Sunday, November 27, 2011

Cameron embroils Queen in Turkey's EU bid

At a State Banquent this week in honour of the visit of Turkish President Abdullah Gul, Her Majesty's Government placed these words in the mouth of Her Majesty:
"We have come through a great deal together to develop what is, today, a very modern partnership. In Europe, the British Government remains committed to working with you to secure your place in the European Union."
The Express gets all hissy about the banquet being halal, which is absurd: like any hospitable host, Her Majesty will ensure that her guests are presented with food they may eat. If one is prepared to serve a special broccoli and celery quiche to vegetarians, offering halal meat to one's Muslim guests would be a basic courtesy.

No, the most objectionable aspect of this visit was the decision to enlist the Sovereign in support of Turkey's (continuing) bid for membership of the European Union. Were Turkey to join, she would not only be the EU’s most populous Muslim nation, but also the EU’s largest nation with a potential voting weight exceeding that of Germany. While Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was implacably opposed to Turkish accession (he said it would be 'a grave error against the tide of history’), Pope Benedict XVI is making distinctly conciliatory overtures. The EU and Turkey simply have to agree ‘fundamental rules of cohabitation’ in order to build ‘a common future’ through ‘mutual dialogue’.

David Cameron is far more concerned abroad with inculcating gay rights than religious liberty. Turkey perpetuates anti-Christian discrimination laws that make it difficult for churches to own property. The treatment of Christian minorities has been one of the major hurdles to EU accession, and Christian Solidarity Worldwide has highlighted two cases of Christians being arrested for the nebulous and all-embracing crime of ‘insulting Turkishness’. And don't even think of mentioning 'Armenian genocide' or 'Cyprus'. According to a previous poll, 81% of Turks believe that the EU is not treating them ‘sincerely and fairly’, compared to 2% who say that it is.

But France and Germany are both opposed to Turkish membership. Former French president Valery Giscard d’Estaing once said that Turkish membership would be the 'end of Europe', and that those supporting the membership bid were 'the adversaries of the European Union'. President Sarkozy has always been opposed, insisting that it is up to individual member states of the European Union (ie not the collective) to decide. He is on the record as saying: “Turkey has no place inside the European Union." The French even changed their constitution to ensure a referendum on the issue. Chancellor Merkel said that while close links with Turkey were important, its future status in Europe was ‘still open for discussion’ (ie not remotely likely).

It is difficult to understand why the Consevative Party supports Turkey in the EU, unless it is in the belief that the wider the Union is, the deeper it cannot be. The 'free movement of people' would open the floodgates of cheap Turkish labour, and if CAP subsidies were to be bestowed upon Turkey's farms of the order they are in France, it would bankrupt the EU. Is there method in this madness? President Sarkozy perceptively said: “Enlarging Europe with no limit risks destroying European political union.”

With Edward Leigh, there is a part of His Grace that begins to warm to the Turkish EU bid, and Her Majesty's fervent support of it.

73 Comments:

Blogger Nowhere man said...

Cameron is a knob jockey.

What with this, gay marriage and all the PC tosh that he spouts i wonder if there IS a Tory PArty any longer.

PErhaps all the Tories stand for now is money - cheap Turkish labour in return for the loss of Western European Christian civilisation.

Stuff the Greek Cypriots, stuff the Turkish Christians, stuff the Armenian diaspora.

When we have people running our country who would gladly see the death of the European race in exchange for a fast buck maybe its time to start voting BNP.

27 November 2011 at 10:23  
Blogger Nowhere man said...

Oh, and PS would the muslims be happy to serve up non-halal food and maybe even a bacon sandwich?

No, its just like veggies. They expect to be accommodated. But when was the last time a vegetarian returned the compliment of a nut roast by cooking you a bit of roast pork?

27 November 2011 at 10:27  
Blogger non mouse said...

One inclines towards Your Grace's final point!

However, I hope the banquet provided an alternative to the vile food, for those who would rather die than wilfully cause animals to suffer. Or might some participants have refused to eat the filth?

At best - those who love animals may suffer the necessity of the sacrifice, and thank God for it. However, to lower our already low standards so as to flatter barbarians is .... despicable. It says more about our moral degradation than anything else.


wv: porker

27 November 2011 at 10:34  
Blogger no longer anonymous said...

Nowehre man - in fairness to the veggies, those of us who are n0t vegetarians do not have a moral objection to eating vegetables, therefore there's no problem with them only serving us vegetables when we visit their dwellings.

27 November 2011 at 10:43  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Nowhere Man: "No, its just like veggies. They expect to be accommodated. But when was the last time a vegetarian returned the compliment of a nut roast by cooking you a bit of roast pork?"

I used to end up manning the barbeque even as a vegan so your stereotyping is not universal.

The etiquette of managing the restricted dietary requirements of invited guests is pretty obvious to me.

27 November 2011 at 10:49  
Blogger len said...

One gets the impression that if our Government were deliberately trying to sabotage our Country and our freedoms(spiritual and otherwise) they couldn`t be doing a better job.
Are they really that stupid or are they following a cleverly crafted plan knowingly or not?.

