Four Corners tonight on Halal

[donnashuggy]

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2015/09/07/4305337.htm

[nevynreally]

Okay. So it doesn't matter if it's something someone you know told you because it wasn't on Facebook (isn't that for teenagers?) or if you can't copy and paste it from a website.

I don't remember that poster, but if you say so, it must be so.

[moonflyte]

Reminds me of Rudd in Copenhagen and the "little Sophie" letter. All orchestrated by labor of course. And who can forget "Tom the plumber" as well? It's a labor thing, anecdotal does not mean fact.

[raptor_rebooted]

---

@j*oono wrote:

Since when did you need a halal certificate if you're driving a truck? 😄

Maybe if he had a trucking company.  There is no way that story is true.

Did you pick up that story on facebook?

---

have a read through some of the

aph submissions.

[icyfroth]

No halal, no worries, for Australia's largest organic chicken farm

The managing director of Inglewood Farms says his decision to drop halal certification made good business sense.

Mr Youngberry says the slaughter process for halal certification required two slaughtermen rather than one.

"The only practical difference was that the birds didn't go through the automatic bleeder, they were all bled by hand," he said.

"It simply didn't make sense to us."

Mr Youngberry says the majority of the feedback he has received has been positive.

"There has been the odd abusive comment saying we were bigots for not doing it [halal certification]," he said.

"So even though we may have lost a few customers, our business has certainly grown since we made the decision."

Entire Article Here

It's all a big scam and they can laugh the infidel because wer'e so scammable!

[the_great_she_elephant]

It's all a big scam and they can laugh the infidel because wer'e so scammable!

In the case quoted in that article it was a business decision. They weighed the pros and cons and decided it wasn't worth it;  and obviously made what, for them, was the right decision. One would assume that other companies - like Nestles - have also weighed the pros and cons and decided that, for them  it is worth it. No scam and and no force involved.

As they say, they've had the odd abusive comment and lost one or two customers - but clearly no "aggressive" Muslims (young or otherwise)  standing over them with threats and certainly not the orchestrated hate and boycott campaign suffered by  those companies who do choose to get certification.

[the_great_she_elephant]

not all products that are certified

are labelled.

---

What I said but she won't or can't see it. 

You don't read my posts very carefully, do you:

#22  TGSE:I agree it might be useful to have more transparency but 'force' still implies physical coercion and nobody has ever forced me to buy anything.

#41 Djlukjilly: If it’s not labelled then it is conning unsuspecting buyers to support a religious ideology they don't adhere to.

 TGSE: True - although as I demonstrated, anyone really serious about not buying halal certified products can obtain a list very easily simply by googling halal certified foods.

#43  TGSE: there was a valid argument to be made that there should be more transparency in halal labelling.

[moonflyte]

No company should pay for any certification. If religious sects want it they  should pay for it, why is the taxpayer charged  for these stone age rituals?

[donnashuggy]

---

@djlukjilly wrote:

No company should pay for any certification. If religious sects want it they  should pay for it, why is the taxpayer charged  for these stone age rituals?

---

Have you thought about what you just said?

[the_great_she_elephant]

---

@djlukjilly wrote:

No company should pay for any certification. If religious sects want it they  should pay for it, why is the taxpayer charged  for these stone age rituals?

Companies have the option to pay or not pay - you are surely not suggesting they should be forced to refuse.

[icyfroth]

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

---

@djlukjilly wrote:

No company should pay for any certification. If religious sects want it they  should pay for it, why is the taxpayer charged  for these stone age rituals?

Companies have the option to pay or not pay - you are surely not suggesting they should be forced to refuse.

---

Co-erced would probably be more descriptive of the practice.