What halal and kosher mean is that the animals are bled to death without any form of stunning. I think the practice should be strictly forbidden in the West, as it is in New-Zealand.

Muslim associations want a system to be put in place so they can be sure that meat sold as halal is really halal. At the same time, since Western governments refuse to forbid Muslim and Jewish practices, many Europeans want a system to be put in place so they can be sure that they won’t eat the meat of animals killed in the Muslim/Jewish way. But there is Jewish resistance :

The Jewish Chronicle

Interfaith support for opposition to food labelling
By Robyn Rosen, July 15, 2010

“It singles out religious communities who have been extremely careful to undertake humane food preparation for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.”

Jewish activists may worry that Islam constitutes an obstacle to race-mixing. Even so, Jews and leftists are the main promoters of Muslim activism. Politically, I don’t think that Muslim immigrants would be very active on their own.

I read the following comment to an article written by Fjordman in 2006: “The insanity of European political correctness is that it demands self-imposed restrictions that are not required of anybody in the immigrants countries of origin, it panders to the most extreme end of the radical fringe.” One example of this is when a swimming pool sets apart two hours every week for Muslims. It is unlikely that many Muslims are asking for that kind of privilege. The problem comes from the extreme left in the European administration. It has to do with militant “anti-racism”, which is largely a Jewish thing.

I think Jewish activists dislike Christianity more than Islam. There has been an anti-Christian tradition in France since the 1789 revolution, under the pretense of defending church and state separation. In 1789, they tried to replace religion with State worship, with heavy use of words like: citizen, republic, laicity… Jews are now recycling that ideology. In the past, many anti-Christians were people who had received an overdose of Christianity in their childhood. Jews obviously have other motivations. Maybe it is a part of their world view. Jewish television rejects any idea of transcendence and tends to encourage consumerism. As part of the anti-Christian propaganda, there have been many accusations against the Popes and a lot of reporting about pedophiles in the clergy. The media would never dream of attacking Islam (or Judaism!) in that way.

So far, the Muslim or Arab presence in the French media amounts to nothing. The media is heavily Jewish and favors more immigration. Most Jewish activists are still very much in favor of suing French nationalists. Even so, Jews are present in the anti-immigration movement. I get most of my information from a French anti-immigration website where the harshest disparaging of Arabs is made by Jewish commenters who do the typical Jewish dissembling and refuse to acknowledge any special Jewish responsibility in the immigration disaster. In the media, the only people allowed to speak against immigration are Jews. There are mainly two of them: Eric Zemmour, and Alain Finkielkraut (who used to be a pro-immigration activist but later changed his mind).

I know only about France, but I suppose most people in Europe don’t care about Islam. If they get mugged by Muslims, it won’t be in the name of Islam. The word counter-jihad makes me think of Melanie Phillips (England) and Geert Wilders (Netherlands). French Jews don’t use that word.

In the French media, the debate used to be about the “Islamic veil” and the “Islamic headscarf”, especially at school. Now it is about the burka. The government has prepared a law bill to have it banned. There is a lively debate in the media about the burka, but no debate over immigrant crime and the race-replacement issue, even though the government organized a phony public debate about French identity, a few months ago. The debate over the burka is a good way to cloud the immigration issue. Next to race-replacement, the burka is a trifling matter, but a burka ban may improve Sarkozy’s image. Under Chirac and Sarkozy, the police have been given instructions to avoid trouble and confrontation with young non-whites. That policy isn’t about to change. But Sarko will look stronger if he bans the burka.

Also, the burka ban will symbolize the official policy of encouraging immigrants to assimilate into the French culture. Mass immigration makes white people anxious, but they are not allowed to speak up. They must rely on the phony advocates of French society who are provided by government and the media. Our phony advocates take the “defense” of white people by insisting that immigrants must be better “integrated” into French society. In a normal world, white people would riot until the immigrants were deported. But in today’s world, they just find the courage to complain that “immigrants make no effort to integrate”. It’s an absurd complaint. We would be better off if every Arab immigrant, male or female, was forced to wear a burka, speak Arabic, and say his prayers 5 times a day.

First, when people are waving flags, that sometimes signals defiance and pride. When they want to use a foreign flag for that purpose, the problem may be more with the state than the individual. When the state no longer supports the assertion of its nationals’ interests, the flag undermines the defiance of those who wave it. I think that’s why Tea Party protesters are waving flags other than the stars and stripes, and also why this protester waved flags that advertised more specific ethnic interests.

And “old” English flag could be just a slightly awkward way of saying “familiar” English flag. “Good old” English flag would have been better.

– Daybreaker