You say Halal, I say goodbye
(I'd already done Halal, is it meat you're looking for?)
There's a debate to be had about a secular institution like a state school providing food that conforms to certain religious standards. There's also a debate to be had about the animal welfare standards of halal (and kosher) food, and whether it inflicts undue suffering on the animals that are being slaughtered. But this story in yesterday's Daily Star isn't that debate:
Let's get the 'exclusive' out of the way first. This isn't a new thing. Halal-only meat in schools has been around for ages - I managed to find this story from 2006, and I'm sure there are plenty more from down the years. Actually if you compare that story
Halal meat is being served to pupils in state schools without their knowledge, even if they believe the religious slaughter is cruel.
Parents have reacted furiously after being sent letters telling them their children's school dinners have been all-halal for 'some time'.
To conform with Jewish and Muslim religious tradition, animals are prepared for halal products by having their throats slit while conscious - a method many people believe is inhumane and which the RSPCA has condemned.
with the Star's story of yesterday:
PARENTS are reacting with fury as children across Britain are served halal dinners even if they do not want them.
Schools are not offering youngsters any alternatives to the Islamic-prepared meat.
Fuming parents hit out after the Daily Star revealed plans to force halal-only lunch on children of all faiths in London borough Harrow, to avoid offending Muslims.
You can see the similarities. Parents reacting with anger/fury at the decision. All parents? Well I dare say some parents might be pleased that halal meat is being served in schools as the standard rather than an option; others might not be fussed either way; some might think that all animal slaughter is equally cruel, and not be bothered; others might give their children a vegetarian diet anyway, and so on. But the focus is on the ones who are shocked, annoyed, angry, and so on.
The main difference is the 'to avoid offending Muslims' bit of the Star story. It's a common phrase from 'PCgawnmad' stories wherever you might see them. Even Baroness Warsi, as we saw this week, had bought in to some of these myths. It's always 'to avoid offending Muslims', which was what the Mail said with its KFC Halal story back in March. I bet 'to avoid offending Muslims' has bugger all to do with it.
Actually it's a pretty good rule of thumb when reading the papers: when you see the phrase 'to avoid offending Muslims', you can be pretty sure that's not why something's been done. With KFC it was a matter of simple market forces; with these schools I imagine it's to do with there being such a significant proportion of pupils being from a Muslim background that it's more straightforward and cost-effective to offer halal-only meat.
But this isn't an argument about parents demanding RSPCA-certified freedom food in their children's school meals because of concerns about animal welfare. No. It's about 'BRIT KIDS' being 'FORCED' to eat 'MUSLIM MEALS'. You could make the point, and I wouldn't entirely disagree, that it's almost as if the Star are suggesting that children from a Muslim family are not 'Brits'. It's not as if the Daily Star and their stablemates the Daily Express have been shy about doing that before:
It's all about 'us' and 'them'. I think the image that's meant to be conjured up with the latest story is of some bearded fanatic forcing a chicken dinner down a poor seven-year-old's throat from an animal that was possibly slightly more unpleasantly treated than most other factory-farmed meat.
The thing I find interesting is the idea of 'offence'. As I've said earlier, the idea of 'to avoid offending Muslims' isn't quite the right way of putting it. But then again, if non-Muslims are a minority in an area with a large Muslim population, do they then become the 'offended' minority who should be catered for? Are people offended by a chicken that's bled out from a knife wound, for example? Or are people just offended that the majority's needs or wants should trample all over their freedom to eat what they want? Which makes you wonder: would the offended minority be such a concern for our newspapers if they were Muslims, as opposed to non-Muslims?
It's an interesting situation, and like I said at the beginning of this, there's a debate to be had about secularism, education, religion and so on, as well as the animal welfare aspects. It's just that our newspapers choose not to have that debate. They choose to have the one in which PCgawnmad Britain bends over backwards to those pesky Muslims.
PS You'll be pleased to hear that this story has already been picked up by our friends in the ultra-nationalist and anti-Muslim community and used as an example of why there's a 'jihad' against the 'indigenous' population. Well done, Daily Star!
PPS See Tabloid Watch's post.
No related posts.
Buy my book, it’s great
Switch site
Donate
Recent Posts
- Workbrain
- So Solid Wiki fun
- Quentin Letts killed by a woodchipper
- I just sent Robin round
- Kim Jong Ill
Most Commented On
Recent Comments
- Maeva on Tarts and hookers
- Merrick on Workbrain
- Maxine on Workbrain
- Sirenofbrixton on Workbrain
- Katie on Workbrain
About Me
Hello. I'm a Bristol-based writer and soon-to-be-redundant journalist. You can read more about me and the Enemies site here, or follow me on Twitter. Email me if you like - antonvowl at live dot co dot uk
If you're struggling to read the site please use the drop down box below to increase the text size.
August 7th, 2010 - 12:22
As someone commented before: ”The biggest irony of the situation is that the kind of readership the Star attracts probably think nothing of buying a donner kebab at the end of a Friday evening… “
August 7th, 2010 - 13:39
I first came across this issue via the National Secular Society which pointed to an article by the Harrow Observer, which is no doubt where the Daily Star picked it up from, and my initial thoughts were along your lines. Looking in to it further, however, it started to look like a very peculiar decision indeed.
