He is, of course, correct.
He is, of course, correct.
The other day, someone asked me a most interesting question (and, I am paraphrasing heavily):
“If you could wave a magic wand and do one single thing to prevent the loss of our liberties due to Sharia laws creeping into our society, what would it be?”
Without much difficulty, I answered: “Stop Halal food!”
Well, my questioner had thought I had gone off my rocker. “You mean to say that with all that is happening, Halal food is your biggest concern? If they had their way, you’d be wearing a burqa, and all you would waste your one wish on Halal?”
My answer was a most enthusiastic ‘YES!!! But – it would NOT be a waste!” And I proceeded to explain. Unfortunately, my explanation had been cut short by the circumstances, so, please, let me complete it here.
First and foremost, I’d like to stress that under Sharia, Islamic jurisprudence, Muslims who live in a non-Muslim land – a country which is not governed by Sharia – are NOT required to eat Halal.
To the contrary: if Halal food is not available, too difficult to obtain, or (and this is an important one) if maintaining Halal diet would disadvantage Muslims with respect to the Kafirs, then they are permitted to eat non-Halal food. Allah is most forgiving and if no transgression was intended, then none is incurred.
In addition, if it were to give them an advantage in dealings with the Kafirs, then Muslims are permitted to drink alcohol, eat pork or do anything else that is generally taboo in Islam: if they are doing it to further the long term goal of spreading Islam, then all is permitted.
Please, do not take my word for it – look it up for yourselves! The rulings by Islamic authorities on this are numerous and unanimously in agreement with what I wrote. Rather than be accused of ‘cherry picking’ my evidence by supplying one or two links, I urge you to check for yourself any Sharia authority of your choice: it will confirm my statement.
Having established why consuming Halal food, especially Halal-slaughtered meat, is not obligatory for our Western Muslims, let me explain why permitting Halal food into our food supply undermines our society.
Yes, it undermines our society, in no uncertain terms. In this, it is very different from Kosher food…
In order to explain this, I must first explain the relationship between Muslims and Kafirs (Kuffurs) under Sharia.
Under Sharia, all non-Muslims are Kafirs. Usually translated as ‘unbeliever’ – an emotionally neutral word, the term ‘Kafir’, as used by Muslims, is anything but a ‘neutral term’. It is a slur with, if possible, even more hate coiled up in it that ‘nigger’, ‘cracker’ and ‘twat’ rolled into one.
Much like some Christians believe that each and every human ‘knows’ Jesus is Christ and Saviour, that atheist also know this but are willfully pretending not to because they wish to sin and/or be evil, so Islam teaches that each and every human being is born a perfect Muslim, with full knowledge and understanding that Allah is the one and only God and the Muhammad is his prophet and that those of us who are not Muslims – are Kafirs – are willfully lying to ourselves and others when we deny Allah and Mohammed and that we are doing it because we are evil.
Thus, the word ‘Kafir’ implies an evil, willfully lying and deceiving person. The Koran itself tells us that the Kafir is the vilest of all the creatures and warns Muslims not to trust them, take them as friends or even associate with them more than absolutely necessary. And those are the ‘mild’ verses of the Koran – other verses make the full extermination of all Kafirs a religious duty for all Muslims.
But, let us get back to how this perception of Kafirs relates to Halal food.
There is an Islamic doctrine of ‘najis’ – ‘unclean’.
Many things are unclean: pigs, dogs, and – yes, Kafirs. If a Kafir touches a piece of food, they pollute it, making it no longer Halal.
Yet, some Kuffurs are slightly less unclean than others. Christians and Jews are slightly less ‘unclean’ than the rest of us and therefor it is permitted for them to work on Halal food: provided that they are only doing the most menial tasks and are directly and at all times watched and supervised by a Muslim.
This has some very important implications for our society.
Only Muslims, Christians and Jews may work in food production, transportation, preparation and sales.
If a Sikh, a Hindu, an atheist or another Kafir works as a waiter who carries a dish from the kitchen to the table, that food has become contaminated and is no longer Halal.
If a school cafeteria food is served by a Buddhist or a Wiccan or an agnostic, that food would no longer be Halal.
If a nurse who injects a child with a vaccine is a Taoist or a Druid, that vaccine is no longer Halal.
If a truck driver who hauls meat from the slaughter house to the supermarkets is a Zoroastrian or Confucian, that meat is no longer Halal.
