Muslims, Pork, forced selling of

[TW]Fox · 24 May 2003 at 01:14

Originally posted by Élynduil
Fox it isn't consulting every employee about a decision it's making a decision about the product range and then being willing to be considerate if an employees way of life forbids doing such a thing. It's not them just saying they don't want to, their religion....their lfie doesn't really allow them to do that. It's a disability if you like and a minor one at that.
They aren't taking the **** or demanding anything huge, they find it hard to work and don't like a change that has been made as it calls their faith into question. The employer should have a responsibilty to be flexible to such a thing especially something so simple as selling pork pies. And I'm sure if they could get more work they would, they just should not get forced out of a job because of such a thing. Please put yourself in their position for a moment. They don't want much.

The employer is just trying to make a living selling a decent range to his customers. Why should he not be able to sell his customers what he wants becuase some of his staff might disagree on irrational religious grounds? This sort of thing is what makes the more nieve people turn to racial discrimination - they'll adopt the 'gah all this hassle not employing people like that' attitude which causes a whole host more problems and is unacceptable

Élynduil · 24 May 2003 at 01:36

Oh please, don't bother with the religious debate by calling it "irrational." It's their life, that belief is who they are. And they are being employed and should be able expect this small level of acceptance. And if in court having such a belief would not be dismissed, it would not be waved aside as irrational.
Nobody is yelling discrimination except you, but for want of a better word I suppose it is. Not exactly but close enough and if they took whatever company they work for to court I imagine it'd be under that. At the least there'd be unfair dismissal as well. I'm trying hard to come up with comparable situation but I really can't without being ridiculous. If a Sikh was sacked because a company introduced a policy of no headgear would that be acceptable? If all emplyees were suddenly expected to swear and you thought that was wrong and were sacked for not doing so would that be fair? Getting ridiculous but I'm knackered. This isn't discrimination. it's forbidding someones right to bring their life to work. Be who they are and believe what they do. It's a "sorry, we expect you to give up rights and change your religion as we change what we retail."
Yeah I started going OTT. Like I've said a couple of times before, what would you think if you were one of them? How would you feel to be denied that?

Hiroki · 24 May 2003 at 01:58

i can't say that the employer is in the wrong in any way here.. an employer employs the employee to do a certain job, if they are not capable of doing that job then they should not be doing it in the first place. in this case the employer is employing these muslims to handle food, if pork is one of the foods that they must handle as part of their jobs and they cannot do that then they are not fulfilling their job requirement so should not b doing that job. it would be like a young black male complaining he didnt get the part of a middle aged white female, or a man without legs complaining as they wont let him in the 100 m sprint...

hiroki

Mujja · 24 May 2003 at 02:13

I'm suprised they weren't selling produts with pork in them until now. They must have been selling ham sandwitches. And what about alcohol. Last time I was on a train I could buy Stella and vodka.

And how religious are these guys to start with. Do they pray 5 times a day etc. I'm guessing they don't. In which case they are commiting a far greater sin everytime they miss a prayer than handling pork. It's not as if their employer is asking them to taste the pies.

We have really only heard what seaviewuk thinks. We don't even know if these guys are serious enough to quit there job over it.

[TW]Fox · 24 May 2003 at 08:13

Originally posted by Élynduil
Nobody is yelling discrimination except you, but for want of a better word I suppose it is.

I take it you didnt quite read my point? The one where I said it could lead to discrimination in the future, not that it currently was discrimination.

I'm trying hard to come up with comparable situation but I really can't without being ridiculous

Doesn't that speak volumes?

If a Sikh was sacked because a company introduced a policy of no headgear would that be acceptable?

That would depend entirely on the reason. If the reason was becuase, for example, they were operating dangerous machinery and there was a chance of the head gear getting caught?

If all emplyees were suddenly expected to swear and you thought that was wrong and were sacked for not doing so would that be fair?

What? What an utterly bizarre example.

it's forbidding someones right to bring their life to work. Be who they are and believe what they do. It's a "sorry, we expect you to give up rights and change your religion as we change what we retail."

We live in England. Pork is a substantial part of our diet. Are you seriously suggesting the company should NOT sell pork simply becuase some of their members of staff belong to a religion where they can't touch it (Even wearing gloves through a plastic wrapper?)? That really is a ridiculous notion.

Like I've said a couple of times before, what would you think if you were one of them? How would you feel to be denied that?