27 November 2011 at 10:51  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I don't know how animals fare in an industrial halal-slaughtering process but I watched a goat being halal-slaughtered in the Atlas mountains by local tribesmen and it was orders of magnitude better than the industrial non-halal processes for slaughter we have here. That's on top of the fact that the goat was free-ranging.

27 November 2011 at 10:53  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Len: "Are they really that stupid or are they following a cleverly crafted plan knowingly or not?"

I expect recent governments have been courting Turkish favour and not only for Incirlik air base. It's geo-politics. That said, I think it'd be a disaster to open our borders to the potential there.

27 November 2011 at 10:57  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Cameron looks like he might be a man with a plan? Isn't that precisely how people were conned into voting the gormless toerag into number 10 in the first place?

The man is a hubristic and self-serving disgrace to his office. An incompetent and dim witted buffoon who clings to power like excrement clings to a blanket.

No matter what colour you paint this creature, beneath his slimy carapace he is still a tranzie fifth columnist.

Ted Heath would be proud of the son he never had.

27 November 2011 at 11:25  
Blogger Dodo's Way said...

If the Franks and Germans are opposed to Turkey's entry then it aint gonna happen. Imagine a referendum in France agreeing to this?

Knowing this, it's easy for Cameron to make the right noises and, to some extent, the Vatican. He's just trying to get up the noses of Merkel and Sarkozy. The latter, by the way, has only expressed equivocal support and based this on wanting to see greater evidence of tolerance towards Christians.

Turkey's geo-political ambitions are unclear - they appear to be looking both east and west.

27 November 2011 at 11:48  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

DanJo said:-
I watched a goat being halal-slaughtered in the Atlas mountains by local tribesmen and it was orders of magnitude better than the industrial non-halal processes...

Yeah Dan - tell that to Daniel Perl or Ken Bigley.

27 November 2011 at 12:14  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dreadnaught: "Yeah Dan - tell that to Daniel Perl or Ken Bigley."

That's wrong on so many levels. Good grief.

27 November 2011 at 12:21  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Not at all - it's prescribed in the Koran and that negates any humanitarian compassion from the perpetrators or for the victim - where have you ever heard of an Islamic Animal Rights group or an Islamic campaign to abolish their obscene methods of 'punishment'?

27 November 2011 at 12:27  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Your Grace

"President Sarkozy and his predecessors know how to ensure they serve the best interests of their populace... 'The French even changed their constitution to ensure a referendum on the issue'. "

What does the EU provide for us except a mechanism to destroy our liberty and fleece us dry.

Our nation has forever been misled by the numpties who rule over us as the quote states; 'Lions led by donkeys', indeed!

E S Blofeld

27 November 2011 at 12:31  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Graphic Halal slaughter -
This is what Cameron is encouraging by opening the European door to 80 million increasingly Islamic Turks.

http://www.peta.org/b/thepetafiles/archive/2009/12/08/The-Cruelty-Behind-Muslim-Ritual-Slaughter.aspx

27 November 2011 at 12:43  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace. Millions of Turks roaming the EU. Now there's a recipe for long term disaster. White Christian Fascism could be the very next thing in Europe, don’t you know. As soon as these ideas become discussed around a middle class dinner table, it’s de facto acceptance, and most importantly, growth of the movement.

The Inspector is actually straining at the bit to see this day. You see, he doesn’t like the EU and will consider anything that will destroy it. Of course, the UK will have it’s share of Turkish “migrant labour” (...a euphemism of course for ‘we like it here, so we’ll settle. And who could blame them – UK standard of living 3 times that of their home). However, once the UK regains it borders, we can send them back. Voluntarily hopefully, by container if not.

The Inspector is more carnivore than omnivore, yet even he would baulk at eating halal meat. This business about terrifying the animal to make it tender or some such rot fits in perfectly with the abomination that is Islam.

Finally, do spend some thought for our dear Prince Phillip. He probably loathes the Turks more than the rest of us...

27 November 2011 at 12:45  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Perhaps Avi can advise on kosher slaughter when he next pops in. From my understanding, the technique for halal and kosher slaughter is exactly the same.

27 November 2011 at 13:04  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

And that's supposed trumps animal European welfare commitments - wrong and wrong equal right? Come off it Dan, why should primitive religious superstition be allowed to override humane innovation.

Would you prefer that we turn a second blind eye? - Halal and Kosher slaughter should be banned - if it is so important let it be imported from where should have been confined.

27 November 2011 at 13:21  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dreadnaught: "Come off it Dan, why should primitive religious superstition be allowed to override humane innovation."

Oh I agree. Though I'd rather all 'factory farming' of meat in the UK was stopped as well. No-one who claims to care about animal welfare would eat broiler chicken (i.e. any chicken takeaways) or battery-farmed eggs in the UK.

I'm still interested in what Avi has to say and whether the anti-Islam lot will suddenly keep their heads down.

Nevertheless, I can confirm that the rural halal slaughter of free-range goats was both respectful of the animal and pretty humane compared to what I know of UK non-halal abbatoirs.

