Campaign to boycott Halal food gains momentum in Australia after yoghurt company ditches certification

Islamophobia rears it's ugly head.   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 21^st, 2014 at 12:04am:

Campaign to boycott Halal food gains momentum in Australia after yoghurt company ditches certification Islamophobia rears it's ugly head.   ::)

I think we need to take this issue on a case by case basis.

In this case he would rather lose 50k a year then lose bigger contracts.

Dont think the bigger companies that make the millions are going to give into the anti halal brigades.

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 21^st, 2014 at 12:04am:

Campaign to boycott Halal food gains momentum in Australia after yoghurt company ditches certification Islamophobia rears it's ugly head.   ::)

Good.

Next target is to remove all mosques

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 21^st, 2014 at 12:04am:

Campaign to boycott Halal food gains momentum in Australia after yoghurt company ditches certification Islamophobia rears it's ugly head.   ::)

How is boycotting halal different from boycotting, say, fur, factory farming, bear baiting or sweat shop products?

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 21^st, 2014 at 12:04am:

Islamophobia rears it's ugly head.

You have a very simplistic view on life Brian. Your viewpoint appears to be 1984 style, Muslims good, everything else bad.

Halal certification has long been linked to terror funding along with zakat\remittances.

Do you think we should be made to fund terrorism, muslim Brian.

George Christensen uses Vegemite to suggest halal products are funding terrorism and sharia.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/george-christensen-uses-vegemite-to-suggest-halal-products-are-funding-terrorism-and-sharia-20141120-11q2lq.html#ixzz3Jk1hIOHI

Adamant wrote on Nov 21^st, 2014 at 1:39pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 21st, 2014 at 12:04am: Islamophobia rears it's ugly head. You have a very simplistic view on life Brian. Your viewpoint appears to be 1984 style, Muslims good, everything else bad. Halal certification has long been linked to terror funding along with zakat\remittances. Do you think we should be made to fund terrorism, muslim Brian. George Christensen uses Vegemite to suggest halal products are funding terrorism and sharia. http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/george-christensen-uses-vegemite-to-suggest-halal-products-are-funding-terrorism-and-sharia-20141120-11q2lq.html#ixzz3Jk1hIOHI

In an interview with ABC journalists, Mr Christensen said his constituents raised concerns about the burqa often.

"People get worried when someone walks in and they can't see exactly who it is," he said.

They'd better not take their kids to Disneyland, then.

http://www.logodesignlove.com/images/handwritten/disney-characters.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/AI9dWhy.jpg

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 21^st, 2014 at 2:31pm:

Adamant wrote on Nov 21st, 2014 at 1:39pm: Brian Ross wrote on Nov 21st, 2014 at 12:04am: Islamophobia rears it's ugly head. You have a very simplistic view on life Brian. Your viewpoint appears to be 1984 style, Muslims good, everything else bad. Halal certification has long been linked to terror funding along with zakat\remittances. Do you think we should be made to fund terrorism, muslim Brian. George Christensen uses Vegemite to suggest halal products are funding terrorism and sharia. http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/george-christensen-uses-vegemite-to-suggest-halal-products-are-funding-terrorism-and-sharia-20141120-11q2lq.html#ixzz3Jk1hIOHI In an interview with ABC journalists, Mr Christensen said his constituents raised concerns about the burqa often. "People get worried when someone walks in and they can't see exactly who it is," he said. They'd better not take their kids to Disneyland, then. http://www.logodesignlove.com/images/handwritten/disney-characters.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/OBQiRsN.jpg

Soren wrote on Nov 21^st, 2014 at 8:36am:

How is boycotting halal different from boycotting, say, fur, factory farming, bear baiting or sweat shop products?

boycotting bear baiting is motivated by actual cruelty and abuse - not fear mongering that has no basis in fact:


Quote:

"One lady phoned me and asked if I was happy that we contributed toward the 9/11 attacks where she lost a few family members,"

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 21^st, 2014 at 7:22pm:

Soren wrote on Nov 21st, 2014 at 8:36am: How is boycotting halal different from boycotting, say, fur, factory farming, bear baiting or sweat shop products? boycotting bear baiting is motivated by actual cruelty and abuse - not fear mongering that has no basis in fact: Quote: "One lady phoned me and asked if I was happy that we contributed toward the 9/11 attacks where she lost a few family members,"

Halal certification, like most other Islamic fundraising activity, channels funds to jihad, knowingly or unknowingly.

It is not a 'clean', not to say halal, enterprise.

Soren wrote on Nov 21^st, 2014 at 7:37pm:

Halal certification, like most other Islamic fundraising activity, channels funds to jihad, knowingly or unknowingly.

Rubbish. Prove it.

I hope you boycott petrol Soren.

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 21^st, 2014 at 2:31pm:

Adamant wrote on Nov 21st, 2014 at 1:39pm: Brian Ross wrote on Nov 21st, 2014 at 12:04am: Islamophobia rears it's ugly head. You have a very simplistic view on life Brian. Your viewpoint appears to be 1984 style, Muslims good, everything else bad. Halal certification has long been linked to terror funding along with zakat\remittances. Do you think we should be made to fund terrorism, muslim Brian. George Christensen uses Vegemite to suggest halal products are funding terrorism and sharia. http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/george-christensen-uses-vegemite-to-suggest-halal-products-are-funding-terrorism-and-sharia-20141120-11q2lq.html#ixzz3Jk1hIOHI In an interview with ABC journalists, Mr Christensen said his constituents raised concerns about the burqa often. "People get worried when someone walks in and they can't see exactly who it is," he said. They'd better not take their kids to Disneyland, then. http://www.logodesignlove.com/images/handwritten/disney-characters.jpg

Do you enjoy being an apologist for Islamic terrorism, by paying a tax that is nothing more than extortion. The Italian mafia resorts to this sort of tactic, you agree with that I suppose!   

http://s25.postimg.org/rq3e4mav3/sticker_sml_gif_resize_489_492.gif

To hell with this Islamic shite and the blatant bullying of business owners in NON-ISLAMIC countries. If they want halal they shouldn't come here!

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 21^st, 2014 at 7:43pm:

Rubbish. Prove it.

I have already, Its just that racist bigots like you Gandalf, Brian, Wally and any other of the same ilk are unable to comprehend.

Is it to do with the same religion you all follow?

With respect adamant, the question was not directed at you. But don't worry, the next time I require an answer that has the intellect and coherency of a babbling mentally challenged 5 year old - you'll be the first person I'll turn to  :)

Adamant wrote on Nov 21^st, 2014 at 8:01pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 21st, 2014 at 7:43pm: Rubbish. Prove it. I have already, Its just that racist bigots like you Gandalf, Brian, Wally and any other of the same ilk are unable to comprehend. Is it to do with the same religion you all follow?

I guess your like people who bark like dogs, but after they stumble out of the pub/club they find the closest halal kebab stand available

Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 21^st, 2014 at 8:01am:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 21st, 2014 at 12:04am: Campaign to boycott Halal food gains momentum in Australia after yoghurt company ditches certification Islamophobia rears it's ugly head.   ::) Good. Next target is to remove all mosques

Obviously you do enjoy your religious persecuting, don't you, Sprint?

So, how are you going to "remove" all the Mosques?   A few firebombs, perhaps?   ::)

Adamant wrote on Nov 21^st, 2014 at 1:39pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 21st, 2014 at 12:04am: Islamophobia rears it's ugly head. You have a very simplistic view on life Brian. Your viewpoint appears to be 1984 style, Muslims good, everything else bad. Halal certification has long been linked to terror funding along with zakat\remittances.

Really?  Care to present some evidence, Adamant or will your normal innuendo suffice?   ::)

Soren wrote on Nov 21^st, 2014 at 8:36am:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 21st, 2014 at 12:04am: Campaign to boycott Halal food gains momentum in Australia after yoghurt company ditches certification Islamophobia rears it's ugly head.   ::) How is boycotting halal different from boycotting, say, fur, factory farming, bear baiting or sweat shop products?

Boycott away, Soren.  I've got no problem with that, it is the lies and innuendo and the "pressure" (other than economic) which Islamophobes apply to bully companies.

It's not as if Islamophobes buy most of these products anyway.  If I was the owner of one of these companies I'd just ignore you idiots.  You have no power to change what is essentially a commercial decision.   ::)

Adamant wrote on Nov 21^st, 2014 at 8:01pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 21st, 2014 at 7:43pm: Rubbish. Prove it. I have already,

Where?   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 21^st, 2014 at 10:31pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 21st, 2014 at 8:01am: Brian Ross wrote on Nov 21st, 2014 at 12:04am: Campaign to boycott Halal food gains momentum in Australia after yoghurt company ditches certification Islamophobia rears it's ugly head.   ::) Good. Next target is to remove all mosques Obviously you do enjoy your religious persecuting, don't you, Sprint? So, how are you going to "remove" all the Mosques?   A few firebombs, perhaps?   ::)

He enjoys aussies losing there jobs, homes and businesses.

Heard that youghurt factory that stopped that halal stuff had to get rid of two workers.

Soren wrote on Nov 21^st, 2014 at 8:36am:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 21st, 2014 at 12:04am: Campaign to boycott Halal food gains momentum in Australia after yoghurt company ditches certification Islamophobia rears it's ugly head.   ::) How is boycotting halal different from boycotting, say, fur, factory farming, bear baiting or sweat shop products?

Exactly. What’s wrong with trying to ban a religious dietary criteria?

Shurely we still have the Freeeedom to say what others should or should not put in their mouths.

I day, old boy, can I say that?

Soren wrote on Nov 21^st, 2014 at 8:36am:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 21st, 2014 at 12:04am: Campaign to boycott Halal food gains momentum in Australia after yoghurt company ditches certification Islamophobia rears it's ugly head.   ::) How is boycotting halal different from boycotting, say, fur, factory farming, bear baiting or sweat shop products?

It's wacist, innit?

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 21^st, 2014 at 10:38pm:

Where?

