* creates untestable criteria for certfication (praying before slaughter, proper pronunciation of Allah etc)
* promotes and legitimises silly religious claptrap in a secular society (pork is unholy because God says so)
* encourages religious people not to trust the laws of the land they reside in
* is invalid because before certification, there was no guarantee that religious people have not eaten 'unholy' food,    and   if they haven't died yet then doing so is obviously not a mortal sin
* does not offer anything more than laws of false advertising do
* could breach Discrimination Laws by requiring religious affiliation for jobs in certified slaughterhouses

For starters


----------



## boofhead (16 November 2014)

I know it is off topic but SirRumpole you don't seem to be making much of stance against kosher marked foods. Next time you see a jar of Vegemite you can check it.


----------



## luutzu (16 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> I'm almost speechless. I think you have a comprehension problem, but let me summarise
> 
> Religious certification-
> 
> ...




Read before that if a Muslim must eat else he'd died, that is, eating for survival, it is Halal for him to eat non-Halal food. As long as he doesn't do it out of spite or something like that.

I think you have this backwards SirRumpole. It seems that the Muslims are being blamed for this "stealth" tactics or otherwise of turning our food Muslims/Islamic. They do nothing of the kind.

All they do, like all of us might do, is look for food prepared in accordance with their standard - in this case, religious standards. If the food are not to their standard, they don't buy it. Just like how some of us would only eat non-farmed seafood, or non-imported seafood... So if producers want to sell to the Muslims market, they either meet that standard or it just won't sell.

So if you have issue with your food being Halal-approved (as well as being acceptable to most non-Muslim people), take it up with the manufacturers.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 November 2014)

luutzu said:


> So if you have issue with your food being Halal-approved (as well as being acceptable to most non-Muslim people), take it up with the manufacturers.




I certainly will, by not buying their product. I hope others protest against religion intruding into our society by doing the same.



> Read before that if a Muslim must eat else he'd died, that is, eating for survival, it is Halal for him to eat non-Halal food. As long as he doesn't do it out of spite or something like that.




So if a Muslim eats non-Halal without knowing it and that's OK, there is no need for certification is there, because what they don't know won't hurt them. Their only problem is when they deliberately eat pork or ham etc.

There are so many loopholes in this Halal business that there is no point having it, and taking of money for "certification" is unnecessary.


----------



## Value Collector (16 November 2014)

Calliope said:


> And to date after an avalanche of posts going nowhere, you haven't provided *any solid reasons* why you favour halal labelling, except, maybe, vested interests, which would make sense.




 Freedom of religion and free market enterprise  are both pretty solid reasons in my view, but its not up to me to justify something to prevent it being outlawed, its up to the people who want to out law it to show it causes harm, or encroaches on the rights of others.


> I admit I am biased. I love pork spare-ribs.




I prefer a pulled pork sandwich myself


----------



## Value Collector (16 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> I'm almost speechless. I think you have a comprehension problem, but let me summarise
> 
> Religious certification-
> 
> ...




Let me come over your points,

1, religion in general does that, but if we are going to live in a country with religious freedom, we have to allow people to practice their religion

2, praying over the food is not a criteria the Australian certification promises, but any way, who cares

3, it doesn't promote or legitimise any thing, it just ensures certain predetermined criteria are met

4, the laws of the land have no rules about halal, 

5, this one makes no sense, if people want to eat or not eat something, its there choice, the reason behind doesn't matter.

6, yes it does, it offering a consulting service to assist companies trying to comply to comply, it also offers random checks.

7, nope, it doesn't require that at all.


----------



## Value Collector (16 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> I certainly will, by not buying their product. I hope others protest against religion intruding into our society by doing the same.
> 
> 
> 
> .




If there was a country that ate a lot of cat, and even a lot of the non cat foods still had cat by products in them, and a bunch of us Australians moved to this country, and because eating cat is looked down on in Australian culture, would it really be that bad if we looked to avoid foods with cat in it, and if it was really wide spread use of cat, dog and horse by products, would it be that bad if we had a group to certify that certain brands went out of their way to avoid these meats and meat products we didn't want in our diet.

I know if I saw a company with a trusted non cat, dog or horse certification I would go for that meat in a market where those products were everywhere.


----------



## luutzu (16 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> I certainly will, by not buying their product. I hope others protest against religion intruding into our society by doing the same.
> 
> 
> So if a Muslim eats non-Halal without knowing it and that's OK, there is no need for certification is there, because what they don't know won't hurt them. Their only problem is when they deliberately eat pork or ham etc.
> ...




I think all slaughterhouses would slaughter in the Halal way. So you might have a problem if you're a meat eater.
It's done, I think, not because they've been bought off by Muslims, but it just make business and production sense that if they also want to sell their beef etc. to Muslims, more efficient to slaughter in the way that's Halal because the infidels probably doesn't care how the slaughter is done - we'd all like it done humanely, but whether its head or its butt faces Mecca might be irrelevant.

I mean it's important to know what goes into our food, but Halal or Kosher doesn't seem that different to non-believers so why not let them have it if that's what make them happy.

There are a lot of other places where religion have done a great deal more harm than food preparation - and some of those harms are written into law or ingrained in the public mind. Discrimination against homosexuals; school chaplaincy; heck, asking most of the population to believe in some dude in the sky that is all powerful and should be thanked for the good deeds that's been done but kinda not be responsible for any bad, terrible, horrible things, at all!


----------



## SirRumpole (16 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Let me come over your points,
> 
> 1, religion in general does that, but if we are going to live in a country with religious freedom, we have to allow people to practice their religion
> 
> ...




Forget the freedom of religion and free market stuff, what is your opinion of the points in red above ?


----------



## SirRumpole (16 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> I know if I saw a company with a trusted non cat, dog or horse certification I would go for that meat in a market where those products were everywhere.




Those requirements could be adequately dealt with under secular law, there is no need for a religious body to enforce it.


----------



## DB008 (16 November 2014)

I think the general jist of this thread is, why do/does ~98% of the population have to bow down to ~2% with their religious requirements?


Hypothetical - 

Can we play this game in reverse?

How would it run?

Let's take a country like Morocco/Libya/Algeria/Oman/Iraq with ~ 2-3 % Christian population and majority Muslim, would they be able to put a Christian symbol on food products?


----------



## Value Collector (16 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Forget the freedom of religion and free market stuff, what is your opinion of the points in red above ?




I don't really care what it says in the qu'ran, or what your opinion or what a good Muslim would be.