You see how this would undermine the rule of law? Specifically the laws that forbid employers to discriminate against their employees on the basis of religion?
How can you have employment equity if only Muslims may have a supervisory role in your food supply and only Muslims, Christians and Jews are eligible to work in the whole field?
And it will not be just limited to the ‘Halal’ food market: we have seen this in country after country after country! It is so difficult for companies in the food industry to obtain and maintain ‘Halal’ certification if only one part of their operation is dedicated to the Halal stream that they must make all their food production and supply chains Halal compliant, regardless whether the food is labelled ‘Halal’ or not.
For example, in England, it has been shown that the vast majority of meat sold in stores is Halal-compliant, whether it is labelled as ‘Halal’ or not!
You could be eating Halal-slaughtered meat without knowing it.
And that goes far beyond the unnecessary animal cruelty involved in Halal slaughter… (Yes, Kosher food is also slaughtered using similar method and Kosher meat is therefore shunned by aware people. The difference is that Kosher food is always labelled as such and therefore, people have a choice to avoid it if they so wish. Halal-slaughtered meat is being sold both with Halal labels and without, making it impossible for a consumer to make a choice.)
In addition, Muslim leaders who wish to introduce Halal food into places like hospitals and schools claim that it is the ‘lowest common denominator': meaning that everyone in society may eat Halal food.
Unfortunately, that is not true.
For example, Sikhs are expressly forbidden to consume Halal food. (Not just Halal-slaughtered meat, but all food that had, at some point, been Halal.)
So, if a hospital or a school serves Halal food, they are violating Sikhs religious principles.
And while Sikhism explicitly forbids the consumption of Halal food, Christianity implicitly forbids the consumption of Halal meat.
Yes, most Christians are unaware of this – but, they should be.
Both the Old and the New Testament forbid the eating of ‘sacrificial meat’ – that is, meat that has been prayed over to a God other than the Christian one.
Permit me to explain:
Long, long time ago, Pagans would sacrifice animals in Temples in order to gain favour with one God or another. This ‘sacrificial meat’ would be cooked and served to the ‘common folk’ who would come to the temple. Since many of the poor people could not afford to eat meat on their own, they would flock to the temples for a good meal.
If you think about this, it was a quite good system: the rich may have been trying to buy favour from the Gods, but they ended up feeding valuable protein to the poor…
And while the people ate the sacrificial meat, the priests and priestesses would proselytize to them, singing the praises and spreading the teachings of their particular deity.
Which was not particularly appreciated by the Jewish and Christian religious leaders…
So, in both the Old and the New Testaments, eating meat sacrificed to other deities was strictly forbidden!
Yet, food that had been sacrificed to Allah has entered our food supply: sometimes it is clearly labeled as such (and permits us the choice to avoid it), but at other times, Halal slaughtered meat is sold without any signs indicating so. What is worse, many public institutions have substituted Halal meat in their food supply without notifying their consumers, without giving their ‘captive consumers’ (hospitals, schools) the option to practice their religion without sin.
Not only does ‘Halal-certified food’ contravene our employment laws (the ones that prevent employer from practicing religious prejudice in hiring policies, as Halal food may not be ‘handled’ by members of most religions and by non-religious people in order to maintain its ‘Halal’ certification) and thus undermines the rule of law in our society, inconspicuously labeled Halal food (such as on cans of Cambell’s soup: a simple crescent moon may not alert a consumer that they are purchasing a ‘Halal’ item) or completely unlabeled Halal meat has crept into our food supply, preventing non-Muslims from freely exercising their religions.
But – and this implication is perhaps even more important to consider – only Sharia adherent Muslims in our society insist on Halal food. It is precisely these Sharia-adherent Muslims who will seek employment in the ‘Halal food supply’.
Many Muslims have come to Canada precisely to escape Sharia. These are the Muslims whom we must protect – the moderates in our midst who want nothing more than to live free and be productive members of our society. Other Muslims have come here with the goal to impose Sharia on our society: these are not peaceful immigrants but radicals who have arrived as colonists, who believe that it is their duty to impose Sharia on all the people on Earth.
Yet, it is exactly these Sharia adherent Muslims who control Halal certification and manage the Halal-certified food supplies. As Halal – with or without clear labeling – becomes greater and greater portion of our food supply chain, radical Muslims will gain control over more and more of our food supplies.
Radical Muslims believe themselves to be at war with our society.
