Teenager told byMcDonalds to remove her hijab because it posed a "security threat"A woman has critic

enkoda said:
BBC article said:
"I live down the street," she adds. "This is a hate crime."

She told the BBC: "You would expect someone of colour to be more sympathetic to a minority that is persecuted.

"That just reflects how current this issue is - almost anyone could actually believe that I am a security threat."





lolwut?!

No crime has been committed.
She is stating that skin colour is a factor in someone's ability to show sympathy.
She is a British Muslim and claims 'persecution'.

I was going to say "I despair" but then I read that she's also a student....:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Persecuted????? I have to eat halal meat if I choose to eat in, or purchase from many British food places thanks to her damned "persecution"

Maybe if these places stopped selling it their security personnel wouldn't have to wrestle with the definition of face covering so much?
 
danoliver1 said:
My statement about "normal clothes" was meant to be tongue in cheek hence the "" and smiley face.;) My nan wears a head scarf so why is that different to a hijab?
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I wasn't sure - someone else took what you said seriously though so I jumped on the bandwagon.

Rock_n_Roll said:
The thing about Muslims is that they don't want to integrate within Western society. It's just more religion ********. These people should trying thinking for themselves.

Oh, and never trust anyone that only reads one ******* book...
Click to expand...

Yes they do. It sounds like you don't want them to integrate.
 
Chris Wilson said:
Persecuted????? I have to eat halal meat if I choose to eat in, or purchase from many British food places thanks to her damned "persecution"

Maybe if these places stopped selling it their security personnel wouldn't have to wrestle with the definition of face covering so much?
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that a fast food joint choosing to stock halal meat has less to do with persecution and more to do with expanding the customer base, but if you want to assume it's pandering s'cool.
 
VincentHanna said:
No, of course you are "being victimised". Stop talking nonsense.

DIY SOS is made by 123media production company, who fund the show. They then sell it to the BBC.

They use volunteer builders and tradesmen from the local area who are allowed to contribute £2000 each of their own materials.

They have 5,000 applications per year and so they whittle down to pick the people most in need. Usually people whose family members have a disability or are so busy looking after others that they can't sort their own homes out.

I'd love to see your reaction to someone in McDonalds telling you to remove an item of clothing before you can order food.
Click to expand...


Thanks for confirming to me that as a white tax payer with nothing wrong with me i am being victimised. Thing is i don't care, but if i had different coloured skin then whoaaaaaaa - whole different ball game there ......
 
FortuitousFluke said:
I'm pretty sure that a fast food joint choosing to stock halal meat has less to do with persecution and more to do with expanding the customer base, but if you want to assume it's pandering s'cool.
Click to expand...

You could argue it's pandering as by going 100% they risk isolating the 95% for the benefit of 5%. That doesn't expand your customer base, it potentially lowers it. Of course not everyone gives a crap if it's halal but some do.
 
You could argue pandering either way. If by making the conscious choice of going halal you pander to the small number of people who actually care and so alienate the Muslims who Halal for the small minority. I dont care for halal, i don't care what they serve, especially knowing that the vast majority slaughterhouses are terrible halal or not - with much of the blood letting happening when they are still alive simply because the stun does not last that long and few places kill an animal before letting and also knowing that the vast majority of what is labelled halal and is slaughtered int eh UK is stunned the same as normal meat.

Most people don't care if its halal or don't care enough to boycott it, some people only want halal and a smaller minority don't want halal. I would most definitely say it is about keeping the as big a customer base as possible. Whether it is to include Muslims in their customer base or so that they do not seem like they are alienating them and so avoiding a bit of a PR nightmare if someone kicks up.

There really is not as much regulation as there should be in the meat industry, standards are notoriously low when it comes to humane slaughter, even from the poor requirements they are meant to abide by. There are a lot of associations which have their own varying standard of what is halal and though i don't know if there is much regulation in it, i reckon that there is not much stopping people from going to whatever one that suits them and slapping that sticker on the box.
 
Last edited:
Dis86 said:
You could argue it's pandering as by going 100% they risk isolating the 95% for the benefit of 5%. That doesn't expand your customer base, it potentially lowers it. Of course not everyone gives a crap if it's halal but some do.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely right, and if that actually happened they would reverse the decision quicker than you can blink, but it hasn't, so they won't. It's still not pandering, it's market expansion.

I'm sure they're aware of the risk though which is why I can never remember them using halal meat as a selling point for national advertising, the method of killing would likely put some people off and they don't need their non-muslim customer base educating themselves and potentially re-evaluating their dining choices.
 
Last edited:
The EU states we have to stun animals before slaughter but because of religious freedom halal and kosher are allowed not to. I don't agree with the religious being allowed to circumvent laws. We have a law that bans female genital mutilation yet circumcisions are allowed.
 
Ross Thomson said:
The EU states we have to stun animals before slaughter but because of religious freedom halal and kosher are allowed not to. I don't agree with the religious being allowed to circumvent laws. We have a law that bans female genital mutilation yet circumcisions are allowed.
Click to expand...

The legal status of male circumcision is currently unclear and untested, as such religious groups aren't circumventing the law as it's not been proved that there is a law in place. I'm not advocating it, just explaining it.
 
Ross Thomson said:
The EU states we have to stun animals before slaughter but because of religious freedom halal and kosher are allowed not to. I don't agree with the religious being allowed to circumvent laws. We have a law that bans female genital mutilation yet circumcisions are allowed.
Click to expand...

Majority of UK halal meat is stunned and there are many movements for it to be a requirement. Also stun and slaughter is not really human when you look into how long slaughter can take and how long the stun generally lasts.

The meat industry in general is fairly poor and it is driven by peoples demand for cheap meat to fuel what people would see as a luxury lifestyle not long ago. We treat farming and slaughter like a factory because that is what we demand. That is at the center of cruelty in the meat industry, not religion.
 
Rock_n_Roll said:
The thing about Muslims is that they don't want to integrate within Western society. It's just more religion ********. These people should trying thinking for themselves.

Oh, and never trust anyone that only reads one ******* book...
Click to expand...
You certainly give the impression that you read a lot of books.
 
stockhausen said:
The Telegraph and its readers are easily shocked - some of them once saw an uncovered table leg and almost died; the theatre, art galleries and museums are strictly forbidden places of horror to most of them.
Click to expand...
I despise the use of the word "moment" in describing news stories. Everything is "the moment X happened". It epitomises the fact that we're getting whole news stories about the briefest of banalities.
 
Vonhelmet said:
I despise the use of the word "moment" in describing news stories. Everything is "the moment X happened". It epitomises the fact that we're getting whole news stories about the briefest of banalities.
Click to expand...
Excellent point.
Personally I abhor confusion over the misuse of the words number and amount.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom