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

[Fragony]

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.

...

[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.

[rory_20_uk]

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?

[HoreTore]

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?

[Sigurd]

Wilders opposes kosher..

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

[Kralizec]

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)

[HoreTore]

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.

That fact closes the thread IMO.

I must confess that I have no deeper knowledge of PVV's policy, and have simply lumped them into the big group called "far-right parties of Europe". In particular, I transfer the policies of the the Norwegian Progress Party to them. They may not be very similar, however.

So, to conclude, Wilders is not proven to be an antisemite. I still believe demanding animals to be unconcious before slaughter is ridiculous, however, as we allow hunting and see nothing wrong with it(at least I don't...). Opposing jewish rituals, like kosher, has been the staple antisemitism in europe for centuries, so anyone specifically targetting kosher will normally out themselves in a rather gloomy light.

That would normally go for male circumcision as well, an interesting point PVC brought up. Naturally, if all you do is oppose the jewish kind and none of the related practices, your label is crystal clear. But it can also be argued as part of a reasoning on where the right of the parents end and where the rights of the child begins. That's quite interesting, and I might bug you all with that one at a later date, particularly if I find an angle like I did for this thread...

[Fragony]

That fact closes the thread IMO.

I must confess that I have no deeper knowledge of PVV's policy, and have simply lumped them into the big group called "far-right parties of Europe". In particular, I transfer the policies of the the Norwegian Progress Party to them. They may not be very similar, however.

So, to conclude, Wilders is not proven to be an antisemite. I still believe demanding animals to be unconcious before slaughter is ridiculous, however, as we allow hunting and see nothing wrong with it(at least I don't...). Opposing jewish rituals, like kosher, has been the staple antisemitism in europe for centuries, so anyone specifically targetting kosher will normally out themselves in a rather gloomy light.

That would normally go for male circumcision as well, an interesting point PVC brought up. Naturally, if all you do is oppose the jewish kind and none of the related practices, your label is crystal clear. But it can also be argued as part of a reasoning on where the right of the parents end and where the rights of the child begins. That's quite interesting, and I might bug you all with that one at a later date, particularly if I find an angle like I did for this thread...

Usually he is accused of being a puppet of the zionist movement in Israel and the US because he gets funds from them (I assume this is true it was never proven though). Personally I think demanding excemptions from what is mandatory here, ie stunning animals, because you believe in fairytales is much more rediculous. Get with it or get out.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

[HoreTore]

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.

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

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.