Londonistan, Eurabia

[Derec]

I'm assuming you (& Derec) will be consistent and can show me evidence that you have also protested kosher deli's and kosher sections within grocery stores, right?

I am not aware of any Subways or other similar chains that were forced to go "all kosher". A restaurant whose concept is to be kosher or halal or vegan for that matter is one thing. Demanding that existing businesses adhere to your particular religious restrictions (and I count veganism as (ersatz) religion too) quite another.
I am also not aware of any mainstream grocery stores that were forced to offer nothing but kosher products and removed all other products from their shelves because Jews complained.

 

[Derec]

Who are "they"? And why do you care so much?

The spineless managers who caved to Islamist demands. I just started a thread - it's rather low effort. Why do all of you who ballooned the thread to 18 pages care so much?

You missed the entire point. McDonalds changed their menu to suit Catholics. They did this EXPLICITLY, to boost sales during Lent.

And as I said, it doesn't matter much why they introduced the fish sandwich but that this resulted in more options for everyone while restricting it for no one. I don't have to be Catholic to order a fish sandwich. But I can also order a bacon cheeseburger on Good Friday if I so choose.

Are you the intolerant minority?

No. I do not have a problem what anyone else eats. Just as long as they don't expect me to adhere to their dietary restrictions.

Because all I see here is outrage over a business offering a different menu at some of their locations. This happens all the time, but since it is the scary Muslim menu, this becomes the gateway to complete Sharia Law across the globe. Mohammed uber alles.

Well it does look like gateway to Sharia law, together with other changes Muslims have demanded in Britain. It's not just Subway restaurants, it's also schools and workplaces that have gone "halal only". And universities have been segregating the audience by gender to appease Muslim speakers and debaters.

How nice of you to keep using a uniformed bigoted stereotype.

What uninformed bigoted stereotype?

Fried chicken and watermelon on the porch back at you.

Fried chicken and watermelon are delicious. I have no idea how they became offensive and un-PC.

 

[laughing dog]

You missed the entire point. McDonalds changed their menu to suit Catholics. They did this EXPLICITLY, to boost sales during Lent.

So, if this action boosts sales, you will retract your objections?

 

[Derec]

BTW, Since Subway stores are franchises perhaps the owners are Muslim?
Blows your mind, eh?

Not really. Were this true it would be the kind of salient fact one would expect to be part of the reporting on the issue.

- - - Updated - - -

You missed the entire point. McDonalds changed their menu to suit Catholics. They did this EXPLICITLY, to boost sales during Lent.

So, if this action boosts sales, you will retract your objections?

Damn the new quote system! I did not write that, I was replying to it. Please see the edited version of my post.

 

[Derec]

Here we have a group of people who, by making the individual choice of preferentially eating at halal places, create a market for those.

No, one group demands that nobody eat non-halal food around them. Therefore, they pressure existing mainstream restaurants to offer nothing but halal meats. That's the rub here - not for certain foods being offered but for nothing else being allowed. Therefore the comparison to McD or international foods section at a grocery store falls flat.

Then we have a group of people who violently object to the very existence of halal eating places even when there's still ample choice of non-halal ones.

How much longer will we have non-halal eating places if one group think it's "intolerant" to offer non-halal meats in restaurants?

 

[Derec]

Absent any evidence of their "caving" to your alleged "pressure", I'll posit that of those 85%, 83% are vegetarians who won't be affected either way.

Think again. Only a small percentage of people is vegetarian.

There, see? I can pull claims out of my hindside as well. Just as well evidenced!

Nonsense. The 15% is the actual percentage of Muslims in the Bristol neighborhood of Easton where one of those Jihad Subways is located.

On a more serious note, your "85% non-Muslims" figure really is perfectly irrelevant. Some of them will be vegetarians who won't be affected by what kind of meat is on offer one way or the other. More importantly, most people don't care either way: They might buy pork if its on offer, but will take turkey without second thought when it isn't.

I see your point but the same applies to the 15% who are Muslim. Some will be vegetarians and won't be affected by the kind of meat anyway. Many Muslims are also not strictly halal and eat at mainstream restaurants, just don't order pork. Some even eat pork and drink alcohol so they might prefer to be able to order a bacon chicken sub.
Furthermore, many vegetarians/vegans are that for animal rights reasons. Stunned or not, halal slaughtering has a bad rep. So "halal" designation would hurt sales among that group as well.

On top of that, they probably hope to attract Muslim costumers from outside the narrow neighbourhood.