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/rpp/100-120/rpp106.html

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/rpp/100-120/rpp114.html

Tajco Ltd.—A Lebanese-based company that uses supermarkets to launder South American drug money through grocery stores in Gambia back to Lebanon for dispersal to Hezbollah. According to former Treasury official Stuart Levey, Tajco and its subsidiaries constitute a “multinational network [that] generates millions of dollars in funding and secures strategic geographical strongholds for Hizballah.”
2.Dahabshiil—A money services business (technically a remittance company, not a bank) that pays a $500K stipend twice a year to al-Shabaab. Somali journalists and musicians have alleged that the payments aren’t just for “protection,” (ie, the freedom to operate in Somalia without being bombed) but that Dahabshiil shares tribal links and policy goals with the terrorist group.
3.Al-Aqsa TV—The U.S. describes the media outlet as “a television station in Gaza financed and controlled by Hamas.” Hamas raised the initial capital to create Al-Aqsa TV, negotiated for a satellite provider, and allocates money for its budget. Its programming seeks to prepare children to join and fight for Hamas as they age.
4.Crescent Foods—the “caterers of the Muslim Brotherhood.” Crescent Foods is routinely selected to provide food at conferences and functions held by a variety of North American Muslim Brotherhood front groups and affiliates including the radical American Muslims for Palestine and organizational co-conspirators of the Holy Land Foundation, a defunct Hamas front charity. Crescent Foods also markets halal foods to the constituencies of these Islamist groups.
5.Sniper Africa—A South African hunting gear company which is majority owned by a dentist who raised $120,000 for Al Qaeda. OFAC has listed Sniper Africa under its specially designated global terrorist category.
6.Zurmat Group—A company operating in Afghanistan that sells components that wind up in roadside bombs against our troops. Additionally, the Army Times found that “approximately $1-2 million per month — flow to [the Haqqani network] to finance its activities” from Zurmat Group profits. CENTCOM describes the company as actively supporting the insurgency.
7.Darkazanli Export-Import Sonderposten—Owned and operated by Imam Mamoun Darkazanli, a longtime Al-Qaeda financier and manager. Darkazanli supports al Qaeda from Hamburg, Germany, and behaved as a type of godfather figure to the Muhammad Atta cell as it prepared for the 9/11 attacks. Darkazanli’s company has provided “cover, business collaboration and communications” for Al Qaeda figures visiting Germany.
8.The Bank of China—The Chinese bank funded Hamas and Islamic Jihad when it “carried out dozens of wire transfers for the two terror organizations, totaling several million dollars,” from 2003 to 2007 according to a lawsuit by victims of terrorist attacks in Israel. The bank knowingly continued making such transfers even after being warned against it by the Israeli government in 2005.
9.Jihad al-Bina—Hezbollah’s construction company in Lebanon. Its relationship with Hezbollah apparently transformed it from a $1.8 million business in the 1990s into a $450 million operation by 2006. It has been able to cash in on public contracts to rebuild Lebanese infrastructure through international development aid even though the firm is basically controlled by Hezbollah leaders and Iran.
10.Al Manar/Lebanese Media Group—This Hezbollah news outlet serves as a “Beacon of Hatred” that runs advertisements encouraging donations to Hezbollah and airs commercials for Hezbollah. The television channel’s programming includes vitriolic anti-Semitic messages and glorification of suicide bombing operations.

https://moneyjihad.wordpress.com/tag/halal/

"Forms for halal certification in Australia go into great detail. For instance, processed food suppliers need to give a list of every product and ingredient used. And they also need to give details of the number of employees. Plus the company’s annual turnover figures".

[url]http://bernardgaynor.com.au/where-do-australias-halal-certification-fees-go/[/url]

That looks like extortion to me. More to follow.

ooh look - FD pulling out the racist card when no one else had mentioned it.

Put it this way - its a bit like you saying that money being transferred to AFIC is definitely being used for terrorism based on nothing at all. Like these claims, its ignorant and bigoted. But feel free to continue pulling the racist card in a pathetic attempt to defend the indefensible.

The cost of Halal certification?

$700,000 settlement was reached in April that allocated $275,000 to the Huda Clinic, a Muslim health center in Detroit; $150,000 to the Arab American National Museum in Dearborn, and $25,000 to Ahmed Ahmed, a Dearborn Heights man who filed the lawsuit against McDonald's. The rest went to attorney fees.


McDonald's denied any wrongdoing in the settlement agreement, which made no mention of stopping the sale of halal food. Some Muslims didn't like the settlement, saying the money should have gone to individual customers, not organizations.

"Individual customers". Read the poor aggrieved downtrodden gready muslims. ::) ::)

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/06/24/mcdonalds-drops-halal-food-from-us-menu/2451243/

Adamant, see if you can understand the difference between paying a settlement for a lawsuit brought on by a breach of contract, and the actual fee for halal certification.

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 21^st, 2014 at 8:16pm:

But don't worry, the next time I require an answer that has the intellect and coherency of a babbling mentally challenged 5 year old - you'll be the first person I'll turn to

If you do not like me replying to your posts, I suggest you don't post! ::)

Another dummy spat on your part gandy, did your mad mullah get you all riled up at prayers? Where is the love you, a new age muslim is supposed to have. Or is it that your powers of domination do not work here.That would really piss your petty mindedness off hey gandy! ::)

Why not take your bat and ball and head north for the summer, better cricket up there.  ;D

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2014 at 10:02am:

Adamant, see if you can understand the difference between paying a settlement for a lawsuit brought on by a breach of contract, and the actual fee for halal certification.

Hoisted on his own petard. (shot muslims in their collective feet).

Do you understand now?

Thanks adamant - two for the price of one. Though again I didn't request it, but I appreciate the thought nontheless.

UAE calling the kettle black.

It was noted in a cable that UAE-based donors have provided financial support to a variety of terrorist groups, including al-Qa'ida, the Taliban, LeT and other terrorist groups. They also fund Hamas.[11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contents_of_the_United_States_diplomatic_cables_leak_(United_Arab_Emirates)

UAE calls 15 Muslim groups in the West “terrorists”

In addition to the IRW designation, the UAE named 15 other Islamic charities and advocacy groups in the U.S. and Europe as terrorist entities:
•Islamic Relief UK (the British affiliate of IRW)
•Muslim Association of Britain (part of the U.K. Muslim Brotherhood)
•Cordoba Foundation in Britain (once described by David Cameron as a Muslim Brotherhood front group)
•Council on American-Islamic Relations (the self-described civil rights group which was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation Hamas-financing trial)
•Muslim American Society (which was created by the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood)
•Union of Islamic Organizations of France (a French Muslim group tied to the Muslim Brotherhood that profits from halal certification)
•Federation of Islamic Organizations in Europe (an alliance financed by Gulf sources with ties to Hamas)
•Islamische Gemeinschaft in Deutschland (the “main representative” of the Muslim Brotherhood in Germany)
•Associazione Musulmani Italiani (Italian Muslim Association)
•League of Muslims in Belgium (La Ligue des Musulmans de Belgique)
•Muslim Association of Sweden (Sveriges muslimska förbund)
•Islamic Society in Denmark (Islamsk Trossamfund)
•Islamic Council Norway (Islamsk Rad Norge)
•Finnish Islamic Association (Suomen Islam-seurakunta)
•CANVAS in Belgrade, Serbia

https://moneyjihad.wordpress.com/2014/11/17/worlds-biggest-islamic-charity-branded-as-terrorist-group-by-2nd-middle-east-country/

"The halal food movement in France was troublesome enough when we learned that a secret embedded Islamic tax was being added to each sale.  But CBN reported yesterday that it’s worse than that, because France’s $7 billion halal food industry has links to the Muslim Brotherhood.  Buying halal food doesn’t just mean a deeper penetration of sharia into the West–it could mean that a portion of the purchase price ends in the pockets of Muslim Brotherhood cohorts".

https://moneyjihad.wordpress.com/2011/01/06/muslim-brotherhood-nets-halal-tax-revenues/

So, your evidence that Australian Halal certification benefits Terrorism is one group, in France that undertakes Halal certification is linked to the Muslim Brotherhood (who were, until two years ago, the legal government of Egypt)?

Keep working on your Toxiphilia, Adamant, you're getting very good with that long draw!   ::)

not at all Brian - he's also got that liberal backbencher who specifically said he didn't have any evidence of Australian certification fees going to terrorists.

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2014 at 8:31pm:

not at all Brian - he's also got that liberal backbencher who specifically said he didn't have any evidence of Australian certification fees going to terrorists.

Ah.   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2014 at 7:46pm:

So, your evidence that Australian Halal certification benefits Terrorism is one group, in France that undertakes Halal certification is linked to the Muslim Brotherhood (who were, until two years ago, the legal government of Egypt)? Keep working on your Toxiphilia, Adamant, you're getting very good with that long draw!   ::)

The UK government endorses the muslim brotherhood and deosnt see it is a terror organisation.

I guess adamant fails again

wally1 wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2014 at 8:43pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 7:46pm: So, your evidence that Australian Halal certification benefits Terrorism is one group, in France that undertakes Halal certification is linked to the Muslim Brotherhood (who were, until two years ago, the legal government of Egypt)? Keep working on your Toxiphilia, Adamant, you're getting very good with that long draw!   ::) The UK government endorses the muslim brotherhood and deosnt see it is a terror organisation. I guess adamant fails again

And yet the UAE has endorsed it as a terrorist organisation.  I guess each country assesses on its own intererests and experiences, ...unsurprisingly.

freediver wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2014 at 8:25am:

Soren wrote on Nov 21st, 2014 at 8:36am: Brian Ross wrote on Nov 21st, 2014 at 12:04am: Campaign to boycott Halal food gains momentum in Australia after yoghurt company ditches certification Islamophobia rears it's ugly head.   ::) How is boycotting halal different from boycotting, say, fur, factory farming, bear baiting or sweat shop products? It's wacist, innit?

Not at all, FD. All those white supremacists and the ex-One Nation crowd are just boycotting halal so that those Muslims don’t force their awful halal muck onto decent white people. How could it possibly be about race?

Personally, I don’t know why you keep bringing up the subject of race, FD. Some - not me - might think you have an issue with this.

Shurely shome mishtake, eh?

Datalife wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2014 at 9:06pm:

wally1 wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 8:43pm: Brian Ross wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 7:46pm: So, your evidence that Australian Halal certification benefits Terrorism is one group, in France that undertakes Halal certification is linked to the Muslim Brotherhood (who were, until two years ago, the legal government of Egypt)? Keep working on your Toxiphilia, Adamant, you're getting very good with that long draw!   ::) The UK government endorses the muslim brotherhood and deosnt see it is a terror organisation. I guess adamant fails again And yet the UAE has endorsed it as a terrorist organisation.  I guess each country assesses on its own intererests and experiences, ...unsurprisingly.

Welcome to the shifting sands of desert politics, effende.

Karnal wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2014 at 9:46pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 8:25am: Soren wrote on Nov 21st, 2014 at 8:36am: Brian Ross wrote on Nov 21st, 2014 at 12:04am: Campaign to boycott Halal food gains momentum in Australia after yoghurt company ditches certification Islamophobia rears it's ugly head.   ::) How is boycotting halal different from boycotting, say, fur, factory farming, bear baiting or sweat shop products? It's wacist, innit? Not at all, FD. All those white supremacists and the ex-One Nation crowd are just boycotting halal so that those Muslims don’t force their awful halal muck onto decent white people. How could it possibly be about race? Personally, I don’t know why you keep bringing up the subject of race, FD. Some - not me - might think you have an issue with this. Shurely shome mishtake, eh?