Incidentally, I also watched a Yak being slaughtered in Nepal, which was both interesting and unpleasant to watch. No quick severing of the arteries from behind involved there, I'm afraid.

Finally, my "Good grief" of earlier was an expression of dismay at your irrelevant and callous use of a UK murder victim whose family may well see what you have written.

27 November 2011 at 13:40  
Blogger Gary said...

Cameron hates Christians and is anti-Christ. Isn't that perfectly obvious by now?

27 November 2011 at 13:58  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

...your irrelevant and callous use of a UK murder victim...

DanJo, - I don't see it as irrelevant or callous to expose acts of the same theologically inspired casual disregard for life shown to either human beings or animals.

I don't want there to ever be any sanitisation of the more extreme (to Western sensitivities) elements of an alien culture, that through subservience to political correctness, prohibits us from revisiting and condemning.

Having seen how they were defiled and dehumanised, I don't want the treatment and ordeals metered out to them to be forgotten unlike I'm sure, politicians like Cameron and the other EUophiles would prefer it otherwise simply to fit their political agenda.

27 November 2011 at 14:24  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

‘Enlarging Europe with no limit risks destroying European political union.’

There must surely be more sensible methods of derailing ever closer union than flooding Europe with Islam. Cables from the US Embassy in Ankara mention the ‘widespread belief among adherents of the Turk-Islam synthesis that Turkey’s role is to spread Islam in Europe’ [paragraph 10]. Paragraph 25 says: ‘Islam as it is lived in Turkey is stultified, riddled with hypocrisy, ignorant and intolerant of other religions’ presence in Turkey … Imams are for the most part poorly educated and all too ready to insinuate anti-Western, anti-Christian or anti-Jewish sentiments into their sermons.’

That the Queen and her guests ate lamb killed in a method causing immense pain and to the glory of Allah does not trouble Your Grace. It should.

27 November 2011 at 14:26  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. Dreadnaught was quite correct to remind us of the ferocity of Islam by recalling two of it’s numerous victims. Freedom is the result of our ever watchful monitoring of evil...

27 November 2011 at 14:39  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"DanJo, - I don't see it as irrelevant or callous to expose acts of the same theologically inspired casual disregard for life shown to either human beings or animals."

*wonders what time it is in Canada*

27 November 2011 at 14:40  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "DanJ0. Dreadnaught was quite correct to remind us of the ferocity of Islam by recalling two of it’s numerous victims."

In the context of the rural halal-killing of a goat for dinner? Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, some of you guys are something else at times. Sheesh.

27 November 2011 at 14:46  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Sigh! - It's not simply about ritual slaughter by any stretch of the argument as you well know DanJo.

I'm disengaging.

27 November 2011 at 14:46  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dreadnaught: "Sigh! - It's not simply about ritual slaughter by any stretch of the argument as you well know DanJo."

Sigh all you like but here is the context, following on from the halal food provision to the Turkish vistors in the article, and your sudden leap onto Islamist Jihadi murder in a Iraqi civil war zone:

"DanJo said:-
I watched a goat being halal-slaughtered in the Atlas mountains by local tribesmen and it was orders of magnitude better than the industrial non-halal processes...

Yeah Dan - tell that to Daniel Perl or Ken Bigley."

I'd disengage too if I were you.

27 November 2011 at 14:55  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

27 November 2011 at 15:09  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "Must admit that you have said that man is no higher than other animals in your opinion."

That's a pretty shoddy misrepresentation. In a cosmic, universal sense I'm sure we're just one species of many. But that certainly doesn't mean I think we ought to treat animals and people the same way, either people like animals or animals like people depending on your starting position. I'd like to think I don't have to explain that but I won't hold my breath.

27 November 2011 at 15:20  
Blogger Fausty said...

If the Turks join the EU and flock to the UK like everyone else, the UK will surely become the most populous country in the EU (should it survive that long).

We cannot assume that our 'masters' are so impossibly stupid that they cannot envisage this scenario as being a probability.

Therefore, we have to wonder whether increasing the UK population with Turks, as a means of having bigger boots under the EU table, is one of the FO's goals.

Are there any whistle-blowers out there who might care to shed some light on this?

27 November 2011 at 15:21  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

We really need to get back on to the main aspect of the article, I think, before this gets any worse.

Is there anyone who actually thinks Turkey joining the EU with its free movement of labour is a good thing?

27 November 2011 at 15:23  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0.27 November 2011 15:20. The Inspector withdraws his comment – he doesn’t want to misrepresent anyone, you know. There are individuals around who hold said opinion, and it’s refreshing you’re not one of them.

27 November 2011 at 15:30  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

*salutes*

27 November 2011 at 15:42  
Blogger Berserker said...

What about La Belle France with its love of Foie Gras -pipes are rammed down the goose's throat three times a day and force fed millet or grain with fat to aid digestion until their livers get to 10 times the normal size which basically drives the birds mad.

Or take the sweet little Ortolan (a sort of baby bunting, mentioned in La Fontaine) - well it is caught in the wild, blinded and put in a cage and force fed, yes millet again and perhaps a few figs until the bird has swollen to about four or five times its natural size, drown it in Armagnac or any other brandy, then eat it back part first (its little feet have been chopped off) and the piece de resistance is to have the beak showing before you crunch it to pieces and the aroma of Brandy suffuses - a napkin to cover the face is needed for a full appreciation of the aroma... Oh, then there the Japanese and the way they have with live fish....

27 November 2011 at 16:15  
Blogger Oswin said...

Insanity, plain and simple. It just doesn't bear thinking about.

27 November 2011 at 18:24  
Blogger non mouse said...

On reflection about the photo, Your Grace: I am sick of looking at the smirking faces of our enemies, who really are practicing a sort of slaughter upon us. I say HM is diplomatically correct to look less than thrilled about it, however momentarily.

As for the underlying principles of deconstruction and reconstruction, perhaps Elizabeth Barrett Browning(1806-61) doesn't get the recognition she deserves for the following:
"A Musical Instrument"

WHAT was he doing, the great god pan,
Down in the reeds by the river?
Spreading ruin and scattering ban,
Splashing and paddling with hoofs of a goat,
And breaking the golden lilies afloat (5)
With the dragon-fly on the river.

He tore out a reed, the great god pan,
From the deep cool bed of the river;
The limpid water turbidly ran,
And the broken lilies a-dying lay,(10)
And the dragon-fly had fled away,
Ere he brought it out of the river.

High on the shore sat the great god pan,
While turbidly flow'd the river;
And hack'd and hew'd as a great god can (15)
With his hard bleak steel at the patient reed,
Till there was not a sign of the leaf indeed
To prove it fresh from the river.

He cut it short, did the great god pan
(How tall it stood in the river!), (20)
Then drew the pith, like the heart of a man,
Steadily from the outside ring,
And notch'd the poor dry empty thing
In holes, as he sat by the river.

"This is the way," laugh'd the great god pan (25)
(Laugh'd while he sat by the river),
"The only way, since gods began
To make sweet music, they could succeed."
Then dropping his mouth to a hole in the reed,
He blew in power by the river. (30)


Sweet, sweet, sweet, O pan!
Piercing sweet by the river!
Blinding sweet, O great god pan!
The sun on the hill forgot to die,
And the lilies revived, and the dragon-fly (35)
Came back to dream on the river.

Yet half a beast is the great god pan,
To laugh as he sits by the river,
Making a poet out of a man:
The true gods sigh for the cost and pain— (40)
For the reed which grows nevermore again
As a reed with the reeds of the river.

Now there's a portrait of camoron, and what he's doing to us! (Except that, by now, he and his kind are more than half beast).

27 November 2011 at 19:34  
Blogger English Viking said...

YG,

You propose that we should feed these monkeys their demonic muck?

You call that Christian? To cow-tow to dirty Islamic sentiments, and observe religious laws from a religion not your own?

Insanity.


PS Will you delete this, like you have my others, for being opposed to idolatry?

27 November 2011 at 20:29  
Blogger English Viking said...

I am almost in tears that HM should fawn so over an infidel.

Would Charles, or Henry, Richard, George or William have done so?

NO.

A thousand times, no.

Delete me all you like; the truth remains.

27 November 2011 at 20:36  
Blogger bluedog said...

Your Grace, Cameron is completely misguided; as Mr DanJO says, it's all about geo-politics. Turkey occupies a critically important position with its control of the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus. Whoever controls these straits has right of veto over the wheat trade in the Black Sea basin. This is why Turkey is in NATO. The Turkish newspaper Hurriyet is an excellent on-line read and your communicant commends it to others. Hurriyet divides Turkish interest in to a number of clearly identified zones.

That apart, Turkey is not the economic Golden Calf that Cameron imagines. It is simply Greece enlarged by an order of magnitude. Recent Turkish GDP growth has been spectacular but is fuelled by debt. We all know where that leads.

The West should apply a simple rule of thumb. Until a) The Hagia Sophia is returned to the Orthodox Church, and b) until a Cathederal is built in Mecca, all mosques and madrassas should be closed down. The Swiss have pointed the way with their ban on minarets. Let's just call that the first step on a journey. Why should religious toleration be a one-way street?

27 November 2011 at 20:52  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
It has just occurred to me that our Prime Minister might just be cleverer than we thought. Dave is pursuing the entry of Turkey into the EU because he wants to get out of Europe leaving Turkey in the EU to bring about its downfall or the ruination of the remaining states!

27 November 2011 at 21:00  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

By the way your Grace, I had the pleasure of meeting the Rt Rev'd Michael Nazir-Ali at the conference on Friday. A really nice man and spirit filled Christian. Here is a man that has fallen foul of a certain Prime Minister when he was the preferred candidate for the Arch Bishop of Canterbury. I am advised that he was passed over because the Muslims objected and no one wanted to offend them. It is my opinion that in reality, it was more likely the Stonewall mob that bent Blair's ear but blamed the Muslims so that it would not reflect badly on them. Nazir-Ali would have had very positive effect on the C of E and the nation as a whole and would have taken no truck with the little pinkies.