In most other parts of Bristol percentage of Muslims is even less (since the overall percentage is 5%).

 

[Nice Squirrel]

The spineless managers who caved to Islamist demands. I just started a thread - it's rather low effort. Why do all of you who ballooned the thread to 18 pages care so much?

How do you know they are managers? What if the owners themselves as Muslim and are serving their local communities?

You missed the entire point. McDonalds changed their menu to suit Catholics. They did this EXPLICITLY, to boost sales during Lent.

And as I said, it doesn't matter much why they introduced the fish sandwich but that this resulted in more options for everyone while restricting it for no one. I don't have to be Catholic to order a fish sandwich. But I can also order a bacon cheeseburger on Good Friday if I so choose.

But you cannot order one before 10 a.m. Why are you not outraged?

Are you the intolerant minority?

No. I do not have a problem what anyone else eats. Just as long as they don't expect me to adhere to their dietary restrictions.

So you eat pork for every meal? And somebody is FORCING you to eat at these restaurants?

Because all I see here is outrage over a business offering a different menu at some of their locations. This happens all the time, but since it is the scary Muslim menu, this becomes the gateway to complete Sharia Law across the globe. Mohammed uber alles.

Well it does look like gateway to Sharia law, together with other changes Muslims have demanded in Britain. It's not just Subway restaurants, it's also schools and workplaces that have gone "halal only". And universities have been segregating the audience by gender to appease Muslim speakers and debaters.

What university? Because all reports state that this was discussed and is not happening in the UK because it is dumb. And the schools in the UK, "halal only" is an option the student can select. Poor choice of wording, but it doesn't mean all students will be served halal prepared food. You know what else is scary: In big cities in America, students are warned about pork being on the menu... Does this feed the paranoia?

How nice of you to keep using a uniformed bigoted stereotype.

What uninformed bigoted stereotype?

Yes, all Muslims own camels. All Mexicans wear sombreros...

- - - Updated - - -

Not really. Were this true it would be the kind of salient fact one would expect to be part of the reporting on the issue.

You do know that all Subway stores are franchised?

 

[Derec]

Usually minority demographic groups live in a specific neighborhood as an "enclave". Which fully justifies private business located in those enclaves to take into account the cultural profile prevailing in the "enclave".

So far so good. The problem is when catering to a minority (even though there is a concentration effect in Easton Muslims are still only 15%) means having to dismiss the majority.

Prior to our "Islanders" in Tampa (mostly from Jamaica) moving mostly to new subdivisions in Riverview located around Big Bend road, local stores did not have an aisle dedicated to products imported from Jamaica. Even though "Islanders" are still a minority in those subdivision, local grocery stores all have imported products from Jamaica. That private corporations such as Publix , Sweet Bay (now bought by Winn Dixie) will demonstrate "cultural sensitivity" based on an ethnic and cultural representation concentrated in an area has NOTHING to do with your unsupported assertions.

Offering Jamaican products will certainly increase diversity and I do not see how anybody would have a problem with that. Hell, many non-Jamaicans will pick up and try those products as well if they see it in their grocery store. And of course the Jamaicans will try mainstream American products as well. That is what diversity is all about.
Had the local Publix decided to kick out all the non-Jamaican products off their shelves on account of a minority the store would become much less diverse, not more so. Diversity is not defined as "non-white" you know, even though it's often erroneously used in that manner.

It was repeatedly explained that very complex logistics would make it impossible for a menu offering BOTH halal and non halal items. You have persistently dismissed what was detailed for you by now 3 posters. I was the first one to bring it up early on in this thread.

What's so complex about keeping stuff on different shelves? And in any case, if halal is too difficult to implement it's the fault of the halal system, not of the mainstream society. Halal should adapt to the larger society, not the other way around. If they can change the "animals must be conscious" rule, they can change the "ooh, cooties" rule as well.

200 out of over 1700 and you have created a storm in a cup of tea,....

That's a significant percentage.

mint tea based on the Moroccan tradition.

As long as that's not the only tea I am allowed to have. We seem to be talking past each other somewhat. You bringing up Moroccan tea indicates you seem to think I have a problem with foods or beverages form Muslim countries. That is simply not true.

And since you are into metaphoric language illustrating Arab related symbols, to your "camel's nose under the tent", I will respond with an actual Arab proverb " "When the caravan passes by, dogs are barking". Meaning making a mountain out of an ant hill. Making a lot of noise when there is no valid cause for it.

We disagree whether there is a valid cause.