Halal in Australia?

How the hell did we get to that?

Halal in Saudi, Iran, Jordan, Labia - I can see that.
But halal in Australia?  How the hell did we get to that? What is the relevance of sharia food laws to Australia?

Why is Australia expected to accommodate sharia law when it comes to food??

Soren wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2014 at 11:02pm:

Karnal wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 9:46pm: freediver wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 8:25am: Soren wrote on Nov 21st, 2014 at 8:36am: Brian Ross wrote on Nov 21st, 2014 at 12:04am: Campaign to boycott Halal food gains momentum in Australia after yoghurt company ditches certification Islamophobia rears it's ugly head.   ::) How is boycotting halal different from boycotting, say, fur, factory farming, bear baiting or sweat shop products? It's wacist, innit? Not at all, FD. All those white supremacists and the ex-One Nation crowd are just boycotting halal so that those Muslims don’t force their awful halal muck onto decent white people. How could it possibly be about race? Personally, I don’t know why you keep bringing up the subject of race, FD. Some - not me - might think you have an issue with this. Shurely shome mishtake, eh? Halal in Australia? How the hell did we get to that? Halal in Saudi, Iran, Jordan, Labia - I can see that. But halal in Australia?  How the hell did we get to that? What is the relevance of sharia food laws to Australia? Why is Australia expected to accommodate sharia law when it comes to food??

If you want to sell food to the lucrative Muslim market, Soren, obviously you have to satisfy their views on food.

If you don't want to sell food to the lucrative Muslim market, then obviously you don't need Halal certification.

So, what business is it of mere customers of a particular brand of food stuff, whether or not the business that makes it seeks Halal certification?  If you don't like their food stuffs being Halal certified, then don't buy it.  However, please don't try and intimidate them into not being Halal certified.   That is  merely Islamophobes expressing their hatred for all things Muslim.   ::)

Soren wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2014 at 11:02pm:

Why is Australia expected to accommodate sharia law when it comes to food??

They're not - yet Australian business are choosing to certify. Why is that?

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2014 at 11:09pm:

Soren wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 11:02pm: Why is Australia expected to accommodate sharia law when it comes to food?? They're not - yet Australian business are choosing to certify. Why is that?

Fear.

Nobody ever goes along with Islam for any other reason. It makes no intellectual or emotional sense. Intimidation and the latent threat of violence - Islam.

Islam is violent until it obtains Submission.  Everyone know that.  Submit, or... er.... that's it. No alternative.

Soren wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2014 at 11:19pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 11:09pm: Soren wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 11:02pm: Why is Australia expected to accommodate sharia law when it comes to food?? They're not - yet Australian business are choosing to certify. Why is that? Fear. Nobody ever goes along with Islam for any other reason. It makes no intellectual or emotional sense. Intimidation and the latent threat of violence - Islam. Islam is violent until it obtains Submission.  Everyone know that.  Submit, or... er.... that's it. No alternative.

I'd suggest greed is a much greater motivator, Soren.   No one is forcing these companies to seek Halal certification.  They do so in order to gain access to a lucrative market.     ::)

Soren wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2014 at 11:02pm:

Karnal wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 9:46pm: freediver wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 8:25am: Soren wrote on Nov 21st, 2014 at 8:36am: Brian Ross wrote on Nov 21st, 2014 at 12:04am: Campaign to boycott Halal food gains momentum in Australia after yoghurt company ditches certification Islamophobia rears it's ugly head.   ::) How is boycotting halal different from boycotting, say, fur, factory farming, bear baiting or sweat shop products? It's wacist, innit? Not at all, FD. All those white supremacists and the ex-One Nation crowd are just boycotting halal so that those Muslims don’t force their awful halal muck onto decent white people. How could it possibly be about race? Personally, I don’t know why you keep bringing up the subject of race, FD. Some - not me - might think you have an issue with this. Shurely shome mishtake, eh? Halal in Australia? How the hell did we get to that? Halal in Saudi, Iran, Jordan, Labia - I can see that. But halal in Australia?  How the hell did we get to that? What is the relevance of sharia food laws to Australia? Why is Australia expected to accommodate sharia law when it comes to food??

We? I thought you liked Danish.

There’s this thing called globalization, dear boy. We Australians like to do our bit. We try to make money, you see, by selling things overseas. Some of the customers are - wait for it - Muselmen.

Ridiculous, I know.  We’d sell to your marvellous old country, but it’s involved in this thing called the common market. We Australians are left with the dregs of the world.

Pity the old One Nation crowd has a problem with it, but you’re one of the gang, no?

Good for you. No one has the right to not be offended.

And no one has the right to try to sell cheese to the Muselman.

Soren wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2014 at 11:19pm:

Nobody ever goes along with Islam for any other reason. It makes no intellectual or emotional sense.

Or it makes business sense.

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2014 at 11:09pm:

Soren wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 11:02pm: Why is Australia expected to accommodate sharia law when it comes to food?? They're not - yet Australian business are choosing to certify. Why is that?

Quite often they have no choice, if they want to sell to some foreign countries. It would be like Australia colluding with several other nations and going into China and taxing rice farmers for the privilege of exporting to us, then making all the money disappear without a trace into various local organisations, and expecting the Chinese government to 'trust us'.

freediver wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 8:39am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 11:09pm: Soren wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 11:02pm: Why is Australia expected to accommodate sharia law when it comes to food?? They're not - yet Australian business are choosing to certify. Why is that? Quite often they have no choice, if they want to sell to some foreign countries. It would be like Australia colluding with several other nations and going into China and taxing rice farmers for the privilege of exporting to us, then making all the money disappear without a trace into various local organisations, and expecting the Chinese government to 'trust us'.

It's not like that at all. The halal-ness of meat is an ideological/religious necessity for some people. A more honest comparison would be an animal welfare organization certification for live exports.

That would be a good comparison, if not for the extortionist 'fees' and religious discrimination in employment they impose.

Do you personally boycott halal certified products?

Why should we be funding the Islamic community through the food we eat?
I thought it was just meat but it appears to be just about anything.
This is a scam, pure & simple. But then they appear to be good at scams, such as in the welfare area.

I don't really pay much attention.

[quote author=Brian_Ross link=1416492250/31#31 date=1416649565]So, your evidence that Australian Halal certification benefits Terrorism is one group, in France that undertakes Halal certification is linked to the Muslim Brotherhood (who were, until two years ago, the legal government of Egypt)?quote]

So Brian, you would have us believe no money given to or by muslims in Australia has ever funded terrorism abroad?

freediver wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 9:15am:

I don't really pay much attention.

You'd better check your cupboards. You might be supporting the Terrorists.

I see it more as a political issue. It is a form of trade barrier, as well as workplace discrimination. It's a bit hard to get too wound up about it, as we give these countries more in foreign aid than these halal fees. Given that we keep finding these people ripping off the federal government's funds for private schools, I think we need to take a very close look at both to see where the money ends up. It would be naive not to. We should also make the foreign aid dependent on them not using halal certification as such a blatant money grab. At least with foreign aid we can attach whatever strings we want. With halal certification we have no idea where the money ends up.

freediver wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 9:39am:

With halal certification we have no idea where the money ends up.

I'm assuming based on this statement that you haven't found any evidence they are supporting terrorists then.

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2014 at 11:55pm:

Soren wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 11:19pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 11:09pm: Soren wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 11:02pm: Why is Australia expected to accommodate sharia law when it comes to food?? They're not - yet Australian business are choosing to certify. Why is that? Fear. Nobody ever goes along with Islam for any other reason. It makes no intellectual or emotional sense. Intimidation and the latent threat of violence - Islam. Islam is violent until it obtains Submission.  Everyone know that.  Submit, or... er.... that's it. No alternative. I'd suggest greed is a much greater motivator, Soren.   No one is forcing these companies to seek Halal certification.  They do so in order to gain access to a lucrative market.     ::)

So the local Muslim market is now so lucrative that everyone must have halal so the few can be satisfied?
Exporting to Muslim countries - certify those shipments. But halal certification for locally sold goods is nothing but a shake-down.

We do not make everything kosher just to satisfy the few Jews to whom it is important. That would be seen as an intolerable imposition. But with halal you are all very accommodating because not going along with halal is 'Islamaophobic' and there is no greater sin than that today.

Soren wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 9:56am:

So the local Muslim market is now so lucrative that everyone must have halal so the few can be satisfied? Exporting to Muslim countries - certify those shipments. But halal certification for locally sold goods is nothing but a shake-down.

Steggles chicken is now 100% halal in Australia.

But just to take one example, on their website steggles state that they supply over 200 KFC restaurants in Australia. Yet there are only 4 KFC restaurants that are certified as halal Australia wide. I have posed this question to Soren and co before but never received a response: why would KFC source their product from a halal certified supplier, yet not even sell their product as halal? According to Soren's logic, they apparently make the sacrifice of buying halal chicken because they are intimidated into making the bad business choice of using halal certified products - and yet they don't even sell it as a halal product, thus defeating the whole purpose.

Shurely shome mishtake

Perhaps it is something to do with the extortionist fees involved.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 8:51am:

Do you personally boycott halal certified products?

Yes along with kosher

freediver wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 1:33pm:

Perhaps it is something to do with the extortionist fees involved.

So given the choice, KFC prefers paying extortionist fees do they?

Makes sense  :D

Not sure why this seems so complicated for you Gandalf.

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 1:03pm:

Steggles chicken is now 100% halal in Australia. But just to take one example, on their website steggles state that they supply over 200 KFC restaurants in Australia. Yet there are only 4 KFC restaurants that are certified as halal Australia wide.

To be certified as a halal KFC they cannot sell a bacon and cheese zinger, this KFC is one of the halal ones yet they have a sign on the fridge saying not halal which might apply to the contents of the fridge.

Muslims are only 2% of our population yet they have managed to have bacon removed from the menus at 4 KFC.

This is what happens when you ask for bacon on your burger in a halal kfc-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMJfCaf-SGo

If KFC don't want to certify their product as halal, why do they bother buying halal chicken? Doesn't that just subject them to "extortionist" halal fees (passed on by steggles) for no purpose?

Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 2:40pm:

To be certified as a halal KFC they cannot sell a bacon and cheese zinger, this KFC is one of the halal ones yet they have a sign on the fridge saying not halal which might apply to the contents of the fridge.

You've given a good reason why KFC might not want their product to be halal certified. But you haven't addressed why they buy halal certified chicken in the first place - only to turn it into a non-halal product.

bogarde73 wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 9:14am:

Why should we be funding the Islamic community through the food we eat?

