Why ‘Halal meat’ is ‘the thin wedge’ of Islamic supremacism

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!

Don’t take my word for it – please, look it up for yourself.    I recommend Acts 15:29  and Acts 21:29 as good starting points.

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.

In summary:

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.

Al-Qaeda terror plot thwarted in Canada

This strikes very close to home, as my family does use the Via railway through Toronto…

It was also said during that news conference that it was an Iran-based cell of Al-Qaeda which was supporting these Canadian terrorists.

While I applaud the work our police forces have done so far in protecting us from all forms of terrorism, I must admit I cannot support the beforementioned proposed bill, which would give police the power to arrest people for pre-crimes and which would make it a criminal offense punishable by a year in jail to refuse to testify before a judge.  I’m sorry, but civil liberties must not be sacrificed on the altar of security.

We – as citizens – must never permit our government to ‘bypass’ civil liberties of citizens under any circumstances, even if those citizens are accused of as despicable things as acts of terror!


RIM lays down for the Indian government

Once upon a time, RIM, the maker of Blackberry, was known for excellent security in communications.

So much so that unscrupulous governments sought to ban it – lest they not be able to spy on their citizens.

Now, RIM seems to have rolled over and decided to let governments trample over its users’ civil liberties:

‘RIM recently demonstrated a solution developed by a firm called Verint that can intercept messages and emails exchanged between BlackBerry handsets, and make these encrypted communications available in a readable format to Indian security agencies, according to an exchange of communications between the Canadian company and the Indian government.’


RIM had originally built its reputation – and marketshare – based on the security the encryption it put all messages through provided.  Its encryption was so secure, governments that would like to monitor their citizens’ communication threatened to shut them out of their marketplace.

Hence the flop.

Without this enhanced security, however, there is little to elevate their product over cheaper or ‘sexier’ smart phones.

This, therefore, is a serious gamble on the part of RIM:  will access to the Indian market permit them to grow, or will this latest corruption of the security of its communications be the last nail in their coffin?

Good news/bad news in the field of electronic communication

The bad new is – predictably – coming from legislators.  This time, in the UK.

They are introducing a bill which would force all internet service providers (ISPs) to monitor, log and store all electronic communication.  But more than just that:  they would also collect data about the physical electronic equipment used in the communication, who is communicating with whom and a long list of other intrusive measures.  And, yes – physical communication would be similarly monitored, copying addresses from envelopes and packages and keeping the info for the government’s reference…

But, don’t worry!  Home Office Secretary Theresa May said:

 “Unless you are a criminal, then you’ve nothing to worry about from this new law.”

Ooooooh, that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy…

OK, so the governments all over the world are using the fact that we are all distracted by the looming economic crisis (created by their corruption) to impose ever more intrusive surveillance on us.

And we should not worry, unless we are criminals!

Until, that is, the government decides that holding the views we hold makes us criminals…

Well, before we all get too depressed, let me get to the good news – predictably, from the world of science and technology.

While quantum cryptography has not quite delivered the desired level of security through encrypted communication that many of us had hoped it would, it seems that emerging technology based on the good old second law of thermodynamics just might give us a glimmer of hope!

‘Once again the secrecy is guaranteed by the laws of physics but instead of quantum mechanics, Kish and co say the second law of thermodynamics provides the necessary underwriting. That’s the same law that prohibits perpetual motion machines powered by heat from the environment.’

The goal of achieving securely encrypted communication is always to make sure the two parties communicating can decrypt the signal but anyone intercepting the message would lack the tools to decode it.  This newly announced method sounds great and secure.

Let’s hope it becomes generally used by ‘everyone’  before surveillance laws leave us frightened and silenced!

TSA fail: how ‘nude body scanners’ fail to detect weapons

Many people have been pointing out that the ‘nude body scanners’use higher levels of radiation than regular X-rays anf thus might be a health risk.  There have even been ‘scandalous’ reports of ‘cancer clusters’ among TSA employees: while I remain skeptical about the long-term effects of these machines, any reports of cancer already being ’caused’ by them are a load of dingo’s kidneys…cancer takes much longer to show up than this.