What is most concerning to me in this thread is how some of the comments tend to echo the climate of alarmist fear mongering propagated by Spencer, Geller and their likes.

Don't try to force others to adhere to your religious restrictions and there won't be cause for objection.
Parents fury as pork sausages are banned from the school menu and replaced with halal meat

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Subway's menu varies between countries, most significantly where there are religious requirements relating to the meats served.

In 2006, the first kosher Subway restaurant in the United States opened, in a suburb of Cleveland, Ohio. Subway spokesman Jared Fogle attended the opening. A press release stated, "With slight modifications, such as no pork-based products, and the use of soy-based cheese product, the menu is virtually identical to that of any other Subway restaurant."[20] At their peak, 12 kosher Subway locations were open in the U.S, including Kansas City and 5 in New York. As of 2011, only five remain: Cleveland, Miami, Los Angeles and two stores in Maryland.[21] Franchisees who failed noted a lack of support from the parent location in advertising, higher costs of kosher food and supervision, the inability to remain open on Saturdays, and that customers who do not keep kosher prefer the original menu and prices.[21]

Subway opened its first restaurant in India in 2001 in New Delhi. Subway restaurants in India do not serve beef and pork products in deference to Hindu and Muslim beliefs respectively, and sell an extended vegetarian range due to the large number of vegetarians in the country. There are 395 Subway restaurants in 68 cities of India as of January 2013.[22] On September 4, 2012, Subway opened its first all-vegetarian outlet on the campus of Lovely Professional University (LPU) in Jalandhar, Punjab.[23] On March 6, 2013, Subway opened its second all-vegetarian outlet also offering Jain food in Paldi, Ahmedabad.[24]
Nutritional content

Oh my God, the Jews are taking over!

 

[Jokodo]

Think again. Only a small percentage of people is vegetarian.

There, see? I can pull claims out of my hindside as well. Just as well evidenced!

Nonsense. The 15% is the actual percentage of Muslims in the Bristol neighborhood of Easton where one of those Jihad Subways is located.

On a more serious note, your "85% non-Muslims" figure really is perfectly irrelevant. Some of them will be vegetarians who won't be affected by what kind of meat is on offer one way or the other. More importantly, most people don't care either way: They might buy pork if its on offer, but will take turkey without second thought when it isn't.

I see your point but the same applies to the 15% who are Muslim. Some will be vegetarians and won't be affected by the kind of meat anyway. Many Muslims are also not strictly halal and eat at mainstream restaurants, just don't order pork. Some even eat pork and drink alcohol so they might prefer to be able to order a bacon chicken sub.
Furthermore, many vegetarians/vegans are that for animal rights reasons. Stunned or not, halal slaughtering has a bad rep. So "halal" designation would hurt sales among that group as well.

On top of that, they probably hope to attract Muslim costumers from outside the narrow neighbourhood.

In most other parts of Bristol percentage of Muslims is even less (since the overall percentage is 5%).

You claim to see my point but you demonstrate that you don't - by once again bandying about the figure of 15% Muslims as if it were somehow relevant when we've just agreed that it isn't.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Parents fury as pork sausages are banned from the school menu and replaced with halal meat

Yes, funny how this is reported in a tabloid and like most tabloids it is only half true:

A spokesman for Rotherham Borough Council confirmed that school meals at both Brinsworth Manor schools have changed and now include halal and non-halal meat on the menu.

She added that the Schools Catering Service supplies about 17,000 school meals every day to children at infant, junior, primary and secondary schools in Rotherham.

She said: 'The provision of both halal and non-halal is not unusual in Rotherham's school. Currently, nine schools out of 115, select one of our menus that provide a mix of both halal and non-halal meals.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...l-menu-replaced-halal-meat.html#ixzz30qvaWnva
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[Warpoet]

Subway's menu varies between countries, most significantly where there are religious requirements relating to the meats served.