We aren't.   Some companies however are paying fees for services provided by some within the Islamic community, exactly as they do to Jewish authorities for Kosher certification.   Don't hear an outcry about that, I wonder why?    ::)

Adamant wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 9:15am:

[quote author=Brian_Ross link=1416492250/31#31 date=1416649565]So, your evidence that Australian Halal certification benefits Terrorism is one group, in France that undertakes Halal certification is linked to the Muslim Brotherhood (who were, until two years ago, the legal government of Egypt)?quote] So Brian, you would have us believe no money given to or by muslims in Australia has ever funded terrorism abroad?

No.  However, you're essentially claiming ALL monies paid to Muslims, no matter who they are, is used to fund Terrorism.  You can't even produce any proof of a link between Australian Halal certification and Terrorism funding, Adamant.   As I've pointed out, a link between a FRENCH company and the Muslim Brotherhood (who more than likely aren't a Terrorist organisation outside of Egypt where the military government finds it politically expedient to declare them thus), won't cut it, Adamant.    ::)

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 2:41pm:

If KFC don't want to certify their product as halal, why do they bother buying halal chicken? Doesn't that just subject them to "extortionist" halal fees (passed on by steggles) for no purpose?

For the same reason I probably buy Halal food. Most of these extortionist fees are applied at the abattoir level, which allows them to squeeze the entire industry. There are a small number of abattoirs, compared to say the number of farmers or the number of retail outlets. This affects prices across the entire industry. Even if you buy the non-halal product, the price will be influenced (increased) by this extortion. That's what barriers to trade do.

Soren wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 9:56am:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 11:55pm: Soren wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 11:19pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 11:09pm: Soren wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 11:02pm: Why is Australia expected to accommodate sharia law when it comes to food?? They're not - yet Australian business are choosing to certify. Why is that? Fear. Nobody ever goes along with Islam for any other reason. It makes no intellectual or emotional sense. Intimidation and the latent threat of violence - Islam. Islam is violent until it obtains Submission.  Everyone know that.  Submit, or... er.... that's it. No alternative. I'd suggest greed is a much greater motivator, Soren.   No one is forcing these companies to seek Halal certification.  They do so in order to gain access to a lucrative market.     ::) So the local Muslim market is now so lucrative that everyone must have halal so the few can be satisfied?

It is cheaper to have one production line rather than two, Soren.  Simple economics - economy of scale.   Halal does not make the product poisonous, it actually makes it if anything better by enforcing greater levels of cleanliness and the decreased use of animal derived additives and so on.

As for Kosher - it is exactly the same.  The product bears a little symbol or statement.   You won't find a non-Kosher production line and a Kosher one, it is simply uneconomic to do so.   Yet you don't complain about it.  Why?

Therefore, what is your complaint?  That the product has a little symbol or statement on it's labelling?  Sheesh!  Does your Islamophobia know no bounds?  Are you really that rabid?    ::) ::)

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 2:44pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 23rd, 2014 at 2:40pm: To be certified as a halal KFC they cannot sell a bacon and cheese zinger, this KFC is one of the halal ones yet they have a sign on the fridge saying not halal which might apply to the contents of the fridge. You've given a good reason why KFC might not want their product to be halal certified. But you haven't addressed why they buy halal certified chicken in the first place - only to turn it into a non-halal product.

KFC would buy in bulk for their franchises to get a better deal with higher quantity, they could quite easily take their business to another company.

How do you turn a halal product into a non halal product, are you saying the fee steggles pays for halal certification is not enough and KFC also have to pay this halal extortion fee as well for KFC to be halal certified?

I don't think i have ever eaten steggles chickens, i prefer free range chicken that has not been fed female hormones to grow faster.

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 2:41pm:

If KFC don't want to certify their product as halal, why do they bother buying halal chicken? Doesn't that just subject them to "extortionist" halal fees (passed on by steggles) for no purpose?

How can KFC certify their product as being halal without paying the halal extortion fee?

If we look a bit deeper does the halal extortion fee for certification extend to the producers and retailers?

The fee only applies to the abattoir and it's produce. If you slap a slice of bacon on a halal chicken, it ceases to be halal. A supermarket can sell halal chicken, but the supermarket itself will not be halal because it also sells bacon and cannot afford the fee. The only reason most abattoirs are compelled to pay the fee is because foreign governments (not the market place or the customers) impose it. They even interfere in the local halal certification industry to force certifiers to collude to push prices up.

freediver wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 3:49pm:

They even interfere in the local halal certification industry to force certifiers to collude to push prices up.

What data supports this?

freediver wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 3:18pm:

For the same reason I probably buy Halal food. Most of these extortionist fees are applied at the abattoir level, which allows them to squeeze the entire industry. There are a small number of abattoirs, compared to say the number of farmers or the number of retail outlets. This affects prices across the entire industry. Even if you buy the non-halal product, the price will be influenced (increased) by this extortion. That's what barriers to trade do.

Pure conjecture on your part. The Australian Chicken Meat Federation for one disagrees with you:


Quote:

Does the customer pay more because of the Halal requirements? No. To meet Halal requirements imposes minimal additional costs on processors which are more than compensated for by the additional market that can be serviced. Consequently, neither the Muslim customer buying certified Halal products nor the customer buying product that is not certified Halal is paying any more for chicken meat.

http://www.chicken.org.au/page.php?id=150#G21

Then of course there's all the other industries who are tripping over themselves to jump on board halal certification, and who describe it as anything but an extortion:


Quote:

A Cadbury spokesman said the “small fees” paid to certification bodies didn’t affect pricing and were more than offset by access to broader markets, which created more local jobs. “It’s consumer information, similar to gluten-free or kosher labels ... nothing in our products or the way we manufacture our products has been changed to attain halal certification,” he said. A Nestle spokeswoman also said costs were not passed on to consumers, and she insisted halal certification was not used as a marketing tool.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/halal-food-outrage-from-antiislam-critics/story-e6frf7jo-1229692523050

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 4:12pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 23rd, 2014 at 3:18pm: For the same reason I probably buy Halal food. Most of these extortionist fees are applied at the abattoir level, which allows them to squeeze the entire industry. There are a small number of abattoirs, compared to say the number of farmers or the number of retail outlets. This affects prices across the entire industry. Even if you buy the non-halal product, the price will be influenced (increased) by this extortion. That's what barriers to trade do. Pure conjecture on your part. The Australian Chicken Meat Federation for one disagrees with you: Quote: Does the customer pay more because of the Halal requirements? No. To meet Halal requirements imposes minimal additional costs on processors which are more than compensated for by the additional market that can be serviced. Consequently, neither the Muslim customer buying certified Halal products nor the customer buying product that is not certified Halal is paying any more for chicken meat. http://www.chicken.org.au/page.php?id=150#G21 Then of course there's all the other industries who are tripping over themselves to jump on board halal certification, and who describe it as anything but an extortion: [quote]A Cadbury spokesman said the “small fees” paid to certification bodies didn’t affect pricing and were more than offset by access to broader markets, which created more local jobs. “It’s consumer information, similar to gluten-free or kosher labels ... nothing in our products or the way we manufacture our products has been changed to attain halal certification,” he said. A Nestle spokeswoman also said costs were not passed on to consumers, and she insisted halal certification was not used as a marketing tool.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/halal-food-outrage-from-antiislam-critics/story-e6frf7jo-1229692523050[/quote]

Muslims are only 2% of our population,it's BS to claim there will be a huge market increase by catering for superstitions in a dusty old book from the dark ages.

Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 4:43pm:

Muslims are only 2% of our population,it's BS to claim there will be a huge market increase by catering for superstitions in a dusty old book from the dark ages.

approximately half a million people aren't a market worth catering to? 

2% means that there are more Muslims than ceoliacs, and there is a solid market for gluten free products already.

Stratos wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 4:50pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 23rd, 2014 at 4:43pm: Muslims are only 2% of our population,it's BS to claim there will be a huge market increase by catering for superstitions in a dusty old book from the dark ages. approximately half a million people aren't a market worth catering to?  2% means that there are more Muslims than ceoliacs, and there is a solid market for gluten free products already.

Halal is a rort, muslims are allowed to eat non halal food if there is nothing else.

The last census puts them around 400,000, lots of children in that figure who buy nothing.

As we saw with the yoghurt there are bigger losses from pissing off the other 98% than there is to be gained from suckholing to the 2%.

So you just change your argument.  I see how this goes.


Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 4:59pm:

As we saw with the yoghurt there are bigger losses from pissing off the other 98% than there is to be gained from suckholing to the 2%.

Didn't they have to cancel a contract with an airline that was worth fifty grand or something?


Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 4:59pm:

The last census puts them around 400,000

Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 4:59pm:

to the 2%.

Fix your maths Baron, at least get it right within a single post ;D

freediver wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 9:15am:

I don't really pay much attention.

Ah.

Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 4:59pm:

As we saw with the yoghurt there are bigger losses from pissing off the other 98% than there is to be gained from suckholing to the 2%.

You just have to marvel at the impeccable logic being applied here: in the absense of any evidence whatsoever, we must conclude that big business opts for halal certification - not because it is profitable for them - but because they are being intimidated into submission by some shadowy muslim conspiracy that no one has been able to identify  :D

Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 4:59pm:

muslims are allowed to eat non halal food if there is nothing else.

but there is not nothing else - we have halal food.

Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 4:59pm:

Halal is a rort, muslims are allowed to eat non halal food if there is nothing else.

So are Jews with Kosher.

However, as Gandalf has pointed out, there is no "nothing else", now is there?

Why are Muslims to be denied a choice?   Non-Muslims have plenty of non-Halal products to choose from but Muslims seem to have few Halal ones.

And anyway, most of the Halal certified products are actually intended for export, not domestic consumption.   We expect the foods we import to comply with our food packaging laws, why aren't you willing to allow Muslim countries to make similar demands of us, Baron?   ::)


Quote:

The last census puts them around 400,000, lots of children in that figure who buy nothing. As we saw with the yoghurt there are bigger losses from pissing off the other 98% than there is to be gained from suckholing to the 2%.

Of that 98%, how many actually give a flying bugger whether the product they are eating is Halal or not, Baron?  Only Islamophobes seem to get their knickers in a twist over the issue.  Funny that.    ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 3:12pm:

Adamant wrote on Nov 23rd, 2014 at 9:15am: [quote author=Brian_Ross link=1416492250/31#31 date=1416649565]So, your evidence that Australian Halal certification benefits Terrorism is one group, in France that undertakes Halal certification is linked to the Muslim Brotherhood (who were, until two years ago, the legal government of Egypt)?quote] So Brian, you would have us believe no money given to or by muslims in Australia has ever funded terrorism abroad? No.  However, you're essentially claiming ALL monies paid to Muslims, no matter who they are, is used to fund Terrorism.  You can't even produce any proof of a link between Australian Halal certification and Terrorism funding, Adamant.   As I've pointed out, a link between a FRENCH company and the Muslim Brotherhood (who more than likely aren't a Terrorist organisation outside of Egypt where the military government finds it politically expedient to declare them thus), won't cut it, Adamant.

