Geert Wilders comes out of the closet as an anti-semite

I am not shocked.

The European far-right has always hated the jews. It was only a matter of time before the "new far-right" came out as antisemites, just like their older cousins.

It's not about "criticizing Islam". It's about hating everyone who do not look and act exactly as you do. And jews have toped the "people who are not like us"-list for a milennia.

Someone tell the White House to increase military spending. You'll need to rescue us from genocodal maniacs once again soon.

They should just shut up, jews aren't special what goes for muslims goes for jews as well. A ban on ritual slaughter is a good thing, go somewhere else if you don't like it. So jews will leave, so what. Bye.

Sorry, sounds more like the anti-semite card being played.

I don't think that this method of slaughter is appropriate.
I don't think that female genital mutilation is appropriate.
I don't think that throwing wives onto the funeral pyre of their dead husbands is appropriate.
I don't think ritually strangling strangers as a religious act is appropriate.
I don't think that stoning adulterers to death is appropriate
I don't think skinning Vikings alive and nailing their skin to church doors is appropriate.
I don't think segreggation based on colour is appropriate.
I don't think raping virgins to cure AIDS is appropriate.

Merely that all these practices have been done doesn't make them acceptable. I am not bothered who does them. If one practice I am against is practiced by a particular group that is their problem - not mine. If there are places that let them practice this then fine, but it not up to me to tolerate every ritual that is done by anyone.


~:smoking:

They can roll up their anti-semite card and shove it up their arse. No special treatment for jews, I don't get any because I like to howl at the moon either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I am not shocked.

The European far-right has always hated the jews. It was only a matter of time before the "new far-right" came out as antisemites, just like their older cousins.

It's not about "criticizing Islam". It's about hating everyone who do not look and act exactly as you do. And jews have toped the "people who are not like us"-list for a milennia.

Someone tell the White House to increase military spending. You'll need to rescue us from genocodal maniacs once again soon.

---

The Political Left is also anti-Semetic - note the extremely rough ride the Israeli dance company got at the Fringe just because they recieve money from the government (why shouldn't they, they don't support extreme Zionism as a result).

I can't find the article on the Guardian website but, according to the author, during the performance (interrupted by protestors) an 82-year old Dutchman turned to her and said, "Don't worry, this isn't Kristalnaught, I remember that."

So...

I don't support slaughter without some form of stunning, even if it's just a hammer blow to the head, does that made me an Anti-Semite?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

The Political Left is also anti-Semetic - note the extremely rough ride the Israeli dance company got at the Fringe just because they recieve money from the government (why shouldn't they, they don't support extreme Zionism as a result).

I can't find the article on the Guardian website but, according to the author, during the performance (interrupted by protestors) an 82-year old Dutchman turned to her and said, "Don't worry, this isn't Kristalnaught, I remember that."

So...

I don't support slaughter without some form of stunning, even if it's just a hammer blow to the head, does that made me an Anti-Semite?

---

Do you affiliate yourself politically with Geert Wilders, PVC?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Do you affiliate yourself politically with Geert Wilders, PVC?

---

It is possible, if not highly likely, to agree with almost everyone on some point of other. The allies had common ground with Stalin, Hitler was anti smoking, the Mafia tends to be pro-family values (however distorted / corrupted their other values might be).

I agree with Wilders on this particular topic. Wilders might have an agenda that this helps further that I don't have.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

The Political Left is also anti-Semetic - note the extremely rough ride the Israeli dance company got at the Fringe just because they recieve money from the government (why shouldn't they, they don't support extreme Zionism as a result).

I can't find the article on the Guardian website but, according to the author, during the performance (interrupted by protestors) an 82-year old Dutchman turned to her and said, "Don't worry, this isn't Kristalnaught, I remember that."

So...

I don't support slaughter without some form of stunning, even if it's just a hammer blow to the head, does that made me an Anti-Semite?

---

There was no Krystalnacht in the Netherlands, I don't know what he remembers but he may be senile. Horetore is just pointing out the irony as Wilders is regarded as a hardcore Israel lover by the left. But for Wilders Israel is just the canary in the colemine. It is probably true that he gets funds from jewish organisations but as you can see he is not on their leash as the left keeps furiously screaming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

It is possible, if not highly likely, to agree with almost everyone on some point of other.

---

I know, and that's why I asked PVC, but not you.

As far as I know, PVC is a tory, but his post makes me wonder if he also supports Wilders and the parties he represents...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I know, and that's why I asked PVC, but not you.

As far as I know, PVC is a tory, but his post makes me wonder if he also supports Wilders and the parties he represents...

---

Which will naturally be a horrible thing to do. I don't vote on him but he's the only Dutch politician with some guts. Funny thing about lefties, they see fascim everywhere but they will never recognise it when looking into a mirror.