27 November 2011 at 21:14  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Mr Integrity . The Inspector would bet his own ‘little pinkie’ that you way overestimate Dave...

27 November 2011 at 21:19  
Blogger Dodo's Way said...

Viking
I agree with your sentiments but not your method of expression.

Her Majesty as Supreme Governor of the Church of England has a responsibility broader than her secular, largely symbolic role as nominal Head of State.

Islam allows if there is no other food available that a Muslim may eat non-halal food.

Surah 2:174 states:
"If one is forced because there is no other choice, neither craving nor transgressing, there is no sin on him."

Surah 6:5 states:
"This day are things good and pure made lawful to you. The food of the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) is lawful to you and yours is lawful to them."

Alternatively, the meal could have been a fish dish, not subject to the constaints of the Islam laws.

There was no need for the Queen to serve ritualistically killed food that represented worship of a false God.

27 November 2011 at 22:43  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Inspector, You are right, as another commentator said once. Irony.

27 November 2011 at 22:55  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Viking,

I learned of the sad loss of your kitty-cat. As an obedient servant to two very demanding kitties, I feel for your loss. I don't want to even imagine the day our family will have to deal with the loss of our furry little scraps of life who are giving us such giant servings of friendship and joy. You have my sincere sympathies.

27 November 2011 at 23:29  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Your Grace, is it not time for you to give us some good news about anything? Someone in the UK must had a baby, a birthday, a win at the lottery....

Enlisting Her Majesty to curry the old Ottoman, especially the way he's been behaving lately is, as we say in Yiddish, a shande...an embarrassment, a shame. It's even a worse idea than contemplating an invitation to the Russian bear. While everyone knows about France and Germany's opposition on practical grounds, the utter horror and panic Turkey's inclusion into the EU would would spread in Greece and the Balkans is unimaginable. Let's hope that this is a political move made casually and easily only because the likelihood of the notion coming to fruition is at absolute, molecule-stopping zero.

27 November 2011 at 23:53  
Blogger Nowhere man said...

Halal slaughter? Why should we have to eat food killed in a barbaric pagan ritual? It fails on two points - cruelty and forcing people to participate in an alien religious practice.

http://bit.ly/t7QLDc

The self destructive nature of many people in wishing for Turkey to join the EU is astounding - haven't they read the history of the Ottoman Empire. Its still playing out in the Balkans right now.

They want Turkey, an aggressively Muslim nation, to become the largest member of the EU.

Bloody amazing....

28 November 2011 at 07:33  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

It beggars belief that our PM would want Turkey in the EU and therefore with access to this country. Is he trying to start a civil war? The jackboot style of PC Authoritarianism we currently endure doesn't take away the resentment that mass immigration has stoked up, it merely suppresses it. Inflicting such radical changes in such a short time on any population is asking for trouble and so you have to question the motives of our leaders.

28 November 2011 at 10:48  
Blogger Jon said...

I don't think the geopolitics extends solely to airbases and control of waterways although these are no doubt factors. I think it's also general turkish alignment in the region.

Containment of the Iran/ Syria/ Hezbollah nexus and support for Israel have ensured that Atlanticists have been broadly in favour of membership as I understand it. From memory, Turkey also has the second largest army in NATO, doesn't it? I am guessing that the argument in favour is that we would rather have them inside the tent pissing out than the alternatives!

28 November 2011 at 14:30  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

If the cost of having Turkey join the EU for geo political reasons is the more rapid Islamification of Britain and Europe, you have to ask is it worth it?

28 November 2011 at 17:55  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Jon, you said, "Containment of the Iran/ Syria/ Hezbollah nexus and support for Israel have ensured that Atlanticists have been broadly in favour of membership as I understand it."

I'm afraid your assessment...or the Atlanticist's...is sorely out of date. Turkey today is not the Turkey it was only a few years ago. Under Erdogan and his Islamic party, Turkey has been losing civil rights, playing footsie with Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas, and acted with barely restrained animosity toward Israel. Because of its bellicose utterings, including neo-Ottomanist nonsense, Greece, Bulgaria and Cyprus have been making defense pacts. With the containment of its secularists, Turkey is now a nation on a slide downward, soon to become another Islamic hell-hole.

Your government is either goofing around for reasons barely pertaining to Turkey, or its leaders are utter idiots who harnessed Her Majesty to their project. I don't know enough of your politics to guess which.

29 November 2011 at 03:13  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

Gary @ 13.58
"Cameron hates Christians and is anti-Christ. Isn't that perfectly obvious by now?"
THAT is why he's dising out bibles, presumably?
You really are an idiot, aren't you?

29 November 2011 at 09:10  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

Azi Barzel 29 November 2011 03:13

Your government is either goofing around for reasons barely pertaining to Turkey, or its leaders are utter idiots who harnessed Her Majesty to their project. I don't know enough of your politics to guess which.

Judging by their inability to convey to us that they understand the threat of Radical Islam and their persistant appeasement of it, I would say the latter.

