Muslim MPs attacked for no Halal in Palace of Westminster
The Daily Mail says:
We won’t eat halal, say angry MPs: Row at Westminster after demands to serve meat killed in line with Islamic tradition
“Angry MPs” are, for the Mail, not Muslim MPs. You cannot be both.
Muslim MPs and peers have been told they cannot have meat slaughtered in line with Islamic tradition because the method – slitting an animal’s throat without first stunning it – is offensive to many of their non-Muslim colleagues.
Fair enough. But what about choice? Isn’t good Government all about choice, opting in and opting out?
The stance has infuriated some parliamentarians who have eaten meat in the Palace’s 23 restaurants and cafes, having been assured that it was halal.
That is the outrage.
Lord Ahmed of Rotherham said: “I did feel misled. I think a halal option should be made available.”
He sounds incredibly reasonable for a man told the food he was eating was prepared in accordance with his beliefs when it had not been. Did you sense any “infuriation” and “anger”?
The Mail wheels forward an Alison Ruoff, a “member of the Church of England“:
“It’s a bit hypocritical that the Houses of Parliament, which have allowed other people to provide halal food, have ruled it out on their own premises.”
The Mail ends it piece with:
At Halal slaughterhouses thousands of birds are killed every hour.
Tsk! Not like those Christian slaughterhouses where the birds are sung to sleep.
Atlas Shrugs writes:
Most non-Muslims would reject eating halal if they knew the bismalla allahu akbar was said over the meat (much the way allahu akbar is wailed when infidels are being slaughtered as well).
Ban it. Ban it all. It’s been done before…