You will note Brian I have deleted your stupid little face. :o ;D :D :o ::) Comprie?

Did you bother to read my first reply? Very much doubt it! so here it is again!!!!!!!!!!

[highlight]Halal certification has long been linked to terror funding along with zakat\remittances.
[/highlight]

Did I mention a country?

Did You? Other than to print a link to an Australian news outlet, mention a country?

Did you deign to read the Australian Governments opinion on terror funding within Australia which I supplied as a link? 

Did you know that the Commonwealth bank has been used for Islamic terror funding!

You are one of the most ignorant ostriches I have ever had the misfortune to come across.

I add as an observation, as your site falls into the abyss, posts by your muslim self appear more regularly here.

Is it that "One day all decedent's of pigs and apes will rule the Earth"

Do you want me to provide a few links to the FACT that Australian Muslims Contribute  to terrorism.

No of course not, that would put the mocker's on your viewpoint for all time.

Adamant, you're yet to provide any evidence of Halal certification in Australia being linked to Terrorism funding here or overseas.

You're a busted flush, lad.  All you're doing is showing how bigoted you are.   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 6:20pm:

Of that 98%, how many actually give a flying bugger whether the product they are eating is Halal

You made the claim Prove it Brian!


Brian Ross wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 6:20pm:

Only Islamophobes seem to get their knickers in a twist over the issue.  Funny that.

Funny how you are allowed to make outrageous assumptions based on your muslim belief syndrome.

How about this as a truth.

I do not wish my food to be blessed by a Jew or a Muslim. I do not wish my food to be increased in price because of some despotic religion based on the beheading of non muslims, nor do I accept that a non Government entity has the right to impose a tax on companies (that is extortion).

I want ALL people that believe in Kosher/Halal to pay for ALL the COST of compliance.

What do you reckon muslim Brian.

Adamant wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 7:10pm:

I do not wish my food to be increased in price because of some despotic religion

Is that the case?  Freediver mentioned it before but didn't show where this was the case.

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 6:55pm:

Adamant, you're yet to provide any evidence of Halal certification in Australia being linked to Terrorism funding here or overseas.

Are you all right Brian?

Are you able to comprehend at the Mo?

I will post it again for you seem you have a problem, if you still have concerns after this I suggest you take a bex.


Adamant wrote on Nov 21^st, 2014 at 1:39pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 21st, 2014 at 12:04am: Islamophobia rears it's ugly head. You have a very simplistic view on life Brian. Your viewpoint appears to be 1984 style, Muslims good, everything else bad. Halal certification has long been linked to terror funding along with zakat\remittances. Do you think we should be made to fund terrorism, muslim Brian. George Christensen uses Vegemite to suggest halal products are funding terrorism and sharia. http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/george-christensen-uses-vegemite-to-suggest-halal-products-are-funding-terrorism-and-sharia-20141120-11q2lq.html#ixzz3Jk1hIOHI

And this Brian.

[quote author=Brian_Ross link=1416492250/31#31 date=1416649565]So, your evidence that Australian Halal certification benefits Terrorism is one group, in France that undertakes Halal certification is linked to the Muslim Brotherhood (who were, until two years ago, the legal government of Egypt)?quote]

So Brian, you would have us believe no money given to or by muslims in Australia has ever funded terrorism abroad?

When are you intending to answer the questions Brian?

Your modus operandi has been found out. Its time to swallow the bitter pill Answer the questions first Brian.

You, should know Brian its rude to  answer a question with a question, you the educated academic. :: ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::))

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-sZag4LUNw

Stratos wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 3:59pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 23rd, 2014 at 3:49pm: They even interfere in the local halal certification industry to force certifiers to collude to push prices up. What data supports this?

It's not "data". It is Australian Muslims themselves making the claim (the ones who got their license stripped from them so that their competitor could have a monopoly and charge extortionist prices). Gandalf likes to pass this off as market forces at work.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1399946272/16#16

If you follow the links there are some newspaper articles about it.


Quote:

Pure conjecture on your part.

No gandalf it is pretty basic first year economics. I know you like to pass this interference by foreign governments in our economy off as market forces at work, but the reality is that it is extortion and a barrier to trade. This has been explained to you before.


Quote:

The Australian Chicken Meat Federation for one disagrees with you:

Read what it says: which are more than compensated for by the additional market that can be serviced. This is assuming a non-open market to begin with. Obviously compared to an open market it is more expensive.

Consequently, neither the Muslim customer buying certified Halal products nor the customer buying product that is not certified Halal is paying any more for chicken meat.

That is bullshit PR spin Gandalf. It does not make sense to charge a company a fee then insist that fee does not get passed on to consumers.


Quote:

Then of course there's all the other industries who are tripping over themselves to jump on board halal certification, and who describe it as anything but an extortion

A chocolate manufacturer does not pay the same extortionist fees that an abattoir does.


Quote:

2% means that there are more Muslims than ceoliacs, and there is a solid market for gluten free products already.

There is a niche market. Not the whole market.


Quote:

You just have to marvel at the impeccable logic being applied here: in the absense of any evidence whatsoever, we must conclude that big business opts for halal certification - not because it is profitable for them - but because they are being intimidated into submission by some shadowy muslim conspiracy that no one has been able to identify

No Gandalf, as you well know it is by foreign governments who demand this then set up little monopolies in Australia to charge extortionist fees then do whatever it is that Muslims do with large sums of ill gotten money.

freediver wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 8:11pm:

It's not "data".

So there is no data to support your platform that halal certification pushes price up?


freediver wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 8:11pm:

If you follow the links there are some newspaper articles about it.

Nothing I found (admittedly I did quickly look through your list of links) seemed to suggest halal was raising prices.

freediver wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 8:11pm:

Stratos wrote on Nov 23rd, 2014 at 3:59pm: freediver wrote on Nov 23rd, 2014 at 3:49pm: They even interfere in the local halal certification industry to force certifiers to collude to push prices up. What data supports this? It's not "data". It is Australian Muslims themselves making the claim (the ones who got their license stripped from them so that their competitor could have a monopoly and charge extortionist prices). Gandalf likes to pass this off as market forces at work. http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1399946272/16#16 If you follow the links there are some newspaper articles about it. Quote: Pure conjecture on your part. No gandalf it is pretty basic first year economics. I know you like to pass this interference by foreign governments in our economy off as market forces at work, but the reality is that it is extortion and a barrier to trade. This has been explained to you before. [quote]The Australian Chicken Meat Federation for one disagrees with you:

Read what it says: which are more than compensated for by the additional market that can be serviced. This is assuming a non-open market to begin with. Obviously compared to an open market it is more expensive.

Consequently, neither the Muslim customer buying certified Halal products nor the customer buying product that is not certified Halal is paying any more for chicken meat.

That is bullshit PR spin Gandalf. It does not make sense to charge a company a fee then insist that fee does not get passed on to consumers.


Quote:

Then of course there's all the other industries who are tripping over themselves to jump on board halal certification, and who describe it as anything but an extortion

A chocolate manufacturer does not pay the same extortionist fees that an abattoir does.


Quote:

2% means that there are more Muslims than ceoliacs, and there is a solid market for gluten free products already.

There is a niche market. Not the whole market.


Quote:

You just have to marvel at the impeccable logic being applied here: in the absense of any evidence whatsoever, we must conclude that big business opts for halal certification - not because it is profitable for them - but because they are being intimidated into submission by some shadowy muslim conspiracy that no one has been able to identify

No Gandalf, as you well know it is by foreign governments who demand this then set up little monopolies in Australia to charge extortionist fees then do whatever it is that Muslims do with large sums of ill gotten money.[/quote]
Uh-oh.

The hoof has been exposed.

Truth is now a phobia.

Soren wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 7:58pm:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-sZag4LUNw

Is it any surprise that Sore End idolises this clown?

                               ;D

Quote:

So there is no data to support your platform that halal certification pushes price up?

Oh that. That is economics. Or just plain old common sense. The government charges a business a fee for doing business. That fee gets passed onto customers. Prices go up. Is there anything in particular you disagree with here? Perhaps you'd like to hire a forensic accountant to prove the bleeding obvious?


Quote:

Truth is now a phobia.

It always has been and always will be, about race, apparently.

freediver wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 9:39pm:

Oh that. That is economics. Or just plain old common sense. The government charges a business a fee for doing business. That fee gets passed onto customers. Prices go up. Is there anything in particular you disagree with here? Perhaps you'd like to hire a forensic accountant to prove the bleeding obvious?

Common sense tells me not to blindly accept any claim made by anyone, but to base what I know on evidence.

Someone could suggest  that the new increased market share they get from selling halal products would be greater than the cost of certification.  Doesn't make it true however, as I have not seen any evidence to support it.

If this is really effecting prices then surely there is evidence of it.

freediver wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 8:11pm:

It's not "data".

no schit  ;D ;D


freediver wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 8:11pm:

No gandalf it is pretty basic first year economics. I know you like to pass this interference by foreign governments in our economy off as market forces at work, but the reality is that it is extortion and a barrier to trade. This has been explained to you before.

umm we're talking about the domestic chicken market - not packaged beef exported to Indonesia. Please stay on topic. Before we go any further, please provide evidence that a) Baida (owner of Steggles) are being charged "extortion" halal certification fees and b) the fees are being passed on to the consumer - as you claimed. Lame references to economic theory doesn't cut it.


freediver wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 8:11pm:

Read what it says: which are more than compensated for by the additional market that can be serviced. This is assuming a non-open market to begin with. Obviously compared to an open market it is more expensive.

;D I just hope you use the same logic to argue why companies adopting gluten-free labeling or heart foundation labeling drives up the price of - everything.


freediver wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 8:11pm:

A chocolate manufacturer does not pay the same extortionist fees that an abattoir does.

You don't have a damn clue what fees domestic chicken factories pay - again we are not talking about Beef exports to Indonesia.

Adamant wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 7:27pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 23rd, 2014 at 6:55pm: Adamant, you're yet to provide any evidence of Halal certification in Australia being linked to Terrorism funding here or overseas. Are you all right Brian?

Perfectly fine, Adamant.