29 November 2011 at 10:48  
Blogger Oswin said...

G.Tingey @ 09:10 :

Correction: perhaps it is your cravat that is too tight?

29 November 2011 at 15:47  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

29 November 2011 at 18:53  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

DanJ0 said, "Perhaps Avi can advise on kosher slaughter when he next pops in. From my understanding, the technique for halal and kosher slaughter is exactly the same."

From what I know, halal slaughter and Jewish sh'hita are roughly similar in the mechanics, different in the prayers. In the Jewish method the slaughterer has to be an observant scholar, trained in the slaughter and sufficiently skilled, and must use ultra-sharp knives which are insected frequently and carefully. All Muslim males, from what I was recently told by a Muslim colleague, can perform the hallal slaughter method and do not require special training or equipment. I would imagine, though, those working as slaughterers would be similarly skilled. The whole point of both of these methods is to reduce the animal's suffering and have been used by non-Jews and non-Muslims for millenia before stunning, air guns, mallets and other strange stuff came around.

Ritual slaughter, especially sh'hita has been studied closely, through empirical research involving biometrics, by the world's foremost expert on slaughterhouse technology, Temple Grandin. She was hired by Jewish kashruth organizations to advise on and to improve on the method. Her website's worth a visit. In working with slaughterers, ritual and regular, Grandin has made a number of recommendations to eliminate anxiety and suffering. Problems with sh'hita did occur, but were mainly due to slaughterhouse requirements, pushing for speed and efficiency, and government rules.

In an industrial environment, no method of slaughter is fool-proof; accidents occur and old equipment may be used in some countries. Those who have problem with slaughter should forsake all meat, as no method is foolproof. PETA is an extremist organization I'm not inclined to trust, and its and some governments' focus on ritual slaughter, while ignoring far more inhumane methods has little to do with humanitarian concerns, and is political in nature.

From what I recall, Daniel Perl, z"l, wasn't, slaughtered in the traditional halal manner. This would have been a "blessing" under the circumstances; his head was instead slowly and crudely sawed-off with a combat knife by sadistic terrorists.

29 November 2011 at 22:13  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Maturecheese, LOL! For lack of competing or better explanations, yours wins by default!

29 November 2011 at 22:27  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Avi: "PETA is an extremist organization I'm not inclined to trust, and its and some governments' focus on ritual slaughter, while ignoring far more inhumane methods has little to do with humanitarian concerns, and is political in nature."

I have no trust in PETA at all and I didn't even as a vegan. To me, they have take certain ethics out of a wider environment and lost core stuff as a result.

30 November 2011 at 05:06  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Avi Barzel (22:13 on 29 November)—no method of slaughter is fool-proof

This video begins with a foolproof method of slaughter and then proceeds to examples of ritual slaughter. Perhaps the Jewish and Muslim disregard for animal pain extends to human pain, too. A British television programme about circumcision spoke to two Jewish matriarchs who were contemptuously dismissive of the suggestion that a baby could feel pain.

30 November 2011 at 14:04  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Johnny Rottenborough,

Having been to quite a few circumcisions, I can assure you the baby cries a lot more after a needle or when hungry, cold or tired. Many a time the baby is asleep and may or may not even stir or wake up. A circumcision at eight days is quite different from one for an adult, where a urologist and a surgeon in a staffed operating theatre are involved in a complex operation with a long recovery time.

I'm not going to bicker with you about dubious videos by dubious sources and what you thought some "matriarchs," as you call these Jewish women for reasons of your own, may have said or not said on some tv show you saw. There are proper studies on slaughtering methods and plenty of medical evidence on circumcision on the 8th day, and stats documenting health benefits later in life, including 30-40% lower incidence of HIV (translating to millions of lives saved in Africa). Don't take it personally...or, what the Hell, do...but I'll go with that.

What I find more interesting and ominous than your ersatz alarm is the history of bans on the brit milah and the sh'hita. Almost all major anti-Jewish measures in history...Babylonian, Greek, Roman, Medieval, National Socialist...began, "coincidentally," with bans on these two practices on, you got it, "humanitarian" grounds. Never mind that these concerned souls beat the crap out of their and others' kids, sold, worked or sacrificed them, used them as sex dolls, literally abandoned them to the wolves, or performed "medical" experiments before throwing them into the ovens. Or, that they snuffed out livestock any which way they found amusing, cut off parts of living creatures as natural refrigerators and whatnot. In a quick order, after declaring their horror and singing of their own virtue, the "humanitarians" moved onto blood libels, Jewish hoofs, horns and tails, and wholesale massacres of entire communities.

Yeah, yeah, I know the routine; things are so much mor different now, of course, and not everyone who is against circumcision and the sh'hita is an antisemite. Right-ho. But, to borow from another line, every antisemite nowadays sheds tears for poor animals and unfortunate Jewish babies. This all may be news to you, but it's ancient shit to me, so excuse my impatience.

30 November 2011 at 18:15  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Avi Barzel (18:15)—Well, there we are. Express concern for animal welfare and Jewish babies and you’re anti-Semitic. So much for my hopes of a rational discussion. Anyway, I have learned a lesson in the power of religious belief, and further learned that religion untempered by humanity is more a curse than a blessing.