The fact that a group of people want to avoid certain foods, and make sure animals are killed humanely is ok with me. As long as they are not forcing me to avoid those foods by banning them, I am quite happy for some manufacturers that don't use those ingredients to be certified by that group and then label them.

To be honest, if a chip manufactorer switched to frying in vegetable oil instead of pig fat so he could sell to a wider market, I don't really care.

Most modern religions has eased up on the old practices, I think thats a good thing, I don't know why your here complaining that Muslims aren't taking things seriously enough, lol


----------



## Value Collector (16 November 2014)

DB008 said:


> I think the general jist of this thread is, why do/does ~98% of the population have to bow down to ~2% with their religious requirements?
> 
> 
> Hypothetical -
> ...




Who is bowing down?

Just because other countries don't have religious freedom doesn't mean we should avoid it, other wise atheists like me might find my self burning at a stake, lol

Australia isn't a Christian country, it's not a Muslim country, it's not an atheist country its a secular democracy, where we all have the right to practice or not practice a religion.

At the end of the day, all this fuss you guys are causing is just because one group doesn't want to eat certain things, and some manufacturers what to let that community know that their product doesn't contain it. Thats it.

If you want to stop that, your infringing on the Free market and all the religious freedoms of others.


----------



## DB008 (16 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Who is bowing down?
> 
> Just because other countries don't have religious freedom doesn't mean we should avoid it, other wise atheists like me might find my self burning at a stake, lol
> 
> ...




Our 'freedom', will be our demise...

The tolerant are letting the intolerant dictate terms.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> I don't know why your here complaining that Muslims aren't taking things seriously enough, lol




Because it just shows what a farce the whole "religious food" thing is.

So let's hear your opinion of whether the idea of avoiding pork for religious reasons is silly or not. You are always on about attacking the ideas behind religion, so what do you think ? Don't give me "it's other people's right to think what they like", I'm not arguing that, I'm asking your opinion on the basis of the idea behind religious food.



> and some manufacturers what to let that community know that their product doesn't contain it. Thats it.




No that's not it as I've said many times. I'm fine if manufacturers write on their product "suitable for Muslims". What I'm against is extracting a fee for so called "official" permission to sanctify such food. It amounts to commercial extortion imo.


----------



## IFocus (16 November 2014)

On the insiders today a interesting point was made

If you want to protest against Halal stop buying petrol.

BYW I think the Halal certification is over the top.


----------



## boofhead (16 November 2014)

I did laugh at Malcolm Farr saying that.

SirRumpole are you going to picket the Vegemite production because of what it has on the packaging? What about any certified vegetarian products (people have a belief to not eat meat)? I eat meat so why should I pay for a non-meat product to say it is ok for those that are opposed to how some animals are treated, eaten and so forth?


----------



## IFocus (16 November 2014)

boofhead said:


> I did laugh at Malcolm Farr saying that.




I did too it was a rare occasion where LOL was real.


----------



## Value Collector (16 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Because it just shows what a farce the whole "religious food" thing is.
> 
> So let's hear your opinion of whether the idea of avoiding pork for religious reasons is silly or not. You are always on about attacking the ideas behind religion, so what do you think ? Don't give me "it's other people's right to think what they like", I'm not arguing that, I'm asking your opinion on the basis of the idea behind religious food.
> 
> ...




it's not a farce, there are actual groups of people that dont want to eat certain things, a body has put together criteria that a bunch of those people accept, and they help companies that want their assistance to met the criteria.

Off course avoiding pork for religious reasons is silly, but so what, you have the right to be silly. It's no more silly than a catholic who believes they are eating the body of Christ at their sunday church service. 

I have discussed my opinion on what you call commercial extortion, the fact is its not, they can just write that stuff if they want, however they also have the right to employ a certification body to assist them in ensuring they comply and also help them publicise the fact,


----------



## luutzu (16 November 2014)

DB008 said:


> Our 'freedom', will be our demise...
> 
> The tolerant are letting the intolerant dictate terms.




There's a contradiction and an LOL in there somewhere.


----------



## Wysiwyg (16 November 2014)

There has been enough bigotry toward religious halal practice on this thread. The faith has every right to notify people what food is approved. What right do non-religious people have to say they cannot certify and logo food products according to their belief. The answer is simple you bigots. Sharia law is here to stay and if you don't like it well there are international planes leaving daily. 

Allahu Akbar


----------



## Julia (16 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> At the end of the day, all this fuss you guys are causing is just because one group doesn't want to eat certain things, and some manufacturers what to let that community know that their product doesn't contain it. Thats it.



I don't want to be involved in this apparently endless discussion, but just want to object to the above, VC.

The people who are against the Halal certification are, as I read their comments, not just being obstructive or recalcitrant.  Rather they have genuine concerns about what to you are apparently insignificant measures being dismissed as irrelevant.  They have every right to feel so concerned and to express that without being rubbished imo.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 November 2014)

Value Collector said:
			
		

> Off course avoiding pork for religious reasons is silly, but so what, you have the right to be silly. It's no more silly than a catholic who believes they are eating the body of Christ at their sunday church service.




Well, I thought it was your mission in life to talk people out of silly religious ideas, but now I find you are more interested in exploiting them for money.

You spent a lot of time ridiculing my belief in an afterlife, maybe I should be glad you didn't pose as a psychic and asked for money to contact my dead relatives.

You have zero credibility now on religious matters in my book.


----------



## luutzu (16 November 2014)

Wysiwyg said:


> There has been enough bigotry toward religious halal practice on this thread. The faith has every right to notify people what food is approved. What right do non-religious people have to say they cannot certify and logo food products according to their belief. The answer is simple you bigots. Sharia law is here to stay and if you don't like it well there are international planes leaving daily.
> 
> Allahu Akbar




I think non-religious people just use the taste test as their belief when buying food, to eat.

With our thoughts we make the world... what kind of world would we make if we get upset over people wanting their food in a certain way?


----------



## luutzu (16 November 2014)

Julia said:


> I don't want to be involved in this apparently endless discussion, but just want to object to the above, VC.
> 
> The people who are against the Halal certification are, as I read their comments, not just being obstructive or recalcitrant.  Rather they have genuine concerns about what to you are apparently insignificant measures being dismissed as irrelevant.  They have every right to feel so concerned and to express that without being rubbished imo.




I think VC and others have been patiently dispelling all the concerns raised, else it'd just be a three words reply.

There doesn't seem to be any health or nutritional or economic issues with Halal or Kosher food; the biggest concern seem to be Sharia law and Muslims infiltrating our food supply by stealth. 