...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Do you affiliate yourself politically with Geert Wilders, PVC?

---

No, but I've been involved in the slaughter of animals, so I know they aren't dead until the blood stop flowing.

I'm also not a "Tory", I vote Tory currently because I happen to think our current Tory MP here is very good.

The point is - this is a non issue viz anti-Semitism, as is the issue of infant circumcision (sp?)

My decidedly jaundiced views on "Jewish" political identity should be fairly well known on this forum, they can be summed up in three words - no special pleading.

What makes this case both extremely amusing and quite worrying, is the fact that no move is made to ban either factory farming or the fur industry.

That makes it clear that actual animal welfare is far from their minds, and so the only thing that remains is good ol' fashioned jew-hate.

It could also be an attempt to whitewash the practices of modern farming. The slaughterhouse, kosher or not, is probably one of the nicest times in the life of the animal, much better than living in the average farmhouse.

If you actually care about animal welfare, the method of slaughter will be the last thing on your mind. There are so many worse practices. The transport makes the Auswitchz express look pleasant, the fur industry is industrialized sadism, animals are pumped up on stroids to the point where they can't move normally anymore, but hey, at least we don't give them any space to move anyway.

These are real issues. The open question of which method of slaughter causes the most pain is not a real issue.

Geert Wilders agenda is not about animal welfare, it's about making everyone else conform to one way of living. His way of living.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

No, but I've been involved in the slaughter of animals, so I know they aren't dead until the blood stop flowing.

---

Those are just spasms, but why insist on the animal to be fully concious. Do that somewhere else. But Horetore proves himself to be a member of what we just LOVE call the leftist church here. If you agree with something Wilders says you are no longer 100% OK and must support everything Wilders says.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I'm also not a "Tory", I vote Tory currently because I happen to think our current Tory MP here is very good.

---

My apologies. I had the impression that you identified with the conservative party on a stronger basis than that.

I'll be sure to notify the Politbureau and have them update their lists....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Those are just spasms, but why insist on the animal to be fully concious. Do that somewhere else. But Horetore proves himself to be a member of what we just LOVE call the leftist church here. If you agree with something Wilders says you are no longer 100% OK and must support everything Wilders says.

---

I know I shouldn't respond to nonsense like this, but...

If what you say had any truth, frags, I would've asked rory as well. I didn't, mostly because my question wasn't based on PVC's agreement on kosher slaughter. It was rather based on a certain "X factor" of his post. The tone, the points made, the order the points were made etc all contributed to a certain undefinable thing that made me honestly wonder if he supported Wilders. As I thought he was a staunch Tory, that would be a rather dramatic shift in opinion, and such shifts are always interesting(at least to me).

To give an extreme example to conter your nonsense, a Neo-Nazi would agree that kosher slaughter should be banned. It's highly unlikely, however, that a neo-nazi would support Wilders.

But in the UK at least, this practice is banned for everyone else. Why the exception? To point at other things is merely deflection. The issue is simply - there is a law and it should apply to everyone. Want to ban the fur trade? Fine. For everyone, not except Cossacks as they need it for their hats.

Conform to his way of living. Probably. Sounds like a good idea to me. And interestingly on this issue, you are choosing to point out what goes on in a very permissive society:

In the news a Palestinian has immolated himself due to the conditions imposed by Israel
Pakistan has arrested a mentally retarded girl for having burnt pages of the Koran - which turns out was a plant as a local Cleric wants to get rid of Christians. Thi was under the blasphemy laws, but was also to try to stop the crowd rioting / lynching her and others.
The desecration in Timbuktu by... oh yes Islamic militants.
Not in the news, but Saudia Arabia / Birhain...

SO, to use your own standarrds, there are far bigger issues than what happens by dear ol' Geert. Why not focus on these far greater abuses?

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

What makes this case both extremely amusing and quite worrying, is the fact that no move is made to ban either factory farming or the fur industry.

That makes it clear that actual animal welfare is far from their minds, and so the only thing that remains is good ol' fashioned jew-hate.

It could also be an attempt to whitewash the practices of modern farming. The slaughterhouse, kosher or not, is probably one of the nicest times in the life of the animal, much better than living in the average farmhouse.

If you actually care about animal welfare, the method of slaughter will be the last thing on your mind. There are so many worse practices. The transport makes the Auswitchz express look pleasant, the fur industry is industrialized sadism, animals are pumped up on stroids to the point where they can't move normally anymore, but hey, at least we don't give them any space to move anyway.

These are real issues. The open question of which method of slaughter causes the most pain is not a real issue.

Geert Wilders agenda is not about animal welfare, it's about making everyone else conform to one way of living. His way of living.