I chose the word ‘matriarch’ to describe the Jewish women because of its accuracy: ‘An older woman who is powerful within a family or organization’.

30 November 2011 at 19:02  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

But it is a rational discussion, Johnny; too much for my taste, even. It's about sad facts about our world I didn't make up and dearly wish they were not so.

You concluded that I'm accusing you of antisemitism. I'm not. It's not all about you, Johnny. I don't know you. I meet very few real antisemites ...I suppose we move in different circles... most people who raise my hackles over something are innocently repeating stuff they've come across without remembering or noticing the source. It's all memes, axioms, semiotics, culturally transferable themes and such scary stuff out there. Would you rather get an earful in sweat-oozing, blushing person at a party, or under the cover of your nom de plume from someone you like and admire, like me?

30 November 2011 at 19:31  
Blogger Dodo's Gray Way said...

Avi

Whilst taking you point about anti-semitism under the guise of concerns for the welfare of children, there is a body of reputable research evidence substantiating the severe physical pain and psychological imact of infant circumcision. Evidence is also available on the limited health benefits, once thought high, and on its impact on adult sexual enjoyment.

Defend it on religious grounds by all means but don't dismiss modern concerns about it. I understand its use is on the decline amongst reformed Jews too. If memory serves, a number of biblical Jewish patriarchs did not require it of their children.

It is possible to discuss this issue without prejudice, although I appreciate why the tone of Mr R's comments put you on the 'front foot', cricket bat in hand.

30 November 2011 at 19:36  
Blogger Dodo's Gray Way said...

Ps
This is my politically correct name and avatar!

30 November 2011 at 19:38  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Avi Barzel (19:31)—We shall have to agree to differ. I have debated ritual slaughter on these threads with a Malaysian Muslim, srizals, who provided reams of evidence that causing an animal to bleed to death was more humane than killing it instantaneously. I rather think that if you can believe that, you can believe anything.

30 November 2011 at 19:57  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

O, for goodness sake, think a little about this, Dodo. Millions of Jewish males through the millenia have been circumcised and you want me to accept that somehow we all hobble about with some kind of a deeply suppressed but, of course, undetectable trauma, a mysterious, un-measurable "psychological impact" and a shitty sex life to boot?

Have you been to a brit, Dodo? The originators of this obscene and ancient sham certainly haven't, and wouldn't have gone near Jews unless holding a whip or a gun. You'd be embarrassed about this stupidity if you ever actually witnessed a brit.

Say, were you around when your kids were born? Watched a c-section, cut your baby's umbillical? Did you see them mess around while finding the artery when the resident stuck in that intravenous? Been there for the vaccine shots, taken them to the dentist? Lot more "discomfort" in all those, I assure you, but miracle of miracles, no psychological effects or sexual dysfunctions from those? Halleluya!

"Defend it on religious grounds by all means but don't dismiss modern concerns about it." Bull. Anyone with a pulse knows about the religious grounds, the sign of the Covenant. But it's not being attacked on religious grounds now, is it? Yet I'm supposed to stick with the "religious grounds" and bow to the manufactured "modern concerns." Isn't that nice. Am I supposed to pretend that this is all brand-spanking-new and not a recurring issue and that the sources for these "concerns," ancient and modern, really don't originate from antisemitic trash found on scrolls, pamphlets and icky websites? Look up the history and google about a bit.

And where is this going? Thousands of Soviet parents went to jail for the brit, thousands of Jews defied the humanitarian laws of Nazi Germany, and thousands more faced execution in that big and happy Disney World, the child-centred ancient Rome and Greece. Yup.

As a health worker familiar with the scene, when do you think those concerned social worker ciphers will turn from "reuniting" crack babies and banged-up toddlers with their rights-deserving parents and turn their attention to the horrors of one of the happiest ceremonies among Jews? When will idiot judges issue protection orders and facilitate removals of Jewish babies...perhaps to caring, foreskin-worshipping Christian homes? It's been done already, so why not again under the same old pretexts? Inquiring minds want to know the timeline on this, because sometimes, not often, we can fight back and when we can, we can do so very well.

30 November 2011 at 21:46  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Johnny R,

It's not rocket science anymore. Pain can now be measured biometrically, and has been treated in studies on slaughter. Modern slaughterhouses operate different facilities for different kinds of slaughters and here in Canada at least, they crawl with government inspectors and veterinarians. Some of us have watched sh'hita and if I were a bullock, I'd certainly, without a moment's hesitation choose the expert with the knofe over the union dolt that with the stun gun, the mallot or the bolt in the head...those don't always work, btw.

Perhaps it's the same undetectable agony causing psychological damage to the animal (in the last seconds of its life) Dodo was concerned? The missing Dark Matter and Invible Pain of the universe? I'll believe the sincerety of the concern over this issue when the busybodies start going around to protect every meat aimal from every bump and bruise, branding or tattoing, vaccine shot, cattle prod proddings, bolts in the head...all measurable pains.