Just checked as advised by Boofhead and Vegemite is both Halal and Kosher, and owned by the Americans! Wait until Dick Smith hear about this.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 November 2014)

luutzu said:


> Just checked as advised by Boofhead and Vegemite is both Halal and Kosher, and owned by the Americans! Wait until Dick Smith hear about this.




There would be masses of food on the market that is both halal and kosher, for the reason of not containing any pork or pig products. I've no objection to that whatever. I have no objection to eating such food. I object to religions gaining a bounty for the official blessing of such food when people should just be able to advertise the virtues of their products without paying anyone for the privelege.

Egg companies can advertise their eggs as "free range", and some of them have been taken to court by the ACCC for false advertising. There is no "Free range eggs Certification Authority" as far as I know, because breaches of faith with the public are dealt with under legislation that applies to everyone.


----------



## Value Collector (17 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Well, I thought it was your mission in life to talk people out of silly religious ideas, but now I find you are more interested in exploiting them for money.
> 
> You spent a lot of time ridiculing my belief in an afterlife, maybe I should be glad you didn't pose as a psychic and asked for money to contact my dead relatives.
> 
> You have zero credibility now on religious matters in my book.




I have always maintained I will stand up for religious freedom, I can't see why explaining to you that the beliefs you hold are unjustified, while also acknowledging you have the right to hold them makes me have less credibility. 

I will talk to any religious person that wishes to discuss their religion with me, and then explain to them why their beliefs are unfounded, but I will always defend the right to freedom of religion.

My stance has never changed, if you go back to my oldest posts the two themes you will find running through all my posts is.

1, religion does good, but it has bad side effects, so it should be avoided because all the good things can be achieved in secular ways.

2, I believe in freedom of religion, you can build as many churches and have as many meetings as you want, just stay out of the government and public schools, and dont take public funds, practice your religion any way you want, just don't infringe on others religious rights or cause harm.

To get me to agree that halal certification should be stopped, you have to show that it either infringes on the rights of others or causes harm.


----------



## Value Collector (17 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> There would be masses of food on the market that is both halal and kosher, for the reason of not containing any pork or pig products. I've no objection to that whatever. I have no objection to eating such food. I object to religions gaining a bounty for the official blessing of such food when people should just be able to advertise the virtues of their products without paying anyone for the privelege.
> 
> Egg companies can advertise their eggs as "free range", and some of them have been taken to court by the ACCC for false advertising. There is no "Free range eggs Certification Authority" as far as I know, because breaches of faith with the public are dealt with under legislation that applies to everyone.




The RSPCA certified egg companies that met their criteria, 

If a company decides to use certification as a way to promote a certain virtue of their product, why can't they?

Who's rights are being infringed?
Who is being harmed?
What laws are being broken?
How does it affect you?


----------



## SirRumpole (17 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> To get me to agree that halal certification should be stopped, you have to show that it either infringes on the rights of others or causes harm.




In fact I have never said religious certification should be made illegal. There is probably nothing we can or should do to outlaw it. I have showed why it should be opposed, why it is unnecessary and why it is an intrusion of religion into secular laws, and is simply another means of revenue raising for religion.

 I intend not to buy any officially sanctioned religious goods for those reasons and I hope others protest as well.


----------



## Value Collector (17 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> I have showed why it should be opposed,




I don't think the reasons you gave were valid, we will have to just disaggree



> why it is unnecessary




People want it, and that's their right. Lots of things are not necessary, does mean I don't want them. 



> and why it is an intrusion of religion into secular laws



,

How so?



> I intend not to buy any officially sanctioned religious goods for those reasons.




Really, your giving up vegemite?

As I said, you would be much better off just ignoring it and making your decisions on quality and price.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> How so?




We have been through all this before



> Really, your giving up vegemite?
> 
> .




Yes, because it gives me indigestion

I haven't eaten it for some time.


----------



## Value Collector (17 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> We have been through all this before
> 
> 
> .




you haven't actually explained how it is an "an intrusion of religion into secular laws" 

There are no laws about halal.

The only thing you say is that we already have laws against false advertising etc.

Certification doesn't intrude on false advertising laws, it just puts another set of eyes out their looking for it, and also helps those that want to comply actually go through the steps needed to make sure they are complying and don't end up making false claims.

If a company wants to make their products Halal, they would probably have to hire a consulted any way, and that consultant may end up being more expensive than getting certification by a company already set up to do it.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 November 2014)

> Certification doesn't intrude on false advertising laws, it just puts another set of eyes out their looking for it, and also helps those that want to comply actually go through the steps needed to make sure they are complying and don't end up making false claims.




Religions are quite entitled to put out a statement of standards if they want to, and companies can advertise that they are conforming to those standards. Why should they have to pay for an "official blessing". Our laws and market are quite capable of ensuring compliance with standards. If Halal certification can add nothing to the current law and market system, then they are in fact receiving money for nothing. Hence the extortion claim.


----------



## Value Collector (17 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Religions are quite entitled to put out a statement of standards if they want to, and companies can advertise that they are conforming to those standards. Why should they have to pay for an "official blessing". .




I am growing tired of your circular nature of your dishonest arguments, No is saying the "Have to", some companies just "choose to".

You need to stop repeating false statements.



> Our laws and market are quite capable of ensuring compliance with standards. If Halal certification can add nothing to the current law and market system, then they are in fact receiving money for nothing. Hence the extortion claim




Extortion is - the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats

Name one company that has received threats or is being forced. 

Do you have a problem with private companies doing fire safety certification?


----------



## SirRumpole (17 November 2014)

Value Collector said:
			
		

> I am growing tired of your circular nature of your dishonest arguments, No is saying the "Have to", some companies just "choose to".




And I am growing tired of your hypocrisy.

 You say that enslaving people with religious doctrine is evil and immoral, but you don't mind that religion controls a sector of a market with bogus claims that they will be punished by God if they eat "unholy" food, and then charges business a fee for access to that market.

Don't give me that freedom of religion stuff any more. People are getting the wool pulled over their eyes, are being enslaved by threats of holy punishment for eating perfectly harmless food, and that's fine by you. It's a con, a sham and immoral, but you go and make a few bucks out of it if that's all you are worried about.


----------



## Value Collector (17 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> And I am growing tired of your hypocrisy.
> 
> .




show me where I am guilty of hypocrisy? My position has never changed.



> You say that enslaving people with religious doctrine is evil and immoral,




It is.



> but you don't mind that religion controls a sector of a market with bogus claims that they will be punished by God if they eat "unholy" food,




It's peoples rights to live that way if they wish, Even a lot of non believers in the god claims still follow the practice for cultural reasons, Just like the Jewish, there is a big population of non believeing cultural Jews and muslims.