I'd understand it's to be expected if I choose to live elsewhere, I'd contact the employer, explain the problem, ask if they have any different jobs they can move me to, and if not, I'd have no choice but to find another job. Preferrably one that isn't in the food retail business.

Deadly Ferret · 24 May 2003 at 08:25

Originally posted by seaviewuk
a couple of the guys are muslims and are not allowed to handle pork under their religion

There are two pertinent points here that I can see.

1. They won't be handling pork because the pork is encased within the pastry of the pie which in turn is within a hermetically sealed plastic enclosure.

2. Their religion is their problem, not their employer's. Ricko was spot on when he pointed out that it is the employee who must accept what a job entails, not that the employer should have to be inconvenienced by the foibles of the employee.

Let's remember that we're in England here. They brought their religion with them. We let them keep it, which is more than the majority of their countries allow foreigners. Why the hell should any of us change our way of life to accomodate their foreign customs? :confused:

/I've just re-read Seaviewuk's post and seen that I mis-read it the first time. I thought they were immigrants, whereas the truth is he doesn't specify whether they are or not. Well nonetheless, should they be English, their religion and its customs are foreign to this country, so I still feel what I have said is valid.

iamgud · 24 May 2003 at 09:42

If a manager or whoever discriminates because of religion or sex or disability then they can be done for it, but if the job involves something that these people can't do then it's not the employers problem, eg. if a guy in a wheelchair had better qualifications/experience as another peson who wasn't in a whellchair but the man not in the wheelchair got the job and it was an ofice job that they could both do then it would be illegal for the employer to hire the healthy man, but if the job was a steepljack then he doesnt have to hire the disabled person because he can't do the job.

So in conclusion they can't complain about it because they can't do the job that they are needed to do because of thier religion.

This is right as we did it last week in Business Studies at school and Was in a text book about the law on discrimination.

ironman · 24 May 2003 at 09:43

Originally posted by Deadly Ferret

Let's remember that we're in England here. They brought their religion with them. We let them keep it, which is more than the majority of their countries allow foreigners. Why the hell should any of us change our way of life to accomodate their foreign customs?

Even if they were born here they should feel "privillaged" for following their religion? You make it sound like the country own them,

"we let them keep it, which is more than the majority of their countries allow foreigners" - Where are you getting those facts from? Sikhism was founded in India, Christinity was brought over by foreginers, there are now more christians in India than Sikhs. What is your point?

Raider · 24 May 2003 at 10:28

I agree with quite a few people above.

Why the hell should most people in this country be forced to tip toe around a few people's personal beliefs?
Your personal beliefs are just that, personal. They shouldn't be forced on everyone else.

If you don't want to handle pork then quit and find yourself a new job.

I'm 100% with the employers on this.

Hojo · 24 May 2003 at 11:11

"He only prohibits for you the eating of animals that die of themselves (without human interference), blood, the meat of pigs, and animals dedicated to other than GOD. If one is forced (to eat these), without being malicious or deliberate, he incurs no sin. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful."[2:173]

They don't have a leg to stand on they are being made to handle it not eat it.

"Today, all good food is made lawful for you. The food of the people of the scripture (Jews & Christians) is LAWFUL (HALAL) for you......"5:5

What we eat they can eat, eat the little pig go no eat it.

wassap · 24 May 2003 at 11:12

Tricky one this, im a muslim myself, but i cant really see what these guys problem, i refuse to believe the previously sold products were halal, if the employer would do this, he would be aware of their situation and would not force the pork thing on em.

personally i wouldnt do the the job anymore simple as that, plenty more menial jobs like that out there.

The only way i would have a beef (get it) with the employer, is if i was explicitly told that pork would not be sold, or that only vegge food was sold.

I would say go get another job simple as that, if i were an employer i would try to be aware of my employees feeling etc, and try and resolve the matter, ie gloves etc, but ultimately i wouldnt let them decide my business decisions.

Fox pal i dont think you really have the right to call my beliefs irational, that just displays grand ignorance on your part. :rolleyes:

wassap · 24 May 2003 at 11:14

Originally posted by Diablo2 Addict
"He only prohibits for you the eating of animals that die of themselves (without human interference), blood, the meat of pigs, and animals dedicated to other than GOD. If one is forced (to eat these), without being malicious or deliberate, he incurs no sin. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful."[2:173]

They don't have a leg to stand on they are being made to handle it not eat it.