In 2006, the first kosher Subway restaurant in the United States opened, in a suburb of Cleveland, Ohio. Subway spokesman Jared Fogle attended the opening. A press release stated, "With slight modifications, such as no pork-based products, and the use of soy-based cheese product, the menu is virtually identical to that of any other Subway restaurant."[20] At their peak, 12 kosher Subway locations were open in the U.S, including Kansas City and 5 in New York. As of 2011, only five remain: Cleveland, Miami, Los Angeles and two stores in Maryland.[21] Franchisees who failed noted a lack of support from the parent location in advertising, higher costs of kosher food and supervision, the inability to remain open on Saturdays, and that customers who do not keep kosher prefer the original menu and prices.[21]

Subway opened its first restaurant in India in 2001 in New Delhi. Subway restaurants in India do not serve beef and pork products in deference to Hindu and Muslim beliefs respectively, and sell an extended vegetarian range due to the large number of vegetarians in the country. There are 395 Subway restaurants in 68 cities of India as of January 2013.[22] On September 4, 2012, Subway opened its first all-vegetarian outlet on the campus of Lovely Professional University (LPU) in Jalandhar, Punjab.[23] On March 6, 2013, Subway opened its second all-vegetarian outlet also offering Jain food in Paldi, Ahmedabad.[24]
Nutritional content

Oh my God, the Jews are taking over!

Good find. This should pretty much end the thread.

But just like all the fearmongering bullshit about sharia courts that the Islamophobes love to raise the alarm over, I doubt Derec will own up to the fact that Jews do the same fucking thing and people like him never utter a word of protest about it.

 

[The Paul]

The cries of 'islamophobia' and 'bigotry' ....

...constitute an accurate response to your post!

 

[Derec]

Yes, funny how this is reported in a tabloid and like most tabloids it is only half true:

So they partially caved. But the original plan was to force everyone to observe Muslim dietary restrictions.
This also falsifies the apologetic that it is impossible to offer both halal and non-halal food at the same location.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Yes, funny how this is reported in a tabloid and like most tabloids it is only half true:

So they partially caved. But the original plan was to force everyone to observe Muslim dietary restrictions.
This also falsifies the apologetic that it is impossible to offer both halal and non-halal food at the same location.

And you can find how many posts that say it's 'impossible?'

I've seen 'expensive' which would be a concern for capitalist businesses.
Impossible? I haven't seen that.

I've seen people react to your claim that it would be 'simple.'
But no 'apologetic' that it would be impossible.

 

[Derec]

You persist in trotting that same claim while you have failed to support it. A private corporation makes the decision to dedicate 200 of their eating facilities out of over 1700 to serving only halal products (which automatically excludes pork products) to meet a marketing demand based on a ratio of consumers who will only purchase halal products and you jump to the conclusion that Subway is "caving to the pressure of an aggressive and loud minority".

Because the nationwide population of Muslims (<5%) does not justify dedicating almost 12% of locations to "halal only", especially since many Muslims do not keep halal anyway.

In your OP you even spoke of "Islamist pressure". Your use of the term "Islamist" reveals to which extent you do not know the difference between IslamIC and IslamIST. It is interesting to see how a choice of words will expose someone's limited knowledge.

I know the difference. Islamic = following the tenets of Islam. Islamist = demand everyone around you follow the tenets of Islam. Demanding Subways serve halal and nothing but halal is the latter, not former.

To my knowledge, you are not part of the corporate management of Subway who made that decision. You have zero insight as to whether an "aggressive and loud minority" pressured the parties involved in that decision. Yet you pursue with the same claim as if it were an established and demonstrated fact.

I think it is a reasonable inference. Btw, neither are you part of the management team. So we both must make inferences from what we know.

I could equally point to the tendency for the Right to fester nationalistic sentiments while they define what a "True (place whichever nationality)" ought to be. Further the tendency for the Right to reject cultural diversity while promoting cultural uniformity. It has been demonstrated in the history of mankind that such mentality has fueled political systems which engaged in the oppression of cultural minorities if not their elimination.

It's the Islamists that preach uniformity and against cultural diversity.
I have nothing against cultural diversity. I have something against being forced to observe other peoples' religious restrictions though.

I am not aware of a body of Muslims in the US representative of the Religious Right Wing as it is the case for an actual Religious Right Wing composed of Evangelical Christian organizations who are widely known to influence Christian legislators in promoting legislation and passing them which will affect an entire population.

They are just as bad, although funny enough I do not expect disagreement about that on this board.

"Christian creation myths" have already found their place of fame and popularity in the US (unfortunately) via some school boards (as it is the case in Texas) imposing Intelligent Design teachings in the Science curriculum. I am not aware of "Indian creation myths" being imposed as part of Science classes in the US.

And the Left rightly rejects that. Yet they have a soft spot for Indian (or would you prefer "Siberian American") myths being treated as fact.

What I am aware of though is the historically demonstrated reality that Native Americans (whom you refer to as "Indians") were the only legitimate indigenous population until European colonialism oppressed them and robbed them of both their land and traditions. The least Americans can do today is show some degree of recognition towards a people who tremendously suffered under European colonialism.