> and then charges business a fee for access to that market




They are not charging a fee to access the market, they charge a fee for consulting service to answer an questions you have and also check out your operations.

In fact it's not much different to fire safety certification, if you want to make sure operations comply with the fire code, you can pay an expect body to audit you and make sure you comply, this in no way interferes with the government regulations.



> Don't give me that freedom of religion stuff any more.




Do you not think freedom of religion is a good thing?


----------



## SirRumpole (17 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> show me where I am guilty of hypocrisy? My position has never changed.





Hypocrisy.

Religion is evil and immoral, except when we can make a buck out of it.

What would you say if the Catholic church started running brothels ?

Why don't you spend some time following your stated position on religion by explaining to people if you think they are being enslaved by bogus claims about "unholy" food ?


----------



## Value Collector (17 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Hypocrisy.
> 
> Religion is evil and immoral, except when we can make a buck out of it.




I have always stated I believe in religious freedom, whether I make a buck or off something doesn't come into it.

In fact I was getting ready to write the company a letter as a shareholder, but decided to collect my facts before writing it, during my research I realised it didn't breech my beliefs on freedom of religion.



> What would you say if the Catholic church started running brothels ?




I would be fine with that, I have no moral objection to prostitution, unless your inferring the catholic brothel would have child sex workers working there. 



> Why don't you spend some time following your stated position on religion by explaining to people if you think they are being enslaved by bogus claims about "unholy" food




I would like to talk people out of holding religious beliefs, but I don't want to infringe on their rights to practice it, or their right to maintain traditional practices absent of belief.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 November 2014)

Value Collector said:
			
		

> I would like to talk people out of holding religious beliefs, but I don't want to infringe on their rights to practice it, or their right to maintain traditional practices absent of belief.




Well I see the whole religious certification idea as too similar to a protection racket.

You get a few vandals to damage some buildings and then extract money off  tenants to see that it doesn't happen again.

The problem of course, is that there was no need for protection in the first place, because the people receiving the "consultation fees" caused the original problem.


----------



## Value Collector (17 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Well I see the whole religious certification idea as too similar to a protection racket.
> 
> You get a few vandals to damage some buildings and then extract money off  tenants to see that it doesn't happen again.
> 
> The problem of course, is that there was no need for protection in the first place, because the people receiving the "consultation fees" caused the original problem.




I know you see it that way, but its not like that at all.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> I know you see it that way, but its not like that at all.




Well it certainly isn't the pig farmers preaching to people that pork is "unholy"


----------



## DB008 (17 November 2014)

Is the Muslim/Halal certification actually Government recognised? Or is it a self regulating unit?



*Religious levy costs Queensland abattoirs thousands each month*



> QUEENSLAND abattoirs are being slugged thousands of dollars a month through a religious levy on meat exports so powerful Muslim clerics in Jakarta can raise money for Islamic schools and mosques.
> 
> The Halal certification fees can cost some meat processors up to $27,000 a month.
> 
> ...





http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/religious-levy-costs-queensland-abattoirs-thousands-each-month/story-fnihsrf2-1226743106235?nk=18872c2f54e99acbb1000e4e8c46ea9c


----------



## SirRumpole (17 November 2014)

DB008 said:


> Is the Muslim/Halal certification actually Government recognised? Or is it a self regulating unit?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




No extortion racket there eh ?


----------



## Wysiwyg (17 November 2014)

> Religious levy costs Queensland abattoirs thousands each month




Can you imagine burly Tom Brown facing his butt to Mecca and reciting allahu akbar before and after the cut.


----------



## luutzu (17 November 2014)

DB008 said:


> Is the Muslim/Halal certification actually Government recognised? Or is it a self regulating unit?
> 
> *Religious levy costs Queensland abattoirs thousands each month*
> 
> ...




Those Muslims, using their money to build and repair Mosques and Islamic schools! The horror! The terror!
Whatever happen to building Churches, or Synagogues, ey?

While we're at it, whatever happen to getting things for free? Where has the world gone to when a business have to pay, pay!, pay to gain access to a foreign market. Why.... that's like paying tariffs and taxes.


----------



## Value Collector (18 November 2014)

Obviously we can't control what they do in Indonesia, if their system is based on more of a cash grab than offering a real service, then obviously I would be against that.


----------



## DeepState (18 November 2014)

Seems to be a few words written about gouging on this thread.  Are there actually any concrete reasons to believe that certifiers in Australia are behaving as a cartel through any means?

https://www.accc.gov.au/business/anti-competitive-behaviour/cartels


----------



## luutzu (18 November 2014)

DeepState said:


> Seems to be a few words written about gouging on this thread.  Are there actually any concrete reasons to believe that certifiers in Australia are behaving as a cartel through any means?
> 
> https://www.accc.gov.au/business/anti-competitive-behaviour/cartels




If the Halal certifiers engage in cartel practices in Australia, then make complaints to the ACCC. That or boycott or find new markets - ship it to China or Vietnam - we Asians eat everything that's cooked right.

Let say that the Indonesian Islamic authority abuse its power over Halal certification, it's perfectly fine and fair, in my opinion, to discuss and do something about that body. To say that they abuse their influence therefore all Halal certification are corrupt and useless and unnecessary and Australians shouldn't allow it and Muslims in Australia ought to eat like real Aussies do... that's going a bit far.

There's a lot of racial undercurrent with some posts and the papers cited.

Maybe it's just me but I get the impression that some of us are upset about Halal because it appear like the Muslims are sneaking Islam into our food, forcing our suppliers to do bad things, forcing higher costs on us etc. all so they can build more Mosques to indoctrinate young terrorists and fund terrorism.

Hope I'm wrong about that. But if there's some truth to it, we're screwed because that kind of thinking will lead us to fear or hate or distrust some one quarter of humanity; which lead to us agreeing to policies and act that discriminates and oppress others, supporting policies like letting refugees - some, or most, or even all of whom might actually fled religious or political persecution.. but we won't know because we won't care... just let them rot somewhere outback because they're Muslims and who needs more of them terrorising our freedom and muck with our food.

Anyway...


----------



## DB008 (19 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> No extortion racket there eh ?




Bingo.

The simple solution - ban it.

If a Muslim can't get a Halal certified product, that is ok for them. The Koran (via Mohammed) says it is no problem. 



> *Surah 2:173 states:*
> If one is forced because there is no other choice, neither craving nor transgressing, there is no sin on him.