Placing them in a position to control greater and greater portions of our food supply mechanism is, in my never-humble-opinion, not a good idea.
Remember, Bill Warner is on a Canadian speaking tour and will be coming to:
- Grand Prairie, Alberta on Sunday, the 16th of November, 2014
- Toronto, Ontario on Monday, the 17th of November, 2014*
- Ottawa, Ontario on Tuesday, the 18th of November, 2014*
- Montreal, Quebec on Wednesday, the 19th of November, 2014*
- Hamilton, Ontario on Thursday, the 20th of November, 2014
* I’ll be there!!!
P.S. Jamie Glazov himself is coming to Montreal, on Monday, December 1st, 2014 at 7:30pm at the Ruby Foos Hotel, 7655 Decarie Blvd. (Metro stop: Namur (Orange Line)) FREE PARKING!
Plus a bit of commentary:
This is a report on an ongoing trial: the rest of this account can be found here (and at the top bar of this blog).
On September 22nd, the judge warned everyone in the courtroom that come hell or high water (and, I am paraphrasing here), this trial was going to finish tomorro – that is, today. In order to make sure that this indeed comes about, she would recall everybody into Courtroom #20 of the Elgin Street Courthouse in Ottawa, Ontario, at 9am instead of the usual 10am – adding a one-hour ‘buffer’ to their time.
Aware of this, I arrived at the Courthouse nice and early – about 25 minutes after 8. I strolled slowly through the parking garage, stopping to chat with one of the attendants whom I got to know well enough to say ‘hi’ to over the duration of these proceedings. Then I had a tea and went to the ladies room before – with plenty of time left – strolling up to the 2nd floor and to the appointed courtroom.
Surprisingly, I did not see any of the actors in our little drama – and I began to get an uneasy feeling. Did I get the time wrong?
I checked my notes and the wall clock and, sure enough, I still had 12 minutes before the proceedings started.
Ah – there was a paper sticky-taped onto the door – perhaps the press finally figured out the importance of this case to their own ability to report the news and enough of the showed up to have to move things to a larger courtroom!!!!
Here was some incoherent message about teenagers and dating…. But, the look at that sheet of paper gave me a glimpse through the double doors’ windows…and it looked like the trial was already ongoing!!!
Not wanting to make a lot of noise inside the courtroom upon my arrival, I took my notepads and scribble-tools (today I was using a blue Zebra pen, fine point – they write quite quietly and have a good feeling in the hand, heavy but not too much so…) OK, I got my implements to hand and intramurated velocitously. (Yes, I am a huge fan of Black Adder – and if has, at times, affected my vocabulary….though, the character I most closely identify with is Baldrick.)
OK – in I sneak and sit down as quietly as possible.
Everybody is in and things are in full swing!
Barbara Kulaszka is standing up and speaking.
To her left, Connie Fournier sits calmly, wearing a dark purple pantsuit and a cream blouse, which I will later notice has a delicate black embroidery and is accented by a single strand of knotted pearls, long enough to reach beneath the blouse’s collar. The overall look is pleasing, but, from behind, the bob in which her hair is cut is just the wrong length, making her neck appear shorter than in had in her previous outfits. However, this optical illusion is dispelled when Connie glances back and gives me a warm smile.
To the right of Ms. Kulaszka sits Roger Smith, aka Peter O’Donnel, in his blue blazer and another pair of tan slacks. His shirt will later be revealed to be almost a twin of his earlier one – black and charcoal stripes, but instead of a blue pinstripe, this one has a gray one.
Next is Mr. Steven Frankel, the brilliant young lawyer representing the CCLA.
To his right, Mr. Burnet, the Plaintiff’s lawyer, had his gaze firmly fixed on the judge and was listening intently to Ms. Kulaszka’s every word. He had better, too – at the end of the day, he’d have a chance for a brief rebuttal to all the defendants’ closing arguments, so listening intently was very critical.
On the far right, as usual, was Dr. Baglow…I bet he does not hear that phrase very often!!! Sitting far back from the table, his legs elegantly crossed in front of him, he had a calm and almost serene demeanour. In his signature black suit and, as he once wrote, ‘the most comfortable walking boots on Earth’, I glimpsed a navy cuff of a shirt, if I am not mistaken…though, I must admit, I was so busy trying to catch up with what was being said that I did not take the time to note this down. My apologies.
