The symbol of the Halal Certification Authority Australia

[Value Collector]

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]

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]

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]

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...

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 ?

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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?

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]

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.