----------



## Bintang (19 November 2014)

DB008 said:


> Bingo.
> 
> The simple solution - ban it.
> 
> If a Muslim can't get a Halal certified product, that is ok for them. The Koran (via Mohammed) says it is no problem.




The trouble is they might discover that the non-Halal certified products taste better (bit like food which is 'fat reduced' - it's also 'taste reduced') and the behaviour might become habitual (Ah the wicked pleasures of sinning)  and the religious leaders can't allow that to happen … can they?

I wonder if Adam and Eve ate  the forbidden fruit (supposedly an apple) because everything else in the garden was labelled with halal certificates.


----------



## Wysiwyg (19 November 2014)

Bintang said:


> I wonder if Adam and Eve ate  the forbidden fruit (supposedly an apple) because everything else in the garden was labelled with halal certificates.



It was only thought up 1400 years ago. The Adam & Eve story explains the beginning of human species and the subsequent suffering bestowed on the ensuing humans. Note the incident was written about after intelligence developed to a stage where someone could write. The creator was a cruel entity as described below. Believe it or not, this was the story of the time. 



> 3 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”
> 
> 2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”
> 
> ...


----------



## Bintang (19 November 2014)

Wysiwyg said:


> It was only thought up 1400 years ago. The Adam & Eve story explains the beginning of human species and the subsequent suffering bestowed on the ensuing humans. Note the incident was written about after intelligence developed to a stage where someone could write. The creator was a cruel entity as described below. Believe it or not, this was the story of the time.




Wysiwyg, thanks for the sermon but I think you took my light hearted comment a bit too seriously.


----------



## Wysiwyg (19 November 2014)

This family doesn't like bacon and flew into a rage after discovering some in a Macca's burger. 



> Police allege the trouble began when the group began abusing counter staff because their hamburger contained bacon.
> Police who were on the premises spoke to Walid Khaled about his alleged offensive behaviour. When he allegedly continued to swear, police tried to arrest him.
> Police allege they were assaulted by Mouhamad Khaled and Austin, prompting them to use capsicum spray and batons.
> As they attempted to restrain Mouhamad Khaled he allegedly grabbed their handcuffs and assaulted them.
> ...


----------



## Bintang (19 November 2014)

Wysiwyg said:


> This family doesn't like bacon and flew into a rage after discovering some in a Macca's burger.




"Mouhamad Khaled spent four months in custody before being granted bail in the Supreme Court."

This report fails to mention what he was given to eat while in custody. They should have given him bacon and water every day.


----------



## Value Collector (20 November 2014)

Wysiwyg said:


> It was only thought up 1400 years ago.




Not really, Halal is mostly based of the bible,  the rules against eating pig etc come from the bible versus below. The rules for halal bank loans etc are also based on bible verses banning interest payments and usury, 


Leviticus 11:7-8 - And the pig, because it parts the hoof and is cloven-footed but does not chew the cud, is unclean to you. You shall not eat any of their flesh, and you shall not touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you. 




Isaiah 66:17 - “Those who sanctify and purify themselves to go into the gardens, following one in the midst, eating pig's flesh and the abomination and mice, shall come to an end together, declares the Lord. 




Leviticus 11:1-47 - And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying to them, “Speak to the people of Israel, saying, These are the living things that you may eat among all the animals that are on the earth. Whatever parts the hoof and is cloven-footed and chews the cud, among the animals, you may eat. Nevertheless, among those that chew the cud or part the hoof, you shall not eat these: The camel, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you. And the rock badger, because it chews the cud but does not part the hoof, is unclean to you.


----------



## Calliope (20 November 2014)

Bintang said:


> The trouble is they might discover that the non-Halal certified products taste better (bit like food which is 'fat reduced' - it's also 'taste reduced') and the behaviour might become habitual (Ah the wicked pleasures of sinning)  and the religious leaders can't allow that to happen … can they?
> 
> I wonder if Adam and Eve ate  the forbidden fruit (supposedly an apple) because everything else in the garden was labelled with halal certificates.




It is difficult to find yogurt on the shelf which is not labelled "no fat, low fat, lite or fat reduced" Take the fat out and the yogurt is tasteless pap, so they just load it up with sugar and give it a sugary fruity flavour, but;



> Quite a lot of the flavoured yoghurts we bought from major supermarkets make healthy-sounding claims of one sort or another, including ‘low fat’, ‘lite’ and so on. Most of these yoghurts in fact give you more kilojoules per serve than plain full-fat yoghurt, and some of them evenn more than YOPLAIT Original Strawberry, the top-selling full-fat flavoured yoghurt. These unexpected and unwanted kilojoules come from sugar.




Read more: http://www.choice.com.au/reviews-an.../nutrition/low-fat-yoghurt.aspx#ixzz3JYsASzfc


----------



## Wysiwyg (20 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Not really, Halal is mostly based of the bible,  the rules against eating pig etc come from the bible versus below. The rules for halal bank loans etc are also based on bible verses banning interest payments and usury,



Ah yes, the original hebrew source extended to the Quran version of events so contributed by that archangel Gabriel again resurfacing to pass on the the message of god. The truth is, no life creating influence would be whispering messages. Messages completely ridiculous compared to the ability of creating life where there was no life before.


----------



## SirRumpole (20 November 2014)

Quoting the Bible now VC ?

One may be forgiven for thinking that you have been born again


----------



## Value Collector (20 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Quoting the Bible now VC ?
> 
> One may be forgiven for thinking that you have been born again




Just letting people know the source, so they know its not just a "crazy Muslim thing", I always like to remind Christians who are against halal that if they really want to take their gods word seriously they should put down the bacon.

Its funny, the verse banning bacon is from the same chapter that bans homosexuality, talk about cherry picking.

As for me, last night i had double bacon cheese burger, it was delicious ;-)


----------



## Value Collector (20 November 2014)

Wysiwyg said:


> Ah yes, the original hebrew source extended to the Quran version of events so contributed by that archangel Gabriel again resurfacing to pass on the the message of god. The truth is, no life creating influence would be whispering messages. Messages completely ridiculous compared to the ability of creating life where there was no life before.




Isn't that why he created us? So he could fill in his days judging us on what we eat and who we sleep with?


----------



## SirRumpole (20 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Just letting people know the source, so they know its not just a "crazy Muslim thing", I always like to remind Christians who are against halal that if they really want to take their gods word seriously they should put down the bacon.
> 
> Its funny, the verse banning bacon is from the same chapter that bans homosexuality, talk about cherry picking.
> 
> As for me, last night i had double bacon cheese burger, it was delicious ;-)




Ah yes, but they were Old Testament books. The Jews may believe them, which is why they don't eat pork, but as the Christians are mainly New Testament they don't have such an obligation.