---

You're assuming anti-Semitism when ignorance is a better explanation.

When I first went to university I explained the process of slaughter and butchery to some of the people in my Halls - they were horrified that I not only understood but had taken part in such things. One person actually described me as "sick" and wouldn't talk to me for a week - After a week he got over it and apolagised.

People have an extreme reaction to slaughter, it allows them to ignore the rest of the industrialised farming process and continue eating supermarket chicken.

There's nothing anti-Semitic about this law, it's populist, but it panders to people's sensibilities, not their prejudices.

Likewise, the fur trade is not "sadistic", it's is simply an unpleasent business.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Why not focus on these far greater abuses?

---

I don't? That's news to me.

The problem with your reasoning, is that they have taken an active stance on the other issues - and they say it's okay. If I had said that the issues you brought up are a-okay, then yes, you'd have a valid point. But I find them very not okay.

This isn't about which topics are being discussed right now, this is about the stance you take on the issues. I don't support banning kosher AND I find both blasphemy laws and desecration of Timbuktu to be wrong.

Wilders opposes kosher, but has no problem with the fur industry. That's the problem. If he had opposed the fur industry, for example, a ban on kosher is consistant with animal rights even if he doesn't make an active move to ban fur.

As for the slaughter regulations; they are in need of a remake, like most other regulations in agriculture. I have, however, sincere doubts that kosher slaughter inflicts more pain on the animal than other forms of slaughter. And frankly, unlike the way we transport our animals(for example), this kind of pain is quite acceptable to me. If you can't kill an animal without sedating them, how can you avoid banning hunting?

Hunting animals is okay with me, even though I know the animal feels pain(including the 10% who are only wounded). So why would I have a problem with a slaughter method that inflicts less pain?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I know I shouldn't respond to nonsense like this, but...

If what you say had any truth, frags, I would've asked rory as well. I didn't, mostly because my question wasn't based on PVC's agreement on kosher slaughter. It was rather based on a certain "X factor" of his post. The tone, the points made, the order the points were made etc all contributed to a certain undefinable thing that made me honestly wonder if he supported Wilders. As I thought he was a staunch Tory, that would be a rather dramatic shift in opinion, and such shifts are always interesting(at least to me).

To give an extreme example to conter your nonsense, a Neo-Nazi would agree that kosher slaughter should be banned. It's highly unlikely, however, that a neo-nazi would support Wilders.

---

Of course they wouldn't, they hate his guts, neo-nazi's vote socialist. Just kinda curious how you put PVC into Wilders territory, youknow, the mechanisms involved. But I already know the answer to that, the suffocating social control within the leftist church. You are either 100% OK or suspect. Leftist Lemmings are always looking for comfirmation

@Fragony, lumping everyone in the left is ironically just as bad as what you claim they are doing.

~:smoking

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

You're assuming anti-Semitism when ignorance is a better explanation.

---

Good point.

We have removed ourselves far from the food we eat now. I believe we as a society could benefit from a better understanding of what the food goes through before it ends up on the plate, as part of our moral education. We kill animals in order to live, we should have a better understanding of what exactly that means.

Btw, I haven't worked at a slaughterhouse myself, but my ex did her bachelors on methods of slaughter, so I do know how it works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Likewise, the fur trade is not "sadistic", it's is simply an unpleasent business.

---

While it may be a touch of hyperbole, I stand by my words. Food is a necessary product, fur is not. I define sadism as inflicting unnecessary pain, and so fur farms fits that description.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I know I shouldn't respond to nonsense like this, but...

If what you say had any truth, frags, I would've asked rory as well. I didn't, mostly because my question wasn't based on PVC's agreement on kosher slaughter. It was rather based on a certain "X factor" of his post. The tone, the points made, the order the points were made etc all contributed to a certain undefinable thing that made me honestly wonder if he supported Wilders. As I thought he was a staunch Tory, that would be a rather dramatic shift in opinion, and such shifts are always interesting(at least to me).

To give an extreme example to conter your nonsense, a Neo-Nazi would agree that kosher slaughter should be banned. It's highly unlikely, however, that a neo-nazi would support Wilders.

---

The "X factor" you detect is my irritation with you for equating the far-right with anti-Semitism when it is the well known vise of populist European politcians from across the political spectrum - the reference I made to protests at the Festival was to illustrate the point that anti-Semitism is currently more popular and accepted on the Left. The current vise of the Right is anti-Muslim prejudice.

Technically, both are ant-Semiticm (or can be) but that wasn't the point you were making.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Good point.

We have removed ourselves far from the food we eat now. I believe we as a society could benefit from a better understanding of what the food goes through before it ends up on the plate, as part of our moral education. We kill animals in order to live, we should have a better understanding of what exactly that means.