You presented any evidence yet?  No, it doesn't seem so. How unsurprising.    ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 24^th, 2014 at 12:02am:

Adamant wrote on Nov 23rd, 2014 at 7:27pm: Brian Ross wrote on Nov 23rd, 2014 at 6:55pm: Adamant, you're yet to provide any evidence of Halal certification in Australia being linked to Terrorism funding here or overseas. Are you all right Brian? Perfectly fine, Adamant. You presented any evidence yet?  No, it doesn't seem so. How unsurprising.    ::)

If you are "Perfectly fine" when do you intend to answer my questions. They were asked first after all!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If they are too hard, just say so, no one will think the better of you, whatever the answer!

Adamant, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

Not here its not Stratos.

You obviously haven't been here long enough

Stratos wrote on Nov 24^th, 2014 at 4:25pm:

Adamant, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

He made the "claim" why is unable to prove it?

I stated>

You have a very simplistic view on life Brian. Your viewpoint appears to be 1984 style, Muslims good, everything else bad.

Halal certification has long been linked to terror funding along with zakat\remittances.

Do you think we should be made to fund terrorism, muslim Brian.

Its time he fessed up!

After his long winded obfuscation on the matter I asked>

You made the claim Prove it Brian!

Brian Ross wrote Yesterday at 6:20pm:

Only Islamophobes seem to get their knickers in a twist over the issue.  Funny that. 


Funny how you are allowed to make outrageous assumptions based on your muslim belief syndrome.

How about this as a truth.

I do not wish my food to be blessed by a Jew or a Muslim. I do not wish my food to be increased in price because of some despotic religion based on the beheading of non muslims, nor do I accept that a non Government entity has the right to impose a tax on companies (that is extortion).

I want ALL people that believe in Kosher/Halal to pay for ALL the COST of compliance.

What do you reckon muslim Brian.

He is unable to answer a question Stratos, he hides behind his ignorance, it is his shield, his dummy, he is so insular in his beliefs, comprehending facts is an untenable thought.

Why do I have to pander to his questions, but he refuses to log mine in?

Answer. He is ignorant.

Perhaps that is why his wife left him? ( He stated it)

Don't get your sock puppets out next time Brian, just answer the questions.

Adamant wrote on Nov 24^th, 2014 at 5:33pm:

Halal certification has long been linked to terror funding along with zakat\remittances.

This is claim.

Now verify it.

Adamant wrote on Nov 24^th, 2014 at 3:51pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 24th, 2014 at 12:02am: Adamant wrote on Nov 23rd, 2014 at 7:27pm: Brian Ross wrote on Nov 23rd, 2014 at 6:55pm: Adamant, you're yet to provide any evidence of Halal certification in Australia being linked to Terrorism funding here or overseas. Are you all right Brian? Perfectly fine, Adamant. You presented any evidence yet?  No, it doesn't seem so. How unsurprising.    ::) If you are "Perfectly fine" when do you intend to answer my questions. They were asked first after all!!!!!!!!!!!!! If they are too hard, just say so, no one will think the better of you, whatever the answer!

Ask them politely and I may consider answering them, Adamant.  At the moment, you're in the naughty corner, soon to be outside on the naughty step with DL.    ;D

Stratos wrote on Nov 24^th, 2014 at 5:50pm:

Adamant wrote on Nov 24th, 2014 at 5:33pm: Halal certification has long been linked to terror funding along with zakat\remittances. This is claim. Now verify it.

Adamant has already stated that his source is George Christensen - who has admitted himself that he has no evidence for any link. He just dishonestly implied that there was because he can't prove that there isn't a link.

Soren wrote on Nov 21^st, 2014 at 8:36am:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 21st, 2014 at 12:04am: Campaign to boycott Halal food gains momentum in Australia after yoghurt company ditches certification Islamophobia rears it's ugly head.   ::) How is boycotting halal different from boycotting, say, fur, factory farming, bear baiting or sweat shop products?

Because people who boycott fur, factory farming, bear baiting or sweat shop products do so based on concern for animal welfare or human welfare.

People who want to boycott halal yoghurt - the production of which does not harm animals or people - are simply narrow-minded bigots.

Rabbit is it inconceivable to you that someone might have a perfectly good reason for boycotting halal?

freediver wrote on Nov 24^th, 2014 at 7:44pm:

Rabbit is it inconceivable to you that someone might have a perfectly good reason for boycotting halal?

Freediver, did you find any data about the effect of halal certification on consumer prices?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1399946272/120#120

Stratos wrote on Nov 24^th, 2014 at 5:50pm:

Adamant wrote on Nov 24th, 2014 at 5:33pm: Halal certification has long been linked to terror funding along with zakat/remittances. This is claim. Now verify it.

Read the thread, you may gain insight? Then again, who knows? For your inability I
proffer/


Adamant wrote on Nov 21^st, 2014 at 7:48pm:

Do you enjoy being an apologist for Islamic terrorism, by paying a tax that is nothing more than extortion. The Italian mafia resorts to this sort of tactic, you agree with that I suppose!

No comment on that from Brian who first made the stupid claim of islamophobia!!!!


Brian Ross wrote on Nov 21^st, 2014 at 10:38pm:

Caliph adamant wrote on Nov 21st, 2014 at 8:01pm:gandalf wrote on Nov 21st, 2014 at 7:43pm:Rubbish. Prove it. I have already,  Where?

I do hope the stupid mans little stupid face shows up in that quote!


Adamant wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2014 at 11:23am:

UAE calling the kettle black.It was noted in a cable that UAE-based donors have provided financial support to a variety of terrorist groups, including al-Qa'ida, the Taliban, LeT and other terrorist groups. They also fund Hamas.[11]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contents_of_the_United_States_diplomatic_cables_lea...UAE calls 15 Muslim groups in the West “terrorists”In addition to the IRW designation, the UAE named 15 other Islamic charities and advocacy groups in the U.S. and Europe as terrorist entities:•Islamic Relief UK (the British affiliate of IRW)•Muslim Association of Britain (part of the U.K. Muslim Brotherhood)•Cordoba Foundation in Britain (once described by David Cameron as a Muslim Brotherhood front group)•Council on American-Islamic Relations (the self-described civil rights group which was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation Hamas-financing trial)•Muslim American Society (which was created by the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood)•Union of Islamic Organizations of France (a French Muslim group tied to the Muslim Brotherhood that profits from halal certification)•Federation of Islamic Organizations in Europe (an alliance financed by Gulf sources with ties to Hamas)•Islamische Gemeinschaft in Deutschland (the “main representative” of the Muslim Brotherhood in Germany)•Associazione Musulmani Italiani (Italian Muslim Association)•League of Muslims in Belgium (La Ligue des Musulmans de Belgique)•Muslim Association of Sweden (Sveriges muslimska förbund)•Islamic Society in Denmark (Islamsk Trossamfund)•Islamic Council Norway (Islamsk Rad Norge)•Finnish Islamic Association (Suomen Islam-seurakunta)•CANVAS in Belgrade, Serbiahttps://moneyjihad.wordpress.com/2014/11/17/worlds-biggest-islamic-charity-brand..."The halal food movement in France was troublesome enough when we learned that a secret embedded Islamic tax was being added to each sale.  But CBN reported yesterday that it’s worse than that, because France’s $7 billion halal food industry has links to the Muslim Brotherhood.  Buying halal food doesn’t just mean a deeper penetration of sharia into the West–it could mean that a portion of the purchase price ends in the pockets of Muslim Brotherhood cohorts".https://moneyjihad.wordpress.com/2011/01/06/muslim-brotherhood-nets-halal-tax-re...

I have pointed out other sites within this topic, read for your, something or other?

Money laundering and terrorism financing risks posed by alternative remittance in Australia
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/rpp/100-120/rpp106.html

Plenty more insight into terror funding on that site, if you wish to know that is!

We have a terror funding site that ALL THE CHRISTIANOPHOBES HATE
Muslim Brian is particularly disdainful of it!!!!!!!!

https://moneyjihad.wordpress.com/tag/halal/

He will not even acknowledge its existence!!!!!! Even tho I gave him a link!!!!!!!!!

What about this just to cap it off.

http://terrorfinance.typepad.com/

Muslims do not believe they have a problem, after you have read the above, I do hope you are not with them!

On a side note CAIR ( major muslim org in America) has stated that Zakat can be used for jihad. Do you understand that?

So your answer to


Stratos wrote on Nov 24^th, 2014 at 7:51pm:

did you find any data about the effect of halal certification on consumer prices?

is no i'm guessing, seeing as you have not found a single example

You have provided no information apart from your own personal assumptions and expectations.  Congratulations then on being on par with Creationists with your reasoning.

Stratos wrote on Nov 24^th, 2014 at 8:22pm:

So your answer to Stratos wrote on Nov 24th, 2014 at 7:51pm: did you find any data about the effect of halal certification on consumer prices? is no i'm guessing, seeing as you have not found a single example You have provided no information apart from your own personal assumptions and expectations.

Sorry, are you saying the thoughts of decent white people don’t count as evidence?

That’s racist. It’s just the sort of thing the Muslims are trying to do to us.

If you charge a company a fee for doing business, that incorporate it into the price of their goods and pass it into customers. It takes a special dedication to rejecting reality to pass something so simple and obvious off as my "own personal assumptions and expectations"

Adamant wrote on Nov 24^th, 2014 at 8:19pm:

Read the thread, you may gain insight?

I have.  Haven't been shown anything remotely convincing.  Lets have a look at your latest offerings:


Adamant wrote on Nov 24^th, 2014 at 8:19pm:

Money laundering and terrorism financing risks posed by alternative remittance in Australia http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/rpp/100-120/rpp106.html

Are you aware of what remittance is?  In what is the most generally used definition, that would not apply to companies, but individuals.


Adamant wrote on Nov 24^th, 2014 at 8:19pm:

https://moneyjihad.wordpress.com/tag/halal/

Every single "reference" is to the writers own blog.  Not even trying.  I watched the video too, no sources at all.


Adamant wrote on Nov 24^th, 2014 at 8:19pm:

http://terrorfinance.typepad.com/

and this link is broken.

freediver wrote on Nov 24^th, 2014 at 8:36pm:

If you charge a company a fee for doing business, that incorporate it into the price of their goods and pass it into customers.

Congratulation on forming a hypothesis.  Now how about you go out and look for information that either proves or disproves it?


freediver wrote on Nov 24^th, 2014 at 8:36pm:

It takes a special dedication to rejecting reality to pass something so simple and obvious off as my "own personal assumptions and expectations"

Ok then Freediver, what are you basing your assumptions on?  Because it can't be evidence.  If you were basing it on evidence then surely you would be keen to share it with the other children.