"Today, all good food is made lawful for you. The food of the people of the scripture (Jews & Christians) is LAWFUL (HALAL) for you......"5:5

What we eat they can eat, eat the little pig go no eat it.

Im fairly sure jews dont eat pork, they eat kosher meat.

Hojo · 24 May 2003 at 11:27

Christians ring an bells

wassap · 24 May 2003 at 11:28

Originally posted by Diablo2 Addict
Christians ring an bells

Yeah on a sunday at my local church

Hojo · 24 May 2003 at 11:33

Originally posted by wohoo

Fox pal i dont think you really have the right to call my beliefs irational, that just displays grand ignorance on your part.

I didn't know that Islam was concerned about Animal welfare till today, which seem very rational to me.

wassap · 24 May 2003 at 11:35

If u look into the `halal` process it is very humane, the process of sliting the throat means that the animal dies instantly without the pain (sort), unlike killing via electric shock etc.

wassap · 24 May 2003 at 11:37

Halal Slaughter

Halal slaughter is “the humane method” providing hygienic meat to the consumer. Al Shaddad Bin Aous has quoted this tradition of the Holy Prophet (Pbuh) “God calls for mercy in everything, so be merciful when you kill and when you slaughter, sharpen your blade to relieve it’s pain”.

Many allegations have been made that Islamic slaughter is not humane to animals. However, Professor Schultz and his colleague Dr. Hazim of the Hanover University, Germany, proved through an experiment, using an Electro encephalograph (EEG) and Electro Cardiogram (ECG) that *Islamic slaughter is The humane method of slaughter and captive bolt stunning practiced by the western method, causes severe pain to the animal. The results surprised many.

Experimental Details:
1. Several electrodes were surgically implanted at various points of the skull of all animals, touching the surface of the brain.
2. The animals were allowed to recover for several weeks.
3. Some animals were slaughtered by making a swift, deep incision with a sharp knife on the neck cutting the jugular veins and carotid arteries of both sides; as also the trachea and oesophagus-Halal Method.
4. Some animals were stunned using a captive bolt pistol - humane slaughter by the western method.
5. During the experiment, EEG and ECG were recorded on all animals to record the condition of the brain and heart during the course of slaughter and stunning Results and Discussion:
I. Halal Method

1. The first three seconds from the time of Islamic slaughter as recorded on the EEG did not show any change from the graph before slaughter , thus indicating that the animal did not feel any pain during or immediately after the incision.
2. For the following 3 seconds, the EEG recorded a condition of deep sleep - unconsciousness. This is due to a large quantity of blood gushing out from the body.
3. After the above mentioned 6 seconds, the EEG recorded zero level, showing no feeling of pain at all.
4. As the brain message ( EEG ) dropped to zero level, the heart was still pounding and the body convulsing vigorously (a reflex action of the spinal cord) driving maximum blood from the body: resulting in hygienic meat for the consumer.
II. Western method by C.B.P. Stunning

1. The animals were apparently unconscious soon after stunning.
2. EEG showed severe pain immediately after stunning.
3. The hearts of the animal stunned by C.B.P. stopped beating earlier as compared to those of the animals slaughtered according to the Halal method resulting in the retention of more blood in the meat. This in turn is unhygienic for the consumer.

Ashraf Dabayeh
(Dept. of Civil Eng. University of Waterloo)

Hojo · 24 May 2003 at 12:02

I yestday did a bit off looking, it is ratter interesting how food is a major concern in islam. How food is perpair in europe at times makes me sick, at just the thought off it. I no longer eat beef or chicken breasts/processed chicken, mince off any type, try not to eat fast foods and anything that does not seem natural.

Fish, shellfish, pork,whole chickens and lamb are the only meats that I will eat. If I thought that I could live off just vegetables I would but I know that I can't I have to work to hard for that.

Deadly Ferret · 24 May 2003 at 13:08

Originally posted by gurdas
Sikhism was founded in India, Christinity was brought over by foreginers, there are now more christians in India than Sikhs. What is your point?

What does Sikhism have to do with it? We're discussing Islam here, so what is your point?

Deadly Ferret · 24 May 2003 at 13:09

Originally posted by Diablo2 Addict
They don't have a leg to stand on they are being made to handle it not eat it.

Actually, they aren't even being made to handle it...