Halal meat may not be so kosher for Westerners

I was watching Pat Condell latest rant the other day. The British comedian turned atheism activist was complaining about multiculturalism in the UK. According to him, all grocery stores are now stocking halal meat to appease Muslims. All of it is halal because it is easier and cheaper for slaughterhouses to use one method. So what exactly is halal meat?

I decided to look it up on that great god of knowledge, Wikipedia. In order for a meat to be halal, it must be slaughtered in the correct way, known as Dhabiha. Wikipedia defines it as such...

Ḏabīḥah (ذَبِيْحَة) is the prescribed method of slaughtering all animals excluding fish and most sea-life per Islamic law. This method of slaughtering animals consists of a swift, deep incision with a sharp knife that cuts the front of the throat, the carotid artery, wind pipe and jugular veins but leaves the spinal cord intact. The objective of this technique is to more effectively drain the body of the animal's blood, resulting in "more hygienic" meat.

Many animal rights groups feel this method of slaughter is cruel to the animal. In many cases, the animal is not rendered unconscious before being killed. Groups such as the Farm Animal Welfare Council and the RSPCA have spoken out against the practise. The UK Ministry of Food and Farming suggested in 2008 that all halal and kosher meat products should be labelled to help consumers choose.

I'm no animal rights activist. I enjoy my meat supper as much as the next man. However, this definitely grinds my gears. It seems unnecessarily cruel to the animal. Chopping a chicken's head off with an axe is more humane.

If you have any respect for animal welfare, you should avoid eating both halal and the similar kosher meats. I could be wrong on some of this stuff, so please correct me if I am. Regardless, it's enlightened me a bit. There are definitely some Middle Eastern restaurants I will not be going to anymore.

read more...

Rape is Rape

No means no, unless you live in Manitoba. Convicted Rapist Kennith Rhodes got off on a conditional sentence for attacking a woman four years ago. The crown was seeking at least three years but the judge would have none of it. According to Justice Robert Dewar, the victim had it coming to her. Why? She was scantily dressed while partying at a local bar. Apparently dressing slutty always means yes.

The tables have turned on Dewar. His office was surrounded by 100 protesters on Friday. They demanded he be removed from the bench. Dewar had called the case an incident of "misread signals," citing that "sex was in the air" and that there was a "heightened expectation that sex would occur."

The protesters said that there is no such thing as "implied consent". Dewar seems to think there is. Even when a woman refuses advances. It's okay to go ahead as long as she's dressed for the occasion. What's worse is that he almost made the rapist look like the true victim.

The group chanting outside is office is definitely in the right. Rape is not on the same level as murder or robbery. Crimes that are often committed out of passion or desperation. Any psychologist will tell you it isn't about sexual starvation. If it was all about looks, why do children and frumpy grandmas get attacked?

Rape is about power. The desire to control another human being. It has nothing to do with getting your rocks off. Justice Dewar seems to have confused that. It's sickening that this kind of thinking still goes on in our justice system. It's why so many rape victims refuse to come forward. Narrow minded people like Dewar believe that women only get attacked because they asked for it. When the hell did Saudi Arabian law arrive in Canada?

I've often said that judges are out of touch with our society. This is further proof.

The Canadian Judicial Council, the body that regulates judges, plans to launch an investigation into the comments. The Manitoba government has already filed a complaint.

read more...

We're fat, and that's a good thing

You're a big, fat, disgusting pig. Don't worry, you're in good company. One out of ten people world wide love stuffing Big Macs and sugary treats into their faces. That's about 650 million people who are considered obese. It's an epidemic of gargantuan proportions. There will always be the doom sayers. But obesity is a problem we should be glad to have.

For most of human history, food was scarce. Most people lived on subsistence farming. You ate what you could grow, gather, and ranch yourself. No mechanization, just back breaking labour. No pesticides, just total crop failure.

The entire nation of Ireland was almost wiped out as the result of a potato famine as recent as 150 years ago. Similar shortages occurred in Ukraine in the 1930s and in North Korea in more recent times. Kim Jong Il's people have some of the lowest levels of obesity in the world. Mostly because they're all starving.

The obesity epidemic can be traced back to the mid 20th century. Mechanized agriculture, modern pesticides such as DDT, and advanced fertilizers caused food production to explode. A single farmer could produce as much food as an entire farming community could 50 years earlier. Then came genetic modification, hormones, and advanced vaccines. Plants and animals became heartier and produced more than ever. Less and less land was needed.

So here we are today. We have so much food, we actually have the audacity to throw it away. Nutrition is another subject entirely. However, it's quite amazing that so few are now going hungry. The legendary feasts of King Henry VIII are now your average Thanksgiving for even poorer people.

So let's celebrate our enormous girths, instead of crying about it. Our fatness is a sure sign of the abundance more people are now enjoying. We live longer and better for it. Still, half an hour on the treadmill wouldn't hurt. So get your lardy butt moving!

read more...