----------



## Value Collector (20 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Ah yes, but they were Old Testament books. The Jews may believe them, which is why they don't eat pork, but as the Christians are mainly New Testament they don't have such an obligation.




The Old Testament is where the Ten Commandments come from, Its really just more Christian cherry picking if they ignore the Old Testament, there is no biblical reason to ignore it, Jesus himself says none of the laws from the Old Testament will change.

Also the concept of Adam and eves original sin, is from the Old Testament, without it there is no reason to sacrifice Jesus, and their whole religion breaks down, the New Testament doesn't replace the Old Testament, the the two bibles and the Quran are a trilogy, of fan fiction, I am surprised they don't come as a box set.

And As I said, they are quite happy to quote it when it suits them in an anti gay rant.


----------



## Bintang (20 November 2014)

*'Vegemite products are funding terrorism'*
 National Party MP claims halal-certified groceries fund terror and local campaigns for Sharia law in Australia.

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/george-christensen-uses-vegemite-to-suggest-halal-products-are-fund

The Age story reports that: _"Two weeks ago, South Australian dairy producer Fleurieu Milk and Yoghurt Company was forced drop its halal certification after receiving threats on social media.
As a consequence, it's believed the company lost a $50,000 contact with Emirates."_

Surely what the company can do is produce separate halal-certified items for export. And within Australia surely the solution is also to produce two sets of labelling. One with halal-certificates for the 2% of the population that want it and another without halal certification for the other 98% of the population. The halal-certified products will be more expensive. Simple 'user-pays' principle. Why should 98% of the population subsidise the cost of halal-certification for only 2% of the population.


----------



## Tisme (20 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> The Old Testament is where the Ten Commandments come from, Its really just more Christian cherry picking if they ignore the Old Testament, there is no biblical reason to ignore it, Jesus himself says none of the laws from the Old Testament will change.
> 
> .




really?

You actually read the Bible? Because I can think of a few examples of old covenants being made obsolete or spiritualised. One of them is Hebrews 8:13


----------



## Value Collector (20 November 2014)

Tisme said:


> really?




Sermon on the mount Matthew 5 17: 20,

Jesus himself says the following about the laws of the Old Testament.

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven"

Jesus here is stating that Jewish law will not be changed until heaven and earth disappear,


----------



## Bintang (20 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Sermon on the mount Matthew 5 17: 20,
> 
> Jesus himself says the following about the laws of the Old Testament.






Tisme said:


> really?
> 
> You actually read the Bible? Because I can think of a few examples of old covenants being made obsolete or spiritualised. One of them is Hebrews 8:13




VC and Tisme, would you guys care to carry on your bible text discussion elsewhere and let the rest of us return to subjects more relevant to the topic of this thread,  such as *bacon*.


----------



## luutzu (20 November 2014)

Bintang said:


> *'Vegemite products are funding terrorism'*
> National Party MP claims halal-certified groceries fund terror and local campaigns for Sharia law in Australia.
> 
> http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/george-christensen-uses-vegemite-to-suggest-halal-products-are-fund
> ...




They would just make the same batch, different bottling. Both being Halal certified, just not labeled as such.


----------



## luutzu (20 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Sermon on the mount Matthew 5 17: 20,
> 
> Jesus himself says the following about the laws of the Old Testament.
> 
> ...




Trick question: Is Jesus Christ Jewish or Christian?


----------



## SirRumpole (20 November 2014)

luutzu said:


> Trick question: Is Jesus Christ Jewish or Christian?




Trick answer: both


----------



## Bintang (20 November 2014)

luutzu said:


> They would just make the same batch, different bottling. Both being Halal certified, just not labeled as such.




Yes, that's exactly the point. The difference being that those people who want a halal certificate on the packaging will pay for it and those who don't want or need such a certificate can buy the product for less. Like I said - 'user-pays-principle'. That way their terrorist activities and Sharia law campaigns can be self-funded.


----------



## Julia (20 November 2014)

Bintang said:


> *'Vegemite products are funding terrorism'*
> National Party MP claims halal-certified groceries fund terror and local campaigns for Sharia law in Australia.
> 
> http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/george-christensen-uses-vegemite-to-suggest-halal-products-are-fund
> ...



The manager of Fleurieau explained his position very clearly.  His conclusion was that the small amount of money brought in by the contract with Etihad (or some ME airline) did not warrant the grief he was receiving via social media accusing him of supporting Muslim terrorism.  So he dropped the Halal certification.

7.30's report about this was fascinating.  Rumpole, if you've not seen it, then you'll be pleased to see how widely your views are replicated across the population.
Obviously something many people feel extremely strongly about.
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2014/s4133082.htm


----------



## Bintang (20 November 2014)

Julia said:


> The manager of Fleurieau explained his position very clearly.  His conclusion was that the small amount of money brought in by the contract with Etihad (or some ME airline) did not warrant the grief he was receiving via social media accusing him of supporting Muslim terrorism.  So he dropped the Halal certification.
> 
> 7.30's report about this was fascinating.  Rumpole, if you've not seen it, then you'll be pleased to see how widely your views are replicated across the population.
> Obviously something many people feel extremely strongly about.
> http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2014/s4133082.htm




I think it's fantastic that there are so many people campaigning about this issue. It's about time somebody started standing up to the creeping islamisation of Australia. As for the Byron Bay Cookie Company defying the protests to maintain their halal certification I think they are just dumb. Of course they can maintain their oversees contracts by certifying the products that they export. But that doesn't mean they have to certify the products that they sell to Australians who don't need the certification and don't want to pay for it.


----------



## luutzu (20 November 2014)

Julia said:


> The manager of Fleurieau explained his position very clearly.  His conclusion was that the small amount of money brought in by the contract with Etihad (or some ME airline) did not warrant the grief he was receiving via social media accusing him of supporting Muslim terrorism.  So he dropped the Halal certification.
> 
> 7.30's report about this was fascinating.  Rumpole, if you've not seen it, then you'll be pleased to see how widely your views are replicated across the population.
> Obviously something many people feel extremely strongly about.
> http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2014/s4133082.htm




Ring Ring... Byron Halal-certified Bakery, we employed 65 Aussies and sell all over the world, how may I hep you.