Btw, I haven't worked at a slaughterhouse myself, but my ex did her bachelors on methods of slaughter, so I do know how it works.

---

Technical knowledge is one thing, holding the sheep while your father cuts its throat is something else entirely.

Not nice, not nice at all.

Quote:

---

While it may be a touch of hyperbole, I stand by my words. Food is a necessary product, fur is not. I define sadism as inflicting unnecessary pain, and so fur farms fits that description.

---

I take your point, fur as fashion is certainly vanity, but "Sadism" implies people derive pleasure from the suffering, when in fact most people obfusticate the suffering or practice cognitive dissoncance on the issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

@Fragony, lumping everyone in the left is ironically just as bad as what you claim they are doing.

~:smoking

---

It's just a certain type, you probably know which one. Not every leftie is a devout member of the leftist church, most vote for daddy's party, but the ones that are very leftist just don't understand that they are in fact deeply religious. I have little patience for absolute faith personally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

The "X factor" you detect is my irritation with you for equating the far-right with anti-Semitism when it is the well known vise of populist European politcians from across the political spectrum - the reference I made to protests at the Festival was to illustrate the point that anti-Semitism is currently more popular and accepted on the Left. The current vise of the Right is anti-Muslim prejudice.

Technically, both are ant-Semiticm (or can be) but that wasn't the point you were making.

---

I'm actually not politically active. The reason for that is because the party I would affiliate with engage in "criticism of Israel" that I find crosses the antisemitism-line way to regularly, and I don't want to be caught with such hatemongerers.

Bah, I guess I'll drop the socialists and go with the Greens in a few years...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I'm actually not politically active. The reason for that is because the party I would affiliate with engage in "criticism of Israel" that I find crosses the antisemitism-line way to regularly, and I don't want to be caught with such hatemongerers.

Bah, I guess I'll drop the socialists and go with the Greens in a few years...

---

Well, don't you think that speaks volumes?

How I feel about anti-Semitism, especially dressed up as Israel/banker-bashing should be fairly obvious by the amount of venom I poured on Ken Livingstone during the London Mayorla Election.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Well, don't you think that speaks volumes?

---

I do.

Hence why I haven't been a member of any party or organization since I was 19.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I am not shocked.

The European far-right has always hated the jews. It was only a matter of time before the "new far-right" came out as antisemites, just like their older cousins.

It's not about "criticizing Islam". It's about hating everyone who do not look and act exactly as you do. And jews have toped the "people who are not like us"-list for a milennia.

Someone tell the White House to increase military spending. You'll need to rescue us from genocodal maniacs once again soon.

---

just so we all understand what the hyperbole above is referring to let me present the title of the linked article:

"Israel’s chief rabbi warns Dutch populist politician over kosher slaughter ban"

Not exactly calling for the ovens to be set to maximum is he!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

just so we all understand what the hyperbole above is referring to let me present the title of the linked article:

"Israel’s chief rabbi warns Dutch populist politician over kosher slaughter ban"

Not exactly calling for the ovens to be set to maximum is he!

---

Oh screw him, he got a perfectly fine wall to wail at in jeruzalem. Jews happy, we not all that bothered. Pretty nice eventually. Piss off is as mildly as I can put it, choke on your beard torah-jugend

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I do.

Hence why I haven't been a member of any party or organization since I was 19.

---

So, the point of this Topic was to wind Frags up?

Because it appears to have worked.:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

So, the point of this Topic was to wind Frags up?

Because it appears to have worked.:rolleyes:

---

Well yeah guilty, I don't even vote on him I vote for the Libertarian Party and always will. But Wilders's opponents are so much worse then Wilders himself, so much cheaper

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I am not shocked.

The European far-right has always hated the jews. It was only a matter of time before the "new far-right" came out as antisemites, just like their older cousins.

It's not about "criticizing Islam". It's about hating everyone who do not look and act exactly as you do. And jews have toped the "people who are not like us"-list for a milennia.

Someone tell the White House to increase military spending. You'll need to rescue us from genocodal maniacs once again soon.

---

You did read that it all begun with bill that was proposed by an animal rights party and that passed the lower house?

Wilders, among, apparently, other political parties, supported that bill back then? Or he didn't?

Are all those parties who did support it in 2011 now "far right" and antisemites?

Do you consider animal rights activists potential genocidal maniacs?

What is antisemite in expecting everybody to respect certain legislation? No ritual slaught of animals. If you want to be offended and consider it anti-Islam or antisemite, then so be it. It has nothing to do with religion, but with animal rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

No, but I've been involved in the slaughter of animals, so I know they aren't dead until the blood stop flowing.