I trust that you're vegetarian. If not, you might want to take the steak out of the fridge and give it a solemn funeral, never to touch meat again. Because if you eat meat, especially steak, you're probably having the kosher or hallal version; it's all processed as a commodity in the same national slaughter houses and meat processing plants. If going for the "modern" method, then the chance that the animal woke up from the "foolproof" stunning while being skinned or gutted is pretty high. Bon appetit.

30 November 2011 at 22:13  
Blogger Dodo's Gray Way said...

Avi
I do get the history and the potential threat. But please do not characature or exaggerate what I said. I am aware too there is a growing lobby in North America opposed to infant circumcision on health grounds which could extend into religious ritual.

The American Academy of Pediatrics is hardly some Mickey Mouse establishment! An effective counter argument cannot be based on accusations of anti-semiticism or ignoring the evidence about its impact. Challenging the evidence through further research is surely the way to go?

30 November 2011 at 22:17  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Dodo,

A point of yours I forgot about: "I understand its use is on the decline amongst reformed Jews too." And I understand Reform is on a radical demographic decline. Good move that would be. Seriously, Dodo, after you ask me to stick to the religious bit only, to stay away from the "modern" stuff, you now barge into my little religion corner with advice to take instrution from the Reform?

If memory serves, a number of biblical Jewish patriarchs did not require it of their children." Are you now trying to pasken (define religious law) on me? Bolder or crazier you grow. You do know that if for some reason circumstances do not permit it, such as when there is danger to life and health, even the bris can be left out. But of course you do, you're a pasok now.

Ah, yes: "The American Academy of Pediatrics is hardly some Mickey Mouse establishment!" Well, put that way how dare one differ? We have an impeccable medical decision without a shred of empirical medical evidence...just like the American Psychiatric Association's "rulings" on homosexuality which you respect so much and follow religiously.

"An effective counter argument cannot be based on accusations of anti-semiticism... Of course it bloody-well can, silly. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's most likely a duck. Better to then call it a duck, no?

... or ignoring the evidence about its impact. Challenging the evidence through further research is surely he way to go? What evidence what research? Old Dr Mengele's "studies" on the topic? Matk this well: Neither I nor anyone I have ever met has hinted at a single complaint, either relating to him or to his children. Are we deluded on top of everyting, hurting under the weight of "repressed memories," maybe? Yeah, that's the science.

Dodo, the arguments you are defending are not only bogus, they are, to us, profoundly frightening. Every psychopathic dictator and every society obsessed with destroying Jews in one way or another has known how to attack the core. Begin with the bris and the sh'hita, move on to the Sabbath and the Holy Days, attack the refusal to submit and "save" the children by taking them away. Whatever's left after that you can easily kill or scatter. The tools have been Greek wisdom, Roman jurisprudence, Christian theology, the best of Nazi science and the genius of the Soviet academies. Now we have pediatricians, psychiarists and animal rights activists. Keep it fresh and current, I guess.

Bullshit all of it, Dodo. I've said this before: You may have the luxury of imagining all sorts of kind-hearted motives, I don't, I can't and I won't...not on my watch when my children, who in little more than a decade from now will have, G-d willing, their own children. And especially when nothing I've seen so far about this latest attempt differs much in any way from the previous ones.

So, my apologies to you and to all other sensitive, but deluded souls. At the small price of being thought a paranoid nutter, I will repeatedly mock and call out this bogus humanitarianism padded with ludicrous pseudoscience. This sham which every White trash antisemitic website you can find just happens to agree with. To me it is what it is; the old sign warning us either put up our dukes to kick serious ass, or to split if a fight is hopeless. May I be blessed with good judgment if, G-d forbid, the time comes, eh?

1 December 2011 at 00:23  
Blogger Dodo's Gray Way said...

Avi

I accept the sensitivities and the profound significance of circumcision for Jewish people. I also accept it was instituted by God for His Chosen People and Jesus Christ's parents would have submitted Him to this.

I'll say no more but point you in the search a tad sounder than that of the Nazis:
www.circumcision.org/response

1 December 2011 at 02:14  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I see the Beeb has a timely piece here about halal and kosher stuff. It's an interesting topic because it illustrates how religious impositions are apparently unacceptable in one instance yet acceptable in another. This has surely to be more divisive than gay marriage! Afterall, if religious slaughter techniques were made illegal in the UK then Muslims and religious Jews would either have to go vegetarian or emigrate I suppose.

1 December 2011 at 21:18  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

Thanks for that, Dan.

1 December 2011 at 21:28  
Blogger Dodo's Gray Way said...

I agree with the Rabbi on this one:

"If the Party for the Animals proposed a law which said there shouldn't be any slaughtering of animals any more and everyone should be vegetarian, I could understand it better ... But it's a vote against religion. The new religion is anti-religion and people get fanatical about this. What worries me is what might come next."

This is an infringement of religious liberty. Based on what? An animal might suffer for a brief period before death. We are not talking about human suffering and the animals, whilst having to be treated humanely, are going to be killed and eaten.

1 December 2011 at 22:35  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older