Later, during a break, Dr. Baglow helped me out: he said he noticed I was wondering about the pin in his lapel. It was indeed some sort of an abstract maple leaf: a pin denoting 30 years in the Public Service. During another break, he let me know that the reason why he only wore his gun-metal-rimmed glasses at some times was because they were reading glasses and he only needed them at some times.
This made me a little envious: I also have glasses, but mine (purple-rimmed) are progressive trifocals….yet, I still vacillate between wearing them or not. When I wear them, I can actually see what is going on: the major things, like people’s expressions and demeanour (I may not be able to decipher it, but I can at least describe it) – and the minor things, like, say, what I am writing down. However, I cannot shake the feeling that, when I am not wearing my glasses, I get a much better feel for everything….that I can better absorb the atmosphere and emotions and all that. So, I am constantly putting my glasses on, taking them off, putting them on, taking them off….sitting on them….sorry, I am rambling….
As I started taking notes, Barbara Kulaszka (BK) was just speaking about Dr. Baglow having been at the forefront of the Omar Khadr re-patriation movement.
If you read my blog regularly, my dear reader, you will know my views on the huge miscarriage of justice that is the Omar Khadr case. Perhaps it is my Aspieness, but, I am a big one for the adherence to the rule of law. Yes – sure, I hate some laws and believe that we MUST change them – but, until such a time that we DO change them, we are obligated to follow them.
And, according to the Geneva Convention, there was only one legal manner to deal with Omar Khadr: two bullets to the back of the head.
Anything less is a failure to adhere to the International Law and endangers civilian populations at the hands on non-uniformed combatants. The Americans ought to be prosecuted for War Crimes for having permitted Omar Khadr to live and even rendering him medical aid!!! Such a travesty!
At an earlier time, I actually had a conversation with Dr. Baglow about Omar Khadr and I mentioned that the two of us would probably agree that, in his case, the International Laws were not followed. Indeed, I raised the subject specifically because I expected him to elaborate, so that I would have the opportunity to point out just how deeply misguided – if not downright evil for endangering civilian populations everywhere – his position on Khadr was.
Unfortunately, Dr. Baglow just sighed deeply and looked so very, very sad that I did not have the heart to continue the conversation…and thus did not have an opportunity to enlighten him on the error of his thinking.
OK – back to the important stuff!!!
BK was explaining how Dr. Baglow was at the forefront of calling for the repatriation of the War Criminal Omar Khadr.
Next, she defined what the word ‘supporter’ means: one who supports.
For example, a ‘supporter’ of the Maple Leafs’ is NOT somebody who plays hockey with them, who is a member of the team. Rather, it may be somebody who buys their merchandise or watches their games or just says things that are nice about them. Even, perhaps, just expresses sympathy with them when they are loosing…
Similarly, saying somebody is a ‘Taliban supporter’ – it does not mean he is one of the Taliban!
Rather, it means somebody who may say things that express empathy with the Taliban….
OK – I am having a hard time wording the next bit: most likely because BK is much nicer a person than I am, much kinder and gentler…and I am ‘choking’ on typing the words she actually said, as they show way more of an empathy for Omar Khard than I am deeply convinced he deserves… But, she was speaking for the defendants, not me, so I must choke down my opinion and report to you, my dear reader, her words…
BK said that ‘expressing support for ‘the human rights’ (as if a non-uniformed combatant had any, under international law) of Omar Khadr’ could be interpreted as expressing empathy for the Taliban’ – and, by definition, that would be included in ‘being a supporter of the Taliban’.
Indeed, argued BK, the plaintiff himself used the very same logic when he said that the CCLA supported father Boissoin (a Catholic priest who was given a lifetime ban by a Human RIights Tribunal on speaking about the Catholic Church’s position of homosexuality), saying that the CCLA ‘gave aid and comfort to hate speecher’ and that they were ‘hate-speech facilitators’…that the CCLA ‘stands with haters’ and ‘aids in homophobia’.
BK asserted that ‘giving aid and comfort’ is, indeed, the very definition of ‘supporter’!
At this point, Madame Justice (her black judicial robe, white collar and red shash accentuated only by perl stud earrings and simple, elegant rings on the ring finger of each hand) nodded her head in assent and reasoned agreement.