---

A point that carries across to our species too:

" Wrist cutting is not usually life threatening and patients who self-mutilate know it."

Joel Paris, MD, (2004), Journal of Personality Disorders, The Guilford Press.

Even a libertarian like me will concede some freedoms if the reasoning is sound.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

You did read that it was a bill proposed by an animal rights party?

Wilders, among, apparently, other political parties, supported that bill.

Are all those parties now "far right" and antisemites?

Do you consider animal rights activists potential genocidal maniacs?

What is antisemite in expecting everybody to respect certain legislation? No ritual slaught of animals. If you want to be offended and consider it anti-Islam or antisemite, then so be it. It has nothing to do with religion, but with animal rights.

---

Kinda sums it up. If religious jews think they have an ally in Wilders when it comes to religious slaughter or the jewish religion they are mistaken.

Also, the idea that being against ritual slaughter and holding the opinion that animals should be stunned first equals being an antisemite, a Muslim hater and probably also a racist, a far right adept and, why no, a neo-nazi and a genocidal maniac, is completely and utterly ridiculous, to say the least. In fact, it's so ridiculous that it becomes hilarious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Wilders opposes kosher..

---

Or... maybe he wanted to oppose halal, but didn't realize that kosher is very similar?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

Also, the idea that being against ritual slaughter and holding the opinion that animals should be stunned first equals being an antisemite, a Muslim hater and probably also a racist, a far right adept and, why no, a neo-nazi and a genocidal maniac, is completely and utterly ridiculous, to say the least. In fact, it's so ridiculous that it becomes hilarious.

---

Ritual slaughter isn't all that bad, but there are no exceptions because you believe in fairytales

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

You did read that it all begun with bill that was proposed by an animal rights party and that passed the lower house?

---

Which means the Dutch Party Animals are Nazis anti-semites too!

http://youtu.be/JngI1_8beoA

I did not immediately read the article, and spent the first page saying to myself "I thought Gene Wilder was dead and I thought he ws a Canadian"

I don't know if this guy is being an anti semite so much as pretty anti religion in general, which I really dont have a problem with

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

I don't know if this guy is being an anti semite so much as pretty anti religion in general, which I really dont have a problem with

---

He is anti-islam most of all, too much imho as there are many flavours of Islam. If he would be more considerate of that he would have my vote.

Such laws have been passed and are in effect in Belgium and rightly so, if I may add. Is Belgium a fascist anti-Semite country now? If that Haredim bastion of Antwerps can deal with, so will the jews in the Netherlands. I don't get the deal really. If anything we should be shunning the religious extremist reaction, especially as they want to counter the democratic procedure of law making and equality in The Netherlands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

You did read that it all begun with bill that was proposed by an animal rights party and that passed the lower house?

Wilders, among, apparently, other political parties, supported that bill back then? Or he didn't?

Are all those parties who did support it in 2011 now "far right" and antisemites?

Do you consider animal rights activists potential genocidal maniacs?

What is antisemite in expecting everybody to respect certain legislation? No ritual slaught of animals. If you want to be offended and consider it anti-Islam or antisemite, then so be it. It has nothing to do with religion, but with animal rights.

---

See post #12.


When the only "animal rights" legislation you support is banning kosher, then yes, you are an antisemite.

The Belgian jews copes by importing meat, btw. Way to go outsourcing yet another industry!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

See post #12.When the only "animal rights" legislation you support is banning kosher, then yes, you are an antisemite.The Belgian jews copes by importing meat, btw. Way to go outsourcing yet another industry!

---

This is not a tenable position - Kosher slaughter would be illegal in most of the EU were it not for a special Jewish exemption, wanting to end that exemption is not anti-Semetic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

This is not a tenable position - Kosher slaughter would be illegal in most of the EU were it not for a special Jewish exemption, wanting to end that exemption is not anti-Semetic.

---

The counter argument to this has been written countless times by numerous writers far more eloquent than myself, there's no real reason for me to respond.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

The counter argument to this has been written countless times by numerous writers far more eloquent than myself, there's no real reason for me to respond.

---

Banning infant circumcision is fine too in my book.

I would like a response from you, I think both I and the others in this thread who have argued passionately and in good faith here deserve one. There is no logical reason for Jews or Muslims to be allowed special pleading in cases like this - in fact, in a secular society such is unacceptable.

Why should Europe pander to dietary laws designed for an arid climate and bronze age technology?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Wilders opposes kosher, but has no problem with the fur industry.

---

Wrong. Some time ago a law was passed to outlaw the mink fur industry in the coming years, and the PVV was one of the parties in favour.

Unsedated slaughter has been illegal for some time, but the law allowed exceptions for religious practices. I'm undecided on the issue, but the stance is not anti-semetic just because it happens to conflict with the Torah. If there were any Aztecs around, banning human sacrifices would not be racist either.

