Londonistan, Eurabia

[Warpoet]

I will note that Derec has continued to dodge Nice Squirrel's observation that American Jews have been given the exact same accommodation by the exact same company in the United States.

Which by Derec's asinine, fearmongering logic, means that Jews are taking over the United States. But obviously he can't acknowledge that, because it undermines his position. Again, /thread.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

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.

Interesting, we never heard who is demanding Subway do this. Could you tell us? Maybe an organization that sent a letter or led a protest?

Btw, neither are you part of the (Subway) management team.

What management team? You have insight into who owns these individual franchises and what their business structure is? Please tell us how they operate? Are policies voted on by a team of owners? Are all these store owned by the same people?

I have something against being forced to observe other peoples' religious restrictions though.

Who is forcing you to go to Bristol and eat at these franchises?

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.

This I might put in a new thread. There is so much wrong here.

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.

Once again, you have not told us who exactly is imposing this on Subway.

 

[Bronzeage]

Due to Islamist pressure, many Subway stores across UK and Ireland are banning porn products and are only carrying meat from animals slaughtered according to Islamic religious precepts (aka "halal").
Subway removes ham and bacon from nearly 200 stores and offers halal meat only after 'strong demand' from Muslims

I think this is bullshit. This is directly restricting choices for non-Muslims just so Muslims are not offended by having to sit next to someone with bacon on their sandwich. Giving them choices they like (although halal slaughtering is very problematic in itself) is one thing, restricting choices of others is quite another.

Go to Arby's. Subway is a private business which is responding to market forces. You have the choice of patronizing Subway, or not. There's no reason for them to cater to you, other than the chance you might stop in and buy a sandwich. The worst you can do is not buy the sandwich.

That is the extent of your power in this situation.

 

[Deepak]

When in Rome! The idea that cultural backward group can migrate to a western nation then expect the natives to bend to their likes and dislikes. If my restaurant serves pork you don't have to order pork, but don't expect my regulars to stop eating pork because it offends your sensibilities which are purely religious anyway.

Why would this only apply to western nations?

It doesn't. If I move to a country where they regularly eat insects for example why should they stop serving insects in their eateries just because I might find it distasteful?

Well, if you were demanding that the entire country stop serving insects to suit your preferences, you would be correct that you were being unreasonable.

If, however, (even if as a result of your complaining) a very few restaurants out of the total decided it might make good financial sense for themselves to differentiate by serving up western-style food to cater to you and other westerners in the area, does that mean you are still an asshole?

As I understand it, it will be possible to find establishments which serve alcohol in the upcoming World Cup in Qatar.

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.

What are you a communist? Consumers are free to demand whatever they want. It's up to the businesses to do a market sizing and determine which demands it's worthwhile to cater to.

Absent any threats, for which you haven't provided an iota of evidence, this is simply the way the world works.

I mean what the shiite?

 

[The Paul]

...and how did that response end up in this thread?

 

[Keith&Co.]

...and how did that response end up in this thread?

Obviously, the Islamists demanded you append that response to this thread.

 

[Keith&Co.]

If I move to a country where they regularly eat insects for example why should they stop serving insects in their eateries just because I might find it distasteful?

How about you ask the same question, but instead of 'regularly' eat insects, say they 'religiously' eat insects?
Say that it's a common practice to allow bugs to crawl all over the kitchen, and to be swept into the pot, dropped onto the pan, folded into the sandwich... But that's what God wants you to do, so no one thinks twice about it.

Now, consider the last time you were at a fast food joint. If you were at a restaurant that served insect enhanced AND insect-free food, would you be confident that your meal was insect-free?
That pimpled idiot behind the counter will SWEAR that there aren't any insects on the insect-free side. That no insects got into the oven when the bread was baking or when the meat was roasting. None were ever in the pan that fried up the egg, or the bacon. None laid eggs on the fruit or the veggies or floated into the chili. He'll swear to all forty thousand gods that this is true.