Starting off with the population statistics, it seems that Muslims make up 10% Harrow’s population, so they’re not a majority. Of course, it may still be true that in the schools affected by this decision Muslims do make a majority; unfortunately I couldn’t find those statistics.
It appears that the decision to recruit a Halal-only provider for meat in the schools is because of the logistical difficulties in keeping the Halal meat separate from non-Halal meat (interestingly, I can find no discussion on the logistics of keeping Kosher meat separate). The decision to restrict this to Halal meat, instead of banning Halal from the kitchen was made because (in the words of Harrow Pakistani Society’s Mohammad Rizvi as reported by the Harrow Observer) “For Muslim children the only option they have is to eat Halal, it is part of their religion, whereas it isn’t a problem for children of other faiths to eat Halal”. (I will overlook for the moment the Dawkins-esque response that Halal is part of the parent’s religion, the children have no choice in the matter).
If this is indeed the basis of the decision, this is a very poor argument indeed: Harrow also has a large Jewish community and – as I understand it – Halal meat is not necessarily Kosher meat. So whilst it is undeniably true that many non-muslim children would have no religious objection to eating halal meat, it is not true that “it isn’t a problem for children of other faiths to eat Halal”. It is also a very unfortunate way of saying “up yours” to anyone with an ethical objection to Halal slaughter.
I’m no fan of the Daily Star, and I’m not much of a fan of the Harrow Observer (from whom I discovered there exists an organisation called “The Indigenous Oppression League”, and who the Harrow Observer chose to quote from, leaving a nasty taste in my mouth), and I would dearly love to know the process that lead to this decision, but if it is true that this was introduced simply because of problems separating the Halal meat from non-Halal meat, this is a pretty outrageous decision. But then I clearly don’t see the Halal slaughter / Kosher slaughter / pre-stunned slaughter in the same way you do. (Personally, I will no knowingly eat Kosher or Halal meat. The difference isn’t simply “possibly slightly more unpleasantly treated than most other factory-farmed meat”. It is the difference between the most humane methods of slaughter we can find, and a ancient form of slaughter that is barbaric in comparison).
Incidentally, if the article you found from 2006 sounds remarkably familiar, it’s because it was the same council. In 2006 it introduced Halal-only food to the council’s senior schools. This latest move has extended this to junior schools.
August 7th, 2010 - 16:09
I heard from a friend that works for a reasonably large paper in Sydney, that there is a TV program, either weekly or monthly that exposes poor journalism. The reporters are genuinely afraid of appearing on the show. I would watch an English version, I’m sure others would too.
August 9th, 2010 - 10:40
There you go Anton. Time for you, Ben Goldacre and Charlie Brooker to have your own new programme?
August 7th, 2010 - 21:15
Long-time reader, first-time poster…
Anton – I love the blog and rarely find myself taking exception to anything you’ve written, but I have to point out here (and to baldywilson) that the discussion about the appropriateness of Harrow Council’s ‘decision’ is effectively moot. There are no halal-only schools in the district. A halal OPTION is provided by ONE of the caterers that SOME schools have independently contracted.
http://www.harrow.gov.uk/news/article/309/harrow_councils_response_to_media_coverage_on_halal_school_meals
That fact doesn’t detract from what you have to say about the attempt to create an Us vs. Them shitstorm out of a dry turd of a news story. However, even lightly engaging the argument about whether Harrow Council is right or wrong gives the story far more credibility than it deserves.
I first came across it in Dickie Littlejohn’s Mail column yesterday and quickly did a Google search for ‘Harrow halal’ and found the council’s response at the top of the list. I commented on the column and included some quotes from the council but it didn’t get past the moderators. I guess I should pepper my comments with ‘Ppl said the BNP were rasist when they talked about this stuff but now whos right?!1? NuLieBor want us all to be muslim just look at your local corner shop when was the last time you saw a bulldog wrapped in an england flag in there’ if I want to guarantee the acceptance of any future posts.
August 8th, 2010 - 11:18
Yes, I linked to Tabloidwatch who have covered the story more effectively than me.
August 8th, 2010 - 03:49
Link to said program’s site:
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/
August 8th, 2010 - 05:15
I did my probationary teaching year in a school that served 100% halal and had done for some years – that was back in 1999/2000. The board of governors were largely Muslim, reflecting the pupil demographic. I don’t have time for the cruelty argument. As animal rights groups often state, modern industrial slaughter is a long way from being a tender departure for many animals.
August 8th, 2010 - 20:32
This is an interesting one. I’m all for providing a Halal option for those who want it, but I would prefer my children (if I had them) not to eat Halal meat because I believe that Halal slaughter is unnecessarily cruel.
September 20th, 2010 - 12:33
Misinformation is pervasive:
http://www.tellyougov.com/topics/6161
“Meat should be produced in the uk & not imported” …WTF, who said anything about Halal being imported?
October 20th, 2010 - 21:48
Hi, from the iol, it was us that started the halal campaign in July in Harrow schools. visit our site at theiol-com.com
19th Oct 10
November 5th, 2010 - 11:38
Mr rivzi states that it is not against other religions to eat halal. This is incoorect as it is against the Sikh religion to eat halal food period. What about us Sikhs? Is it that we dont complain and get on with our lives.