Of course people could have anti-semetic motives for doing so, but I seriously doubt that was the case for any of the politicians involved. It was an initiative of the Animal Party. One of the parties in favour at the time was the Labour Party, then lead by Job Cohen (I don't think he's religious, but his name should give you an idea how likely it is he is an anti-semite)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

See post #12.


When the only "animal rights" legislation you support is banning kosher, then yes, you are an antisemite.

The Belgian jews copes by importing meat, btw. Way to go outsourcing yet another industry!

---

Apparantly I was wrong Belgium still allows it, outlawing was a big thing though. But it is forbidden in Sweden, Iceland and guess what? Norway.
Also your argument about importing kosher meat is not valid. The biggest producer and by far the largest exporter of Halal meat, which has the same condition and is a bigger industry than kosher meat, is New Zealand. It is also the main source of Halal meat in Europe. And guess what, again these animals were required by law to be sedated. Buyaka! In other words Norway is preventing their muslim and jewish civilians to break their traditional laws. And when they try by exporting, they are usually still breaking them without knowing it. You guys are evil! You should think about moving to another country.

Kinda scary a realisation that Horetore actually meant it. Lefties usually furiously scream that he's a puppet of the zionist movement. And now all of a sudden when jews don't get special treatment it's anti-semitism, at least make a choice. At first I thought Horetore apreciated the irony but I have always been terrible at leftist logic, I just don't see it

Frag you really need to stop lumping the entire "left" into one group - the Left side of the political scale is made up of many different groups with varying views much like the Right is, and not everyone who aligns to the Left thinks the same thing

in this case I think Horetore is pushing it a little - I don't see where he made his leap to Anti-Semitism...

Wilders seems to be supporting the Ethical slaughter of animals - something I can wholly support

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Moody

Frag you really need to stop lumping the entire "left" into one group - the Left side of the political scale is made up of many different groups with varying views much like the Right is, and not everyone who aligns to the Left thinks the same thing

in this case I think Horetore is pushing it a little - I don't see where he made his leap to Anti-Semitism...

Wilders seems to be supporting the Ethical slaughter of animals - something I can wholly support

---

I know, I am kinda returning the favour when doing so though, but you are of course right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

Apparantly I was wrong Belgium still allows it, outlawing was a big thing though. But it is forbidden in Sweden, Iceland and guess what? Norway.
Also your argument about importing kosher meat is not valid. The biggest producer and by far the largest exporter of Halal meat, which has the same condition and is a bigger industry than kosher meat, is New Zealand. It is also the main source of Halal meat in Europe. And guess what, again these animals were required by law to be sedated. Buyaka! In other words Norway is preventing their muslim and jewish civilians to break their traditional laws. And when they try by exporting, they are usually still breaking them without knowing it. You guys are evil! You should think about moving to another country.

---

Well, by HoreTore's logic Norway MUST be ant-Semitic then because they still allow whaling, among other things.

I'm pretty sure that HoreTore raised this topic before, and that he thought that the Norse law was probably racist at the start as it was enacted in the late 1920-ies or something like that. Which is not an unreasonable assumption.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

I'm pretty sure that HoreTore raised this topic before, and that he thought that the Norse law was probably racist at the start as it was enacted in the late 1920-ies or something like that. Which is not an unreasonable assumption.

---

Possibly true - but they haven't repealed it since, despite becoming a bigger Kingdom of Peace and Love than the Frontroom.

There is a moral obligation to animals not to make them suffer unneeded cruelty, it is easy to understand this is not necessarily an anti-semite issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

There is a moral obligation to animals not to make them suffer unneeded cruelty, it is easy to understand this is not necessarily an anti-semite issue.

---

You can't have a moral relationship to a amoral entity 0 human beings have a moral obligation not to cause suffering because of how it reflects on us​.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

I'm pretty sure that HoreTore raised this topic before, and that he thought that the Norse law was probably racist at the start as it was enacted in the late 1920-ies or something like that. Which is not an unreasonable assumption.

---

I think that is true for the Netherlands as well, about the same time it was banned here I believe, law was reversed after the war. At the time, yeah probably anti-semitism. But it's utterly redicoulous to play that card now, and very very annoying. I don't hear the muslims complaining about having to sedate the animals, most already do so anyway. If it's such a big deal to jews they just move to a country where it is allowed. The import of kosher meat isn't banned so they should just shut up.

Frags makes a good point about the sedation of animals. I don't think it makes a whole lot of sense to ban kosher and halal slaughter outright. Interestingly, the Netherlands is one of the largest exporters of halal meat.

Humans are animals.