In addition, BK carried her momentum forward, this was the medium of a Message Board – not a scholarly dissertation…which, through medium alone, classified this as a ‘comment’…
The Judge wondered about this being ‘fair comment’ if fully 41% of Canadians shared Dr. Baglow’s view. If I were the lawyer, I would have quickly pointed out that the fact that this automatically meant that 59% of Canadian did NOT share Dr. Baglows view – making this a very fair comment indeed. But, I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on the internet…
Instead BK took a much better tack, pointing not to peasant logic, like I would have, but to actual law: she presumed Mr. Frankel would speak to this later (to which he nodded – earning one of Madame Justices’ broad smiles), but, the legal test (as per the WIC radio case ) was whether ‘anyone can honestly hold that opinion’. Not the majority, not 41%, but ‘anyone’. (And, I am heavily paraphrasing – I am simply not able to take notes fast enough! You, my dear reader, ought to fire me and get a faster writer to report on this!!!)
As in, of ‘anyone’ can honestly hold and express this belief – that is the test.
This, the Judge agreed with.
Which is where things took a turn into territory rather unknown to your reporter – but one that seemed very familiar to both madame Justice Polowin and Ms. Kulaszka: the Vietnam War issue… They had a fun back-and-forth about someone named ‘Jane Fonda’ and a nickname of ‘Hanoi Jane’ – but, not knowing the context, this did not make much sense to me. But, the two of the seemed happy, joking, agreeing – on the same ‘note’, if you get my drift. ‘Ancient argument’, ‘based on fact’ – these were the terms ‘flying about’.
In his turn, Dr. Bagglow seemed so bored, he was in danger of falling asleep…
Which is where the topic of ‘Taliban Jack’ got re-introduced (it had been discussed ‘many’ times before to illustrate how hyperbole and nicknames and memes work).
From here, the proceedings took a turn into legaleese: another field I am blissfully ignorant of. All I can do is report the words…and badly, at that, as I am not fast enough to get them all down…my deepest apologies, my dear reader!
Madame Justice Polowin wanted to know how does this get ‘around’ the ‘Grant’ test.
BK disagreed – the ‘test’ here was not ‘Grant’ but ‘WIC‘. People listening to a ‘shock jock’ would know a well-followed controversy, the facts of the case were known to the audience in that case as in this one. Roger Smith was talking about ‘Dr. Dawg’ – a pseudonym.
If people did not know who ‘Dr. Dawg’ was – then, saying something about a ‘pseudonym’ was clearly not defamatory.
If people DID know who ‘Dr. Dawg’ was – then they would have been following the controversy and been aware of the background facts…and thus would have been able to understand the sense in which the words were uttered – making them, yet again, not defamatory!!!
What needs to be weighed here is the state of mind of Dr. Baglow during this whole exchange: from the very beginning, his aim was to find a pretext to sue her client.
The judge did not, to my untrained eye/ear, appear particularly empathetic to this line of reasoning…as expressed by the succinct: “So?!!?”
Which I took to imply that the plaintiff’s state of mind had no relevance on whether or not he was defamed…by the defendants…
BK handled this rather well.
As Dr. Baglow sighed deeply and examined his manicured hands, BK explained tat re-posting the disputed words AGAIN using his sock-puppet persona ‘MsMew’ ensured that even if the original words were taken down by Roger Smith, they would remain on the site – along with the malicious identification of Dr. Dawg as Dr. Baglow. This demonstrated malice – but not on the part of her client, but on the part of Dr. Baglow…
Indeed, BK continued, given the definition of the word ‘supporter’, her client did not think the impugned words were ‘defamatory’ in any way, shape or form (yes, I am paraphrasing).
Dr. Baglow, on the other hand, had demonstrated malice with his ‘sock-puppetry’ – and, as Dr. Dawg and MsMew, it was he who was bullying her client.
As for ‘malice’, the ‘WIC’ case demonstrated that even though the ‘shock-jock’ ‘hated’ Ms. Simpson’, that was irrelevant in the legal ‘finding of malice': rather, paragraphs 67 to 85 (of the ruling in the WIC case, I can only presume) show that since the dominant motive was that the ‘shock jock’ ‘believed’ what he said, the fact that he also hated her did not matter.
OK – I freely admit, there was a bit here that went 100% ‘over my head': something about ‘Ross vs. New Bruns’ or something somewhat similar….predominant motive, tab 12 paragraph 106…I have no clue what this was about…
Yet, this concluded this bit and, in the next installment, I shall report on Roger Smith’s closing arguments!