Stratos wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 10:15pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 23rd, 2014 at 9:39pm: Oh that. That is economics. Or just plain old common sense. The government charges a business a fee for doing business. That fee gets passed onto customers. Prices go up. Is there anything in particular you disagree with here? Perhaps you'd like to hire a forensic accountant to prove the bleeding obvious? Common sense tells me not to blindly accept any claim made by anyone, but to base what I know on evidence.

You are also allowed to think for yourself Stratos. If you want to get really technical, you can call it a thought experiment. Perhaps you can tell us what you think would happen to the retail price if a government charged a company a fee for the privilege of doing business with them.


Quote:

Someone could suggest  that the new increased market share they get from selling halal products would be greater than the cost of certification.

It would be, otherwise they would not certify. That however does not mean that the cost of certification doesn't push up the price.


Quote:

Doesn't make it true however, as I have not seen any evidence to support it.

You have stratos. You just cannot see the evidence for what it is. The fact that these companies pay their fees is strong, pretty much irrefutable evidence that they are getting something in return, of more value than the fee.


Quote:

If this is really effecting prices then surely there is evidence of it.

Of course. The fact that they are being charged fees is strong evidence that prices are being affected. If on the other hand you expect KFC to give you a breakdown of the million and one separate expenses, including the different expenses of each of their suppliers, that go into a zinger, then no, you never will see the evidence. But this is OK, as most people are more than comfortable thinking for themselves. You should try it some time.



polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 10:34pm:

umm we're talking about the domestic chicken market - not packaged beef exported to Indonesia.

Same principle Gandalf. If it costs them money, they will pass the cost on to the consumer, regardless of what their PR department says. Also, the beef industry does not have separated certification for packaged exports, and I expect the chicken industry is the same.


Quote:

Before we go any further, please provide evidence that a) Baida (owner of Steggles) are being charged "extortion" halal certification fees and b) the fees are being passed on to the consumer - as you claimed. Lame references to economic theory doesn't cut it.

Of course they don't. The first step to becoming a Muslim is abandoning common sense, economic theory, and any form of knowledge not invented by Muhammed, right?


Quote:

I just hope you use the same logic to argue why companies adopting gluten-free labeling or heart foundation labeling drives up the price of - everything.

Somehow I doubt they are charged the same sort of fees for the privilege, but yes you are right - the costs will be passed onto consumers. Only a naive fool would suggest otherwise.


Quote:

You don't have a damn clue what fees domestic chicken factories pay - again we are not talking about Beef exports to Indonesia.

I don't have to know what they are to know that they are passed onto the consumer Gandalf. That is the advantage of being able to think for yourself, rather than relying on 'evidence' like press releases from PR departments.

freediver wrote on Nov 24^th, 2014 at 7:41pm:

gandalf wrote Yesterday at 10:34pm: umm we're talking about the domestic chicken market - not packaged beef exported to Indonesia. Same principle Gandalf.

No, the beef case was a unique scenario in which a foreign importer was attempting to extort the producers for the privilege of entering their market. You dishonestly (or more likely didn't bother to check your facts) applied this scenario to the domestic chicken market as if they are the same - when in fact they are completely unrelated - and falsely assumed they too are charged "extortionist" fees when in reality you don't have a damn clue what they are charged.


freediver wrote on Nov 24^th, 2014 at 7:41pm:

I don't have to know what they are to know that they are passed onto the consumer Gandalf. That is the advantage of being able to think for yourself

It isn't a given that every single cost is passed on to the consumer, and of course a determining factor will be how much the cost is. You are viewing this in an extremely rigid and narrow way - (which of course is a total surprise in a discussion related to islam). Strictly speaking, a production cost that allows the producer to enter a more lucrative market and reap far more back in profit, isn't a cost at all. And that is exactly the argument used by the chicken industry itself. You assume they are lying, which is fine, but in the absense of any evidence, there is no reason to disbelieve them, and as usual, its incumbent upon you to back up your claims.

The last 2 Posts were moved here from Islam by gandalf.

Stratos wrote on Nov 24^th, 2014 at 8:39pm:

Adamant wrote on Nov 24th, 2014 at 8:19pm: Read the thread, you may gain insight? I have.  Haven't been shown anything remotely convincing.  Lets have a look at your latest offerings: Adamant wrote on Nov 24th, 2014 at 8:19pm: Money laundering and terrorism financing risks posed by alternative remittance in Australia http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/rpp/100-120/rpp106.html Are you aware of what remittance is?  In what is the most generally used definition, that would not apply to companies, but individuals. Adamant wrote on Nov 24th, 2014 at 8:19pm: https://moneyjihad.wordpress.com/tag/halal/ Every single "reference" is to the writers own blog.  Not even trying.  I watched the video too, no sources at all. Adamant wrote on Nov 24th, 2014 at 8:19pm: http://terrorfinance.typepad.com/ and this link is broken.

I posted a 8.19pm, in the interim you posted to another, posted back at 8.39 having fully digested what our government had to say and reading all the other information given?  The fact that the other link is broken only proves incompetence on a persons part for if they were a capable individual they would/could fix it!

What would you believe of a person like that Stratos?

The Commonwealth Bank has admitted to funding terrorism thru remittances, are you capable of understanding what that means?

Your response seems to be somewhat BIASED regarding

https://moneyjihad.wordpress.com/2014/09/21/islamic-relief-gave-118k-to-terror-linked-groups/ 

Hit the link stating "2013 tax return",

Now be fair, demand answers of Brian Ross, or his sock puppet, gandy!

Adamant wrote on Nov 24^th, 2014 at 9:20pm:

The Commonwealth Bank has admitted to funding terrorism thru remittances, are you capable of understanding what that means?

What definition of remittence are you using here?  Because by the definition I am aware of, the main thing is the distinct lack of a bank.  In fact, this is stated in the government report you posted.

Quote:

Strictly speaking, a production cost that allows the producer to enter a more lucrative market and reap far more back in profit, isn't a cost at all.

Islamic logic at it's best. All costs are borne with the expectation there will be a reward for them. This does not mean it is not a cost.

freediver wrote on Nov 24^th, 2014 at 9:36pm:

This does not mean it is not a cost.

No indeed it does not, as no evidence has been shown to demonstrate such a proposal.  Perhaps you would like to demonstrate what evidence has led to your conclusion that halal certification is raising costs for consumers?

Sure. There's nothing more I enjoy than proving the bleeding obvious to people who refuse to think for themselves.

But at least you are one step ahead of Gandalf.

Bleeding obvious being things like you are repeatedly making assertion with zero evidence to support them?

Like asking you to think for yourself. That really is all it takes stratos.

freediver wrote on Nov 24^th, 2014 at 9:36pm:

Quote: Strictly speaking, a production cost that allows the producer to enter a more lucrative market and reap far more back in profit, isn't a cost at all. Islamic logic at it's best. All costs are borne with the expectation there will be a reward for them. This does not mean it is not a cost.

It also doesn't mean that all costs are passed on to the consumer by default.

freediver wrote on Nov 24^th, 2014 at 9:48pm:

Like asking you to think for yourself. That really is all it takes stratos.

I think a lot of things Freediver, but that doesn't automatically make them true, or lead me to make conclusions based on ignorance.

In another age, you could use such ignorant conclusions to condemn Galileo for showing the earth was round.

Stratos wrote on Nov 24^th, 2014 at 10:04pm:

that doesn't automatically make them true

Oh thats easy fixed Stratos - you just need to call it "bleeding obvious" or "common sense", and you can make anything automatically true. And then just throw around the useful term "muslim logic" whenever confronted with requests to provide actual evidence.

are hot cross buns Halal I wonder

ian wrote on Nov 24^th, 2014 at 10:20pm:

are hot cross buns Halal I wonder

Apparently they are.  I read an article that a bunch of Christians were pissed at it.

To be honest, the real trick would be making something like a spiced bun NOT halal.  Maybe it could be made with sows milk or something.

Still haven't seen any evidence about Australian Halal certification funding Terrorism.   Looks like its just the usual Islamophobic bullshit to me.   ::)

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 24^th, 2014 at 9:55pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 24th, 2014 at 9:36pm: Quote: Strictly speaking, a production cost that allows the producer to enter a more lucrative market and reap far more back in profit, isn't a cost at all. Islamic logic at it's best. All costs are borne with the expectation there will be a reward for them. This does not mean it is not a cost. It also doesn't mean that all costs are passed on to the consumer by default.

Yes they are. That is how businesses work. They pass on all costs - every single one - then charge even more on top of that to make a profit.


Quote:

I think a lot of things Freediver, but that doesn't automatically make them true, or lead me to make conclusions based on ignorance. In another age, you could use such ignorant conclusions to condemn Galileo for showing the earth was round.

In this example you are the one demanding proof that the earth is round. This is not some controversial, undecided issue. This is the bleeding obvious, and you are demanding people hold your hand and walk you through it.

freediver wrote on Nov 25^th, 2014 at 8:26am:

This is not some controversial, undecided issue. This is the bleeding obvious, and you are demanding people hold your hand and walk you through it.

So demonstrate it

If it is as obviously clear cut as you are making out, then surely you could have found a lonely example of it.

freediver wrote on Nov 25^th, 2014 at 8:26am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 24th, 2014 at 9:55pm: freediver wrote on Nov 24th, 2014 at 9:36pm: Quote: Strictly speaking, a production cost that allows the producer to enter a more lucrative market and reap far more back in profit, isn't a cost at all. Islamic logic at it's best. All costs are borne with the expectation there will be a reward for them. This does not mean it is not a cost. It also doesn't mean that all costs are passed on to the consumer by default. Yes they are. That is how businesses work. They pass on all costs - every single one - then charge even more on top of that to make a profit.

Just out of curiousity, FD, what happens when the costs are an investment that generate profits?

Like, say, a food company spending money on certification costs to obtain a contract with an airline?

What happens then?

freediver wrote on Nov 25^th, 2014 at 8:26am:

Yes they are. That is how businesses work. They pass on all costs - every single one - then charge even more on top of that to make a profit.

What nonsense. FD logic at its best.

Businesses make decisions to absorb costs all the time, its so common that we even have a term for it: absorbing costs:


Quote:

absorb Business:cost not passed on to a customer

http://www.allbusiness.com/glossaries/absorb/4943159-1.html


its dependent on a whole host of market factors - and yes, including the profit opportunities that the short term cost provides. To get an idea of how absurd your claim is, its as if you have never heard of big companies undercutting their competitors - to the point where they are willing to operate at a loss in order to gain a monopoly.

Actually, the newpaper FD reads at work has run at a loss since the 1990s. The Australian costs News Ltd almost a hundred million dollars a year.

Socialism, innit.

FD doesn't need those sorts of silly facts K - he thinks for himself.