A secular democracies laws should apply as evenly as possible to all adult members. Religion should not be a trump card, if the religion can get enough votes to win in the voting then that is the way to do it. Also being a religion does not make its ruleset wiser, smarter or better automatically then the majority.

Religion is not a get out of jail card. Otherwise what stops the NT-Mayan apocolapse mixed with Aztecs from having a chocolate orgy finished with the ritual slaying of a member of the group. After all it's a religion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Humans are animals.

A secular democracies laws should apply as evenly as possible to all adult members. Religion should not be a trump card, if the religion can get enough votes to win in the voting then that is the way to do it. Also being a religion does not make its ruleset wiser, smarter or better automatically then the majority.

Religion is not a get out of jail card. Otherwise what stops the NT-Mayan apocolapse mixed with Aztecs from having a chocolate orgy finished with the ritual slaying of a member of the group. After all it's a religion.

---

Agreed. I am really annoyed at what they insist this to be. It's not an attack on jews or muslims (muslims are not looking for pittytude I might add they are fine with it). It's rediculous to suggest otherwise. Jews get the same treatment as everybody else, must be hard on the chosen people, :daisy: off with the accusations

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

Frags makes a good point about the sedation of animals. I don't think it makes a whole lot of sense to ban kosher and halal slaughter outright. Interestingly, the Netherlands is one of the largest exporters of halal meat.

---

I believe both Kosher and Halal Law require the animal to be conscious when it dies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I believe both Kosher and Halal Law require the animal to be conscious when it dies.

---

Can only speak for halal but the idea behind it is that animals shouldn't unnecesarily suffer, so sedating animals isn't such a big deal. Technically an animal that was confined isn't halal. Why jews are wailing I don't know.

After looking over wikipedia this is what I understand about the matter: the contention is that halal meat must be from an animal that has been slaughtered properly, (the head aligned to mecca, asking allah for permission/forgiveness, etc) particually that the animal is slaughtered by having it's neck sliced in a way that leaves the spinal cord intact as it left to drain of blood. That way the animal's heart still gets signals from the brain to pump expiditing the draining, this ensures as much of the blood as possible is removed from the body before it can clot. Meat that has blood clots in it cant be eaten because blood is one of the forbidden substances that a islamic person cannot eat (personally I think the thought process behind the laws forbidding other methods of slaughter is to avoid such blood clots).

The problem they have with physical blows, electrocution or drugs is that there is no guarentee that stunning the animal will not result in the animal dying before it has been drained, should that happen the heart will have stopped making the jugular cutting inefficient as there is nothing to drive out the blood, leaving enough in the viens and arteries to clot significantly before it can be drained any other way.

There is nothing in the Dhabihah artical about the tradition specifically demanding that the animal being concious, just that it's alive.

The whole Jewish Kosher thing is just about as much a red herring as the title of this thread.

I have not found where is says an animal must be concuss during the killing. Furthermore, the law is supposed to be open to new interpretations due to technological advancement or circumstance.

It would take a gathering of shochets and rabbis to decide what was to be done, not a politician who is not qualified in either field.

I am sure that religious communities will adapt without much hand wringing at all.

I am finding alot of the contentions about unfamiliar religions, on every side, are usually down to misenterpritations (intentional or otherwise) of beliefs and practices spread through ignorance, and a predisposition in humanity to believe the worst of anyone who is considered an opponant or enemy.

Actually that seems to be true of any subject of contention.

I also seem to be using "contention" alot and am hoping it means what I think it means.

Do note that there is no actual consensus about what halal constitutes. It mostly has to do with the ritual of slaughter, and the Qur'an says (paraphrasing): "that which has been made forbidden to you is the meat of animals slaughtered in the name of any other than Allah". As of right now there is no clear consensus, with some jurists stating that meat slaughtered by Christians and Jews is also​ halal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

Do note that there is no actual consensus about what halal constitutes. It mostly has to do with the ritual of slaughter, and the Qur'an says (paraphrasing): "that which has been made forbidden to you is the meat of animals slaughtered in the name of any other than Allah". As of right now there is no clear consensus, with some jurists stating that meat slaughtered by Christians and Jews is also​ halal.

---

Which means that whether you chose to be offended or not is a matter of choice... interesting.

Of course, Christians don't slaughter their meet in the name of anything, unless is tries to escape. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

Do note that there is no actual consensus about what halal constitutes. It mostly has to do with the ritual of slaughter, and the Qur'an says (paraphrasing): "that which has been made forbidden to you is the meat of animals slaughtered in the name of any other than Allah". As of right now there is no clear consensus, with some jurists stating that meat slaughtered by Christians and Jews is also​ halal.