*True Blue Non-terrorist Aussie:* Oi! you f and f and f, did you know that you f n f funding terrorists with your certification? Do you know the kind of nasty s they do? They're intolerant sob who will use my money to buy bullets to then come over and terrorise you and me, will not allow us to do what we want, will threaten and abuse us if we do s they don't like... so you bloody better stop this, or else! g dam terrorist lover!


Nothing says love of freedom better than bullying and terrorising others into doing what you want.

----

35 000 from population of 24 million [?] isn't that large. Statistically, I could find 35,000 Australians that share something on practically anything you can imagine - from Elvis still being alive to the Loch Ness Monster.


Let see, a small business fork out $1,000 for an inspection and a certificate each year; Got a $50,000 contract from one airline... one that might lead to further business with the same or another from a Muslim country... That business got to go because.... it's the same yogurt he's making! Just added a logo so he can expand sales and pay a bit more taxes.


----------



## luutzu (20 November 2014)

Bintang said:


> I think it's fantastic that there are so many people campaigning about this issue. It's about time somebody started standing up to the creeping islamisation of Australia. As for the Byron Bay Cookie Company defying the protests to maintain their halal certification I think they are just dumb. Of course they can maintain their oversees contracts by certifying the products that they export. But that doesn't mean they have to certify the products that they sell to Australians who don't need the certification and don't want to pay for it.




mate, if they just serve up the same thing but put different labels, if the infidels find out they will go nuts and really get upset that they're being served Islam but not being told about it.

So the company must set up a second production line, segregate the flour, the egg, the sugar, the oven etc. 
hahah... you can't make this stuff up.


----------



## luutzu (20 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Trick answer: both




Almost.

He's half Jewish (the other half's God) and all Christian.

Though you can argue that he's both Jewish, Christian and Muslim because all those three worship His father.


----------



## Bintang (20 November 2014)

luutzu said:


> mate, if they just serve up the same thing but put different labels, if the infidels find out they will go nuts and really get upset that they're being served Islam but not being told about it.
> 
> So the company must set up a second production line, segregate the flour, the egg, the sugar, the oven etc.
> hahah... you can't make this stuff up.




No. In most cases that is totally unnecessary. Many of these products don't even need the halal certification.
Besides, if halal certification can be got rid of in Sri Langka why not in Australia.

_"Islamic clerics announced the  withdrawal of a halal labelling system for food in Sri Lanka on Monday "in the interests of peace" after protests from Buddhist groups."_
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-11/an-halal-labelling-withdrawn-from-sri-lanka/4566242

*Sri Lanka's main body of Islamic clergy, said the halal certificate issued by them would be used only for products that are exported to Islamic countries.*

Well done Buddhist Groups


----------



## sptrawler (20 November 2014)

Why is it, Muslims and Jews, don't eat pork?

Do you think the pigs will find it disciminatory?

I mean really, if you can eat a chook or cow, how do you think it makes the pig feel?

Well I'll tell you, the poor thing feels like second class meat, bloody outrageous?


----------



## luutzu (20 November 2014)

sptrawler said:


> Why is it, Muslims and Jews, don't eat pork?
> 
> Do you think the pigs will find it disciminatory?
> 
> ...




Yea, pigs will find it discriminatory, but they can live with it.


----------



## luutzu (21 November 2014)

Bintang said:


> No. In most cases that is totally unnecessary. Many of these products don't even need the halal certification.
> Besides, if halal certification can be got rid of in Sri Langka why not in Australia.
> 
> _"Islamic clerics announced the  withdrawal of a halal labelling system for food in Sri Lanka on Monday "in the interests of peace" after protests from Buddhist groups."_
> ...




Muslims don't ask for a Halal logo, they don't ask Australian (the non-Muslim kind) to Halal their product either... just that Muslims like their food Halal,  a stamp of approval in the form of a logo from an Authority they trusted help them make their decision faster and buy the product. 

If businesses want that market, want to make money out of Muslims, easiest way is to have it certified... else just write it on a packaging and hope Muslims would trust it.


----------



## Bintang (21 November 2014)

luutzu said:


> Muslims don't ask for a Halal logo, they don't ask Australian (the non-Muslim kind) to Halal their product either... just that Muslims like their food Halal,  a stamp of approval in the form of a logo from an Authority they trusted help them make their decision faster and buy the product.
> 
> If businesses want that market, want to make money out of Muslims, easiest way is to have it certified... else just write it on a packaging and hope Muslims would trust it.





https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3gYq2DQG1zI

http://www.boycotthalal.com


----------



## Value Collector (21 November 2014)

Bintang said:


> VC and Tisme, would you guys care to carry on your bible text discussion elsewhere and let the rest of us return to subjects more relevant to the topic of this thread,  such as *bacon*.




The context of our discussion relates to the origins and acceptance of halal, 




luutzu said:


> Trick question: Is Jesus Christ Jewish or Christian?




He is a mythical / fictitious character from part two of a three part holy book series. His character may or may not have been based loosely on an actual Jewish rabbi getting around the Middle East however, but the magical parts of the stories are certainly made up.



luutzu said:


> Almost.
> 
> He's half Jewish (the other half's God) and all Christian.
> 
> Though you can argue that he's both Jewish, Christian and Muslim because all those three worship His father.




Christian is a relatively new term, it wasn't really used until the the second half of last century, for political reasons in the USA.


----------



## Value Collector (21 November 2014)

sptrawler said:


> Why is it, Muslims and Jews, don't eat pork?
> 
> Do you think the pigs will find it disciminatory?
> 
> ...




It kind of makes sense a bit, pigs can catch a lot of the same diseases as humans, and in places where sanitation is poor, and pigs muck about in human waste, it poses health risks, and would be unclean.


----------



## Bintang (21 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> The context of our discussion relates to the origins and acceptance of halal,




OK. Then go start a new thread titled, "The origins and acceptance of halal"

The title of this thread is, *The symbol of the Halal Certification Authority Australia*.


----------



## Bintang (21 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> It kind of makes sense a bit, pigs can catch a lot of the same diseases as humans, and in places where sanitation is poor, and pigs muck about in human waste, it poses health risks, and would be unclean.




And does this happen in Australia? Do Australian pig farms have poor sanitation and do their pigs muck about in human waste?

We better stop eating chickens too. They can get nasty  diseases like bird flu and the chickens muck about in their own waste.


----------



## luutzu (21 November 2014)

Bintang said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3gYq2DQG1zI
> 
> http://www.boycotthalal.com




See my kind of Aussie. My kind of people actually - informed, honest, open, swear like a sailor... awesome.

Check out his review of TMNT, it's deep.