Would you be comfortable eating there? And that's just a general 'worms in my apple' queasy question. That's not even counting a fear that one fly wing lost in the onion-ring sauce could taint your immortal soul and doom you in the eyes of God.

Which would you prefer? A dual standard menu in one shop or a completely insect-free dining facility? Which one's more likely to get your vote-by-the-dollar business?

And, uh, still waiting to see where anyone said dual-menu was impossible?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Would we have the same level of objection if Subway decided to get rid of meat products all together and be a vegetarian sub fast food chain? Its a free market isn't it? Shouldn't Subway be allowed to sell whatever they want (so long as it meets health and safety standards)? If you don't like Halal food, go to the Mr. Sub across the street.

 

[ksen]

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.

This I might put in a new thread. There is so much wrong here.

I bet the injuns don't know they have it so good.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Would we have the same level of objection if Subway decided to get rid of meat products all together and be a vegetarian sub fast food chain?

Well, that depends. Do they make the shift because they have a fully internal moral corporate epiphany?
Because they have a fully internal corporate estimation of the future of fast foods?
Or is it because a few extra-corporate ecoterrorists demand that they do not sell meat for consumption, and then do not brag about their moral victory over the forces of slaughter once the change is announced?

Which would be odd behavior for ecoterrorists, wouldn't it? I mean, Derec is right on one point. IF this sort of change was caused by outside influences, they'd never stop.
They'd really want to solidify their hold on Subway if they had the power to force these decisions, wouldn't they?
If they got 200 stores in California, then they'd demand all stores in California, or 200 in each state. Then more and more, all the time bragging in the press about how their threat to bomb the corporate offices proves theirs is the morally superior position....
And once they have Subway all-veggie, they'd then try to get people to boycott McD's until they went all veggie...

If Subway is bowing to outside interests, why are those interests silent? Why are they apparently satisfied with such a small number of stores?
Where's the newsletter taking credit for the limited halal-change, explaining how they chose just this once not to make sweeping, absolutist all-or-nothing demands for the whole of Subway UK, and instead take slightly more than their share (according to Derec) of the available outlets?

It's what PETA would do, take full credit for any change they agree with, whether they influenced it or not, claiming a victory. Or a step in the direction of victory, if they have 11% success...

It's just not in the terrorist model, to not release a youtube taking credit for forcing this change, is it? They should be making sure every Subway franchise owner is getting ready to comply with the coming change, mobilizing the populace to ask 'why are you still not halal?' Making the managers shit their pants and lose sleep.
And then putting McD's and Wimpy's and Burger King and Pizza Hut on notice that they'll be demanding changes there, soon, as well.
Not letting the others accept Subway's claim that it's market driven... How does that help The Cause?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Can we stop calling them "Indians"? Why do we insist on repeating that ancient blunder? Indians are from India. You are thinking of first nations people in the Americas.

I agree that there are too many special rights for first nations people, to the point that it gets a little ridiculous. I would say that history legitimizes reservations having some self rule, and those who live on reservation should live by those rules (which may include some special rights while on reservation), but first nations people who live in the big city shouldn't get tax exemptions, etc. I personally know somebody who tried and failed twice to get into Osgoode Hall Law School (ironically, that's at York University - same place as the thread we recently had about the Muslim guy), and then re-applied merely checking a box saying she is Metis, and she was admitted. That shouldn't happen.

That is AA in action. The Subway thing isn't anything remotely similar.

 

[Keith&Co.]

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.

This I might put in a new thread. There is so much wrong here.

I bet the injuns don't know they have it so good.

How are baseless creation myths connected to casinos? Esp. the casinos on land that did not belong to the tribe when they first started telling those tales? I'm not sure how one can get federal agencies to knuckle under for creation myths, no matter how much you play the guilt card....

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Derec, are you really claiming that Subway has been threatened by Muslims to set the Halal menu? If Subway hadn't done so, do you imagine we'd have seen bombings? Is there a police investigation into this?

If not, why do you think you should get to control what Subway decides to sell?