---

Just a thought, can it be that it's actually sacrifice not slaughter? Paganism was well alive, and they sacrificed to various gods.

Every method of slaughter is going to start with a live animal. You want them to bleed out.

Both the Jewish and Islamic practices are designed to be a humane as they could. For the Jews animals sacrificed could not be eaten and even knives used for sacrifice could not be used for slaughter.

I know Jewish practices allow that an animal be on its back or standing. I have not read up on the other.

These just seem to be so that the animal is known as healthy and not dieing from something else that could be transmitted to people. It seems more like ritualized quality control.

Is there any proof of anti-religious intent by any of the Dutch Parliament? How many were even aware that this bill would have religious ramifications? Were any religious groups lobbying against the law?

So far, it looks more like ignorance than intent.

No proof at all, calling Wilders an antisemist is absurd, the neo-nazi's hate him for a reason. It was also backed by labour that by all means can be called a rather jewish-dominated lot, the Amsterdam part at least. Only the christian party's are opposed.

Quote:

---

Just a thought, can it be that it's actually sacrifice not slaughter? Paganism was well alive, and they sacrificed to various gods.

---

Perhaps. I'm not an expert on pre-Islamic Arabia (Moros is, though) but I have two ideas:

1) Either its origins are contra-sacrifice: from what we know, Muhammad tried to eradicate superstition and idolatry throughout the Arabian peninsula. It could be that the verse is to be understood in the context of Muslim-pagan relations of the time.

2) It might have something to do with hygienical prescriptions, which actually makes more sense to me. It could be that people wanted to keep the slaughter of livestock within their own community, and this could very much be explained within the context of the prevention of diseases.

To be fair, I don't really know.

Given the historical contest it's not unthinkable that the original verse is : "that which has been made forbidden to you is the sacrificing of animals in the name of any other than Allah". For Mohammed the christian gods were the same one as allah, it would make sense that it's about ending polythism

I have no knowledge of ritual slaughter that wasn't to do with sacrifice (do note that sacrifice in most cultures of the era as far I remember did still mean the animal was eaten mostly by people themselves) or accompanying the death (especially camels, dromedaries or hybrids and horses). There was ritual hunting in eastern Yemen and Southern/Western Oman. I think the custom was mostly taken over from the Jews really.

So that would put it into quite another context. It depends on when these laws surfaced. Which is most certainly in the early Hellenistic age the latest. Probably even sooner. So that leaves us Babylonian, Persian and Egyptian customs that could have inspired or cause these laws. The latter had some strange laws about food and other stuff as well. So likely a lot of those rules might have Egyptian origins. Truth be told, I might be pretty wrong. But well what I can say is that as far as I known there wasn't a direct cause for these rules or that sentence in the Qur'an, when it comes to Arabia.

So if I get this right I just thought of something really smart

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

So if I get this right I just thought of something really smart

---

Yeah, but my bet is on Egypt.

Also that article about the evolution of jewish identity and religion, I'll be able to pass it monday.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

Yeah, but my bet is on Egypt.

Also that article about the evolution of jewish identity and religion, I'll be able to pass it monday.

---

Gracias

I'm not sure if the verb to slaughter is literally used:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Qur'an, al-Baqarah (chapter II, verse 174)

"innamâ harrama ³aleykum al-maytata wa ad-damma wa lahma alkhinzîri wa mâ uhilla bihi ligayru allah"

---

Translated:

"indeed he has only made forbidden unto you the deceased and the blood and flesh of the swine and that which has been incantated upon [it] something else from God".

uhilla being the passive form of form/stem II of "ahala" which carries the meaning of "to make fit or suited, to fit; to qualify; to make accessible; to welcome" (Hans Wehr, Fourth Edition).

So no direct notion of either "slaughter" or "sacrifice" there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

(do note that sacrifice in most cultures of the era as far I remember did still mean the animal was eaten mostly by people themselves)

---

The jewish religion did this as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korban

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

I'm not sure if the verb to slaughter is literally used:

Translated:

"indeed he has only made forbidden unto you the deceased and the blood and flesh of the swine and that which has been incantated upon [it] something else from God".

uhilla being the passive form of form/stem II of "ahala" which carries the meaning of "to make fit or suited, to fit; to qualify; to make accessible; to welcome" (Hans Wehr, Fourth Edition).

So no direct notion of either "slaughter" or "sacrifice" there.

---

Hard to get anythin from that, but the swine? That's odd

Not so much. In the days of yore, pork was prone to all kinds of nasty diseases and infections, so it was actually a threat to public health. Apart from that, there's been a taboo on pork because of the fact that pigs are omnivores and roll around in mud and excrement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Hard to get anythin from that, but the swine? That's odd

---

Not when you consider hogs will eat pretty much everything including corpses.