My primary concern about these machines has always been the collection of biometric data…  But, we are being told, this invasion of our privacy is justified by the increased security these machines provide us.

Of course, we all know that people who are willing to give up liberty for security will not get either one.  But, for the sake of the argument, let’s permit the premise and see just how effective these machines are at detecting metal objects or other weapons.

According to the following video, it is not very difficult to ‘beat’ them…

So, how much safer are we, exactly?

More on airport ‘security’ procedures

People who give up freedom for security will get neither.

This phrase – in various permutations – has been attributed to several different people:  perhaps because it is very true.

Last week, I posed questions about the propriety of the current procedures we are asked to submit to at airports in the name of security as well as an audio of an interview with a woman who, along with her children, was subjected to what amounts to sexual assault during an ‘airport security check‘.

Since the state derives its rights from us, citizens, nobody – not even when they are acting on behalf of the state – has more rights than any other citizen:  because if ‘regular citizens’ do not have the right to touch you in private areas of your body, then they cannot delegate this right to the State and its agents.  Therefore, if a touch is assault if another person on the street touched you that way, it is assault if a TSA or another agent of the State touches you that way.

This week, there is renewed debate on this topic following a YouTube video of a guy who refused to enter the full body scanners telling the TSA agent:  “If you touch my junk, I’ll have you arrested.”

Here he describes the encounter in his own words. (H/T –TheRawStory)

Perhaps the most interesting part of this story is the flat assertion by the TSA agent that by purchasing an airline ticket, every citizen  is voluntarily surrendering their rights and freedoms…

And – even after the police and TSA agents escorted him out of the screening area on the instructions of their supervisor’s supervisor because he chose to not proceed with his travel plans, he was told that as a condition of leaving the airport, he had to go back to the screening area and submit to the patdown!

From his blog (my emphasis) – this conversation is taking place after he was escorted out of the secure area by the police and got his ticket refunded:

‘He informed me that I could not leave the airport. He said that once I start the screening in the secure area, I could not leave until it was completed. Having left the area, he stated, I would be subject to a civil suit and a $10,000 fine. I asked him if he was also going to fine the 6 TSA agents and the local police officer who escorted me from the secure area. After all, I did exactly what I was told. He said that they didn’t know the rules, and that he would deal with them later. They would not be subject to civil penalties. I then pointed to Mr. Silva and asked if he would be subject to any penalties. He is the agents’ supervisor, and he directed them to escort me out. The man informed me that Mr. Silva was new and he would not be subject to penalties, either. He again asserted the necessity that I return to the screening area.

‘I asked if tried to leave if he would have the officer arrest me. He again said that no one was forcing me to stay. I looked him in the eye, and said, “then I’m leaving”. He replied, “then we’ll bring a civil suit against you”, to which I said, “you bring that suit” and walked out of the airport.’

A few very interesting points in there….

  • the TSA agents, nor their supervisors, ‘knew the rules’ – according to the person who claimed to be in charge of the airport security
  • nor did the police officer on-scene
  • these officials were not going to be penalized for ordering the passenger to do the wrong thing – yet the passenger was liable for following their orders
  • the passenger faced a choice:  disobey the orders of the police officer who told him to leave the secure area OR face a $10,000 fine and a civil lawsuit
  • “You are free to leave – but if you do, we’ll sue you and fine you $10,000!”

No wonder everyone is talking about this incident!

But, that is not all…

Then there is that report of an airline pilot who was traveling with his teenage daughter and overheard the person who checked their bags say into a mike to the people running the full body scanners:  “Heads up –  got a cutie for you!” The daughter found the following patdown ‘invasive’…

When the video of the little girl (perhaps 2-3 years old) being ‘patted down’ while screaming hysterically that she does not want to be touched that way surfaced,  we were told this was an isolated incident of a child which got cranky and just went hysterical for no good reason.  yet, perhaps this child’s instincts were not as wrong as all that:  now we learn that  pedophiles have been shown to be applying to become TSA agents who perform the ‘patdowns’ on children…

Sounds to me like this child is telling us the Emperor is wearing no clothes!

(Well, actually, this is worse:  at least the naked Emperor was not groping anyone!)