----------



## sptrawler (21 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> It kind of makes sense a bit, pigs can catch a lot of the same diseases as humans, and in places where sanitation is poor, and pigs muck about in human waste, it poses health risks, and would be unclean.




That makes sense, however, if the pigs are kept in a place where human waste isn't present, why can't they be eaten.
Generally pigs are fairly clean animals, compared to most.
They tend to toilet in a certain area, seperate to where they eat and sleep.

Maybe due to their dna being similar to humans, a long time ago, it was realised that desease could be passed from pigs to humans.

Therefore because most were illiterate back then, the religious head honcho's started the mass acceptance that you can't eat pork.
Which would make sense, as most desease or poison identification and cures were passed down through the medicine man, witch doctor, religous leaders.

Maybe it shows an amazing degree of awareness, even now the authorities are scared to death of cross species infection i.e bird flu.
With both the Muslims and Jews not eating pork, maybe in early history, something nasty happened in the middle east, that they realised came from consuming pork.

Probably drifting off thread.


----------



## Bintang (21 November 2014)

Julia said:


> The manager of Fleurieau explained his position very clearly.  His conclusion was that the small amount of money brought in by the contract with Etihad (or some ME airline) did not warrant the grief he was receiving via social media accusing him of supporting Muslim terrorism.  So he dropped the Halal certification.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2014/s4133082.htm




I find it interesting that there is a website http://www.halalsquare.com.au/groceries/  for halal certified products in Australia which itself does NOT require that all the products on its list have to actually be certified by a certification company. From the website:

_"We are currently working with supermarkets and food manufacturers to help build this database and Insyah Allah it will be of benefit to the Muslim community.

For a product to appear on this list, it needs to either be:

 - Halal certified by a certification company
 - Considered Halal *'safe' based on ingredients*. *For example, yoghurts with halal gelatine*. *This is usually confirmed by the manufacturer.*"_


So based on the above the Fleurieau company should not have to pay for a certificate to have their yoghurt products accepted as halal.

I also find Leigh Sale's definition of 'halal' as rather narrow. She said, "A halal product is one that doesn't contain any traces of pork, blood or alcohol, meaning it's ok for muslims to eat".

However, she conveniently neglected to mention the requirements of halal meat, probably because they are too shocking to mention on an ABC broadcast. The animals are treated a bit viciously to say the least. Mentioning it might detract from the 'viciousness' label which Leigh Sales pinned on the anti-halal campaigners in her opening statement.


----------



## Wysiwyg (21 November 2014)

luutzu said:


> See my kind of Aussie. My kind of people actually - informed, honest, open, swear like a sailor... awesome.



Ha that was good stuff. As the champ says in words we all feel but don't  say, "come here [Australia] but don't be a $#@% head".


----------



## Value Collector (21 November 2014)

Bintang said:


> The animals are treated a bit viciously to say the least.




What are you talking about?

In Australia Halal slaughter is pretty much the same as normal.

The animal is stunned and rendered unconscious, it then has its throat cut.

That's no different to normal slaughter, it's actually australian law that cattle have their throat cut, after being stunned.

Halal laws actually state their is to be no undue stress or suffering on the animal.


----------



## SirRumpole (21 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> What are you talking about?
> 
> In Australia Halal slaughter is pretty much the same as normal.
> 
> ...




So what you appear to be saying is that there is really no need for Halal certification because we slaughter animals in a way that is acceptable to Muslims anyway ?


----------



## Value Collector (21 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> So what you appear to be saying is that there is really no need for Halal certification because we slaughter animals in a way that is acceptable to Muslims anyway ?




If that's all halal was then yes, but the rules for animal slaughter are only part of the Halal rules, you still have the avoidance of certain animal products in ingredients etc, zero alcohol used in prep etc 

Also they are rare, but there are a few slaughter houses that kill with electrocution, this wouldn't be considered halal, if the electrocution is designed to kill rather than stun, it's not allowed. But I would have to check, I think I remember killing by electrocution is being phased out in Australia.


----------



## luutzu (21 November 2014)

Wysiwyg said:


> Ha that was good stuff. As the champ says in words we all feel but don't  say, "come here [Australia] but don't be a $#@% head".




hehe... I also agree with that.

Australia is a great country, seriously. I couldn't imagine a better place to live or raise a family. 

Most migrants would agree with that and most will assimilate. But assimilation doesn't mean getting rid of all their religious and cultural beliefs and go "White" and "Christian". Who knows, maybe other cultural practices could also benefit Australian society... say the Confucian teachings of filial piety - being good to your parents and family, looking after them in their old age (not saying that Westerners don't, just Asians in general take it more literally and keep the folks at home (to look after the grandkids, haha)). I heard that in the Koran, it said that after God is your parents. 

It can be a bit much to worship everything your parents say and decide, from personal experiences assimilation mean getting to the middle somewhere - treating your elders with great respect but also have an independent mind.


----------



## DB008 (21 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> So what you appear to be saying is that there is really no need for Halal certification because we slaughter animals in a way that is acceptable to Muslims anyway ?




Hmm....




> *Danish halal and kosher ban leaves religious groups with nowhere to turn*
> 
> A ban on halal and kosher slaughter without prior stunning of animals has come into effect in Denmark. A similar ban is already in force in Sweden and Norway, as well as other European nations. This decision follows previous debates in Denmark about halal slaughter and the marking of halal slaughtered meat, and has stirred deep controversy among Muslim and Jewish groups both within the country and beyond.
> 
> ...


----------



## DB008 (27 November 2014)

QSociety has done one too...

Kirralie Smith at the 1st Intl Symposium on Liberty and Islam in Australia


----------



## SirRumpole (27 November 2014)

They've got our cats, next they'll go after our beer !!@

Halal certified cat food. That sounds right, after all all those Muslims have Whiskas don't they ?


----------



## Bintang (5 December 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> They've got our cats, next they'll go after our beer !!@
> 
> Halal certified cat food. That sounds right, after all all those Muslims have Whiskas don't they ?




Actually, they might go after our wine first!


----------



## DB008 (28 December 2014)

*Why halal certification is in turmoil*



> Kirralie Smith is a permaculture farmer from northern New South Wales and a mother of three. She is also the public face of the virulent campaign to boycott halal food and products.
> 
> Halal means permissible for Muslims to eat or use, and the Facebook page "'Boycott Halal in Australia" has 41,000 supporters.
> 
> ...




http://www.smh.com.au/national/why-halal-certification-is-in-turmoil-20141227-12cmd3.html


----------



## SirRumpole (7 September 2015)

"The Truth about Halal"

Tonight on Four Corners ABC 8:30 pm


----------