I think the pendulum has swung way too much in the other direction, toward giving Indians a series of special rights, from tax exemption to monopoly casinos. I also think we need to be fact based and not defer to baseless creation myths just because of misplaced white guilt.

I also find it somewhat ironic that someone commented on how foreigners who come to their country should not impose their cultural traditions while when it comes to the nation defined as the US, it is exactly what happened during the European colonial period.

Europeans never immigrated into an established Indian country. They settled into an area also settled with various largely neolithic (some may have been chalcolithic) tribes and displaced them due partially to superior technology but mostly due to Indians being very susceptible to various diseases Europeans brought along. Not a comparable situation at all.

Try to present a coherent and rationally centered argumentation demonstrating how that sentence applies to 200 out of over 1700 Subway owned eatery facilities being dedicated to serving only halal products. How are non halal product consumers of the Subway private corporation falling under the definition of their lives being controlled considering that they have over 1500 Subway owned eateries which will serve products compatible with those consumers' market demand for non halal products to include pork products?

You are still claiming this is mere market reaction, but numbers do not bear that out. Also sane customers (i.e. excluding groups like militant vegans) do not try to impose a restaurant not serving a certain kind of food.

 

[Jokodo]

To expand a bit on my previous answer...

Think again. Only a small percentage of people is vegetarian.

There, see? I can pull claims out of my hindside as well. Just as well evidenced!

Nonsense. The 15% is the actual percentage of Muslims in the Bristol neighborhood of Easton where one of those Jihad Subways is located.

Yes, it is. And I've told you many times, including in the very post you're replying to and where you pretend to understand my argument but also at least as far back as post # 100, that the numbers of Muslims and non-Muslims tell us next to nothing relevant.

On a more serious note, your "85% non-Muslims" figure really is perfectly irrelevant. Some of them will be vegetarians who won't be affected by what kind of meat is on offer one way or the other. More importantly, most people don't care either way: They might buy pork if its on offer, but will take turkey without second thought when it isn't.

I see your point but the same applies to the 15% who are Muslim. Some will be vegetarians and won't be affected by the kind of meat anyway. Many Muslims are also not strictly halal and eat at mainstream restaurants, just don't order pork. Some even eat pork and drink alcohol so they might prefer to be able to order a bacon chicken sub.

All of that is correct, and none of that contradicts my point - that the numbers of Muslims and non-Muslims alone tell us next to nothing of relevance.

Furthermore, many vegetarians/vegans are that for animal rights reasons. Stunned or not, halal slaughtering has a bad rep. So "halal" designation would hurt sales among that group as well.

Maybe, maybe not. I suppose the Subway outlets in question will find out.

On top of that, they probably hope to attract Muslim costumers from outside the narrow neighbourhood.

In most other parts of Bristol percentage of Muslims is even less (since the overall percentage is 5%).

Yes, and? They can hope to attract Muslims fro other neighbourhoods if they go halal, they cannot reasonably hope to attract non-Muslims by staying non-halal - among other things because there are 7 more subways in the city catering that market.

 

[fromderinside]

Yeah. What is the likelihood persons of any persuasion outside a particular set of constraints on mobility and choice would go to Subway for any reason. It the percentage of faces in the store is 60% Muslim, muslims have some pretty significant say.

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't go to 7-11 for a big gulp for any reason.

 

[Jokodo]

<snip>
You are still claiming this is mere market reaction, but numbers do not bear that out.<snip>

Which numbers? Have you found some numbers for my categories A-D as defined in post #100, repeated below for your convenience? Or are you still referring to the numbers of Muslims and non-Muslims one page after you've agreed they're irrelevant?

The number of Muslims isn't all that matters for the demand equation.

When it comes to pork (or non-halal meat), there's at least four types of people:

A) those who loose their appetite when it's consumed next to them, and vote with their feet be eating somewhere else (their good right in a free market)
B) those who don't eat it, but otherwise don't care
C) those who it when it's available, but will gladly take turkey when it isn't
D) those who will go elsewhere when it becomes unavailable.

All it takes for going off pork to become a good economical move is a larger potential gain in type A costumers than what you're going to loose in type D costumers. This can be the case even when > 90% of the potential costumers fall into category C.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I think it is a reasonable inference.

But it doesn't seem to BE an inference. Subway says one thing, you invent something completely different from their statement. You're projecting.

Kind of like reading 'expensive' and pretending that 'impossible' is a reasonable quote...