If government public schools actually were forcing exclusively halal diets on school children, I think you'd have more of a case.

 

[Bomb#20]

Can we stop calling them "Indians"? Why do we insist on repeating that ancient blunder?

Because everybody knows it's an ancient blunder so it has no power to deceive -- unlike the popularly advocated replacements, which are propaganda terms.

Indians are from India. You are thinking of first nations people in the Americas.

Unlikely. In the parts of the world with historical documentation running back thousands of years, how many nations last for thousands of years? Where are the Picts, the Illyrians, the Tocharians? Where were the Spaniards and the Japanese in 2000 BC? Yet somehow we're supposed to pretend that it was different in the Americas, and the Hurons and Mohawks have been here since their lands were occupied by the first settlers out of Alaska, ten thousand-odd years ago? "First nations", my ass. "Fifth nations", maybe. And the same goes for the other term that was advocated upthread. If you want to replace "Indians" with an honest name, try "Beringian-Canadians".

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Unlikely. In the parts of the world with historical documentation running back thousands of years, how many nations last for thousands of years? Where are the Picts, the Illyrians, the Tocharians? Where were the Spaniards and the Japanese in 2000 BC? Yet somehow we're supposed to pretend that it was different in the Americas, and the Hurons and Mohawks have been here since their lands were occupied by the first settlers out of Alaska, ten thousand-odd years ago? "First nations", my ass. "Fifth nations", maybe. And the same goes for the other term that was advocated upthread. If you want to replace "Indians" with an honest name, try "Beringian-Canadians".

Things do change, but the Woodland Culture here that appears after the retreat of the glaciers (due to global warming) is pretty constant up until the arrival of small pox and the horse.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Because everybody knows it's an ancient blunder so it has no power to deceive -- unlike the popularly advocated replacements, which are propaganda terms.

I work mostly with folks from Punjab. These are real Indians. I tell them about special rights for Indians sometimes and we have a good laugh. Then they get a little annoyed at the stolen name. Its slap in the face to both groups. Not a huge deal, but really should be corrected. Would you want your people named after somebody else's blunder? Let them name themselves "First Nations" if they want to, or whatever else.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

As always it depends on who you are talking to. Most NAs I know use the word "Indian" to describe race.

 

[Bomb#20]

Things do change, but the Woodland Culture here that appears after the retreat of the glaciers (due to global warming) is pretty constant up until the arrival of small pox and the horse.

So if the invaders who stole your land and massacred your people had a pretty similar culture to yours, then they count as the same nation? Do Hurons agree that Mohawks were the first nation on what was once Mohawk land before Europeans stole it?

Because everybody knows it's an ancient blunder so it has no power to deceive -- unlike the popularly advocated replacements, which are propaganda terms.

I work mostly with folks from Punjab. These are real Indians. I tell them about special rights for Indians sometimes and we have a good laugh. Then they get a little annoyed at the stolen name. Its slap in the face to both groups.

And "First Nations" is a slap in the face to every other ethnicity in Canada. You think "First" was an innocent and meaningless mistake? It's an insinuation that other people have less right to be there because the Beringian-Canadians were there first.

Not a huge deal, but really should be corrected. Would you want your people named after somebody else's blunder?

Do you object to being named after somebody else's blunder, "Canadian"?

Let them name themselves "First Nations" if they want to, or whatever else.

Certainly; but that's not what's at issue. We can name ourselves "Brights" if we want to. That's not a reason Jews ought to also call us "Brights".

 

[Nice Squirrel]

So if the invaders who stole your land and massacred your people had a pretty similar culture to yours, then they count as the same nation? Do Hurons agree that Mohawks were the first nation on what was once Mohawk land before Europeans stole it?

Um if all we have are similar artifacts and no written history, pretty much.

 

[Keith&Co.]

As always it depends on who you are talking to. Most NAs I know use the word "Indian" to describe race.

I've been corrected by a couple NOT to use anything but Indian as they hate PC.