Stratos wrote on Nov 25^th, 2014 at 9:47am:

freediver wrote on Nov 25th, 2014 at 8:26am: This is not some controversial, undecided issue. This is the bleeding obvious, and you are demanding people hold your hand and walk you through it. So demonstrate it If it is as obviously clear cut as you are making out, then surely you could have found a lonely example of it.

I have demonstrated it. You demanded I demonstrate it some other idiotic way.


Quote:

Just out of curiousity, FD, what happens when the costs are an investment that generate profits?

All business costs can be seen as an investment that generate profits. If they did not generate profits, the businesses would not incur them.


Quote:

Businesses make decisions to absorb costs all the time, its so common that we even have a term for it: absorbing costs:

This merely means that the increase in cost to the customers is not immediate and/or transparent. Businesses "absorb" costs this way constantly - so much so that the sum total of all these "absorbed costs" would more than wipe out their profits, if they were not actually passed on to customers. It is actually the norm rather than the exception for costs to be absorbed in this manner in the short term. No business can predict with decent accuracy what it's total operating costs will be, or what the market forces are going to be. Rather, they react to historical operating costs and market conditions, often with significant lags, and do their best to accommodate what they think future trends will most likely be. Most businesses only alter their prices very irregularly - eg once a year. This does not mean that they genuinely absorb all the variations in costs throughout the year. It means that they do a rough job of keeping up with them.

It is simply stupid and naive to conclude from all this that Halal certification fees are not passed onto consumers, and is the sort of misleading bullshit you would expect from Muslims trying to justify the immoral behaviour of fellow Muslims.

freediver wrote on Nov 25^th, 2014 at 7:49pm:

It is simply stupid and naive....

You do yourself no favours backing yourself into a corner like this. Whats "stupid and naive" is your simplistic and rigid "never ever" views on such an issue that is in reality far more complicated - and hysterically lash out at anything that questions this as "typical muslim logic".


freediver wrote on Nov 25^th, 2014 at 7:49pm:

Rather, they react to historical operating costs and market conditions

Absolutely they react to "market conditions", yet curiously, after mentioning this once here you then go on and attribute any and all cost absorption to nothing more than "doing a rough job at keeping up with them" - and that they will inevitably catch up on them later. An example of reacting to market conditions would be if they decide that some increase in production costs need to be absorbed and their profit margin decreased in order to sustain their share of the market. There are a whole host of reasons why businesses might opt to absorb increases in production costs. In the case of baida there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for them doing it - namely that the small (not the "extortionist" Indonesian fees you incorrectly attributed originally) certification fee is paid back in spades by their access into the muslim market. This is the very claim made by the industry itself - and it is a reasonable claim, and no reason not to believe it.

freediver wrote on Nov 25^th, 2014 at 7:49pm:

Stratos wrote on Nov 25th, 2014 at 9:47am: freediver wrote on Nov 25th, 2014 at 8:26am: This is not some controversial, undecided issue. This is the bleeding obvious, and you are demanding people hold your hand and walk you through it. So demonstrate it If it is as obviously clear cut as you are making out, then surely you could have found a lonely example of it. I have demonstrated it. You demanded I demonstrate it some other idiotic way. Quote: Just out of curiousity, FD, what happens when the costs are an investment that generate profits? All business costs can be seen as an investment that generate profits. If they did not generate profits, the businesses would not incur them. [quote]Businesses make decisions to absorb costs all the time, its so common that we even have a term for it: absorbing costs:

This merely means that the increase in cost to the customers is not immediate and/or transparent. Businesses "absorb" costs this way constantly .[/quote]

Ah.

Quote:

You do yourself no favours backing yourself into a corner like this. Whats "stupid and naive" is your simplistic and rigid "never ever" views on such an issue that is in reality far more complicated - and hysterically lash out at anything that questions this as "typical muslim logic".

You are wrong. Your argument is stupid, and you only make it because it is on behalf of fellow Muslims screwing people over.


Quote:

Absolutely they react to "market conditions", yet curiously, after mentioning this once here you then go on and attribute any and all cost absorption to nothing more than "doing a rough job at keeping up with them" - and that they will inevitably catch up on them later.

Or prior. Businesses are obviously going to factor in some level of unexpected future costs into prices.


Quote:

An example of reacting to market conditions would be if they decide that some increase in production costs need to be absorbed and their profit margin decreased in order to sustain their share of the market.

You are conflating two separate decisions Gandalf. Profit margins will only be decreased if a benefit in total profits as a result is anticipated. Those total profits will inevitably take into account all costs incurred. Costs also will only be incurred if there is a net benefit. These are two separate decisions based on separate criteria. This BS about allocating one particular cost to the decreased margin is either a childishly naive view on how businesses are run, or deliberate BS spin.

freediver wrote on Nov 25^th, 2014 at 7:49pm:

I have demonstrated it.

"But we stay still and the sun moves Galileo! It's just common sense!

Statos that is hardly convincing coming from the person who rejects thinking for himself as a matter of principle.

freediver wrote on Nov 25^th, 2014 at 10:05pm:

Statos that is hardly convincing coming from the person who rejects thinking for himself as a matter of principle.

Freediver, all I am asking is for a single example that correlates with what you have said, and you have not provided it.

If you want to believe things on blind faith like some kind of religious zealot that's fine, but like any Jehovas Witness who knocks on my door, don't expect me to believe a word you say unless you can provide me with evidence.

freediver wrote on Nov 25^th, 2014 at 9:38pm:

Quote: You do yourself no favours backing yourself into a corner like this. Whats "stupid and naive" is your simplistic and rigid "never ever" views on such an issue that is in reality far more complicated - and hysterically lash out at anything that questions this as "typical muslim logic". You are wrong. Your argument is stupid, and you only make it because it is on behalf of fellow Muslims screwing people over. [quote]Absolutely they react to "market conditions", yet curiously, after mentioning this once here you then go on and attribute any and all cost absorption to nothing more than "doing a rough job at keeping up with them" - and that they will inevitably catch up on them later.

Or prior. Businesses are obviously going to factor in some level of unexpected future costs into prices.


Quote:

An example of reacting to market conditions would be if they decide that some increase in production costs need to be absorbed and their profit margin decreased in order to sustain their share of the market.

You are conflating two separate decisions Gandalf. Profit margins will only be decreased if a benefit in total profits as a result is anticipated. Those total profits will inevitably take into account all costs incurred. Costs also will only be incurred if there is a net benefit. These are two separate decisions based on separate criteria. This BS about allocating one particular cost to the decreased margin is either a childishly naive view on how businesses are run, or deliberate BS spin.[/quote]

Stupid or mendacious? Mendacious or stupid?

Sometimes a question is just a question.

freediver wrote on Nov 25^th, 2014 at 9:38pm:

Profit margins will only be decreased if a benefit in total profits as a result is anticipated

Say like anticipating more business by entering a previously unavailable market?

Are you now saying there are potential situations when increased production costs won't always necessary translate into higher prices for the consumer?

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 25^th, 2014 at 12:27am:

Still haven't seen any evidence about Australian Halal certification funding Terrorism.   Looks like its just the usual Islamophobic bullshit to me.   ::)

Still waiting to see some...   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 25^th, 2014 at 11:55pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 25th, 2014 at 12:27am: Still haven't seen any evidence about Australian Halal certification funding Terrorism.   Looks like its just the usual Islamophobic bullshit to me.   ::) Still waiting to see some...   ::)

Who takes FD serious anyway.

Apparently the authorities have not yet been able to establish what is happening with the money extorted through this halal crap.
It would be safer to assume it is being assigned to a criminal or terrorist use and immediately make its collection illegal.

bogarde73 wrote on Nov 26^th, 2014 at 10:03am:

Apparently the authorities have not yet been able to establish what is happening with the money extorted through this halal crap. It would be safer to assume it is being assigned to a criminal or terrorist use and immediately make its collection illegal.

On that basis, I have to assume that any money going to Catholics is going to child abuse, so we should make that illegal.

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 25^th, 2014 at 10:51pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 25th, 2014 at 9:38pm: Profit margins will only be decreased if a benefit in total profits as a result is anticipated Say like anticipating more business by entering a previously unavailable market? Are you now saying there are potential situations when increased production costs won't always necessary translate into higher prices for the consumer?

Hang on, haven't we had exactly the same discussion here about two or three times already?

I'm curious.

K all discussions with FD are variations of the same themes...

....over and over and over again

bogarde73 wrote on Nov 26^th, 2014 at 10:03am:

Apparently the authorities have not yet been able to establish what is happening with the money extorted through this halal crap.

Please point to the announcement of this news or is this just an assumption on your part, like most of the bullshit surrounding this issue?   ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D :D :D


Quote:

It would be safer to assume it is being assigned to a criminal or terrorist use and immediately make its collection illegal.

So much for "innocent until proven guilty".  Of course, they are Musselmen so of course they are guilty, right?   ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D :D :D

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Nov 26^th, 2014 at 10:09am:

bogarde73 wrote on Nov 26th, 2014 at 10:03am: Apparently the authorities have not yet been able to establish what is happening with the money extorted through this halal crap. It would be safer to assume it is being assigned to a criminal or terrorist use and immediately make its collection illegal. On that basis, I have to assume that any money going to Catholics is going to child abuse, so we should make that illegal.

Isn't child abuse already illegal?  Do you mean we should stop funds going to the Christian Churches and organisations for their failure to prevent it?  You have my vote!   ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D :D :D

|dev|null wrote on Nov 26^th, 2014 at 2:52pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Nov 26th, 2014 at 10:09am: bogarde73 wrote on Nov 26th, 2014 at 10:03am: Apparently the authorities have not yet been able to establish what is happening with the money extorted through this halal crap. It would be safer to assume it is being assigned to a criminal or terrorist use and immediately make its collection illegal. On that basis, I have to assume that any money going to Catholics is going to child abuse, so we should make that illegal. Isn't child abuse already illegal?

Not for the Muselman. Child rape is perfectly legal for them.

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 25^th, 2014 at 11:55pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 25th, 2014 at 12:27am: Still haven't seen any evidence about Australian Halal certification funding Terrorism.   Looks like its just the usual Islamophobic bullshit to me.   ::) Still waiting to see some...   ::)

There has been evidence of corruption in Islamic school boards, evidence of terrorism funding by Islamic money transfer companies (Sharrouf's family), world-wide evidence of charities being used, knowingly or unknowingly, as vehicles for money laundering and money transfers.
Governments tread very carefully because even inviting Muslims to be part of the TEAM makes them all resentful and victim-like.

But if there was a, say, Royal Commission into the activities of Islamic organisations, all sorts of schemes would come to light.

Islamic terrorism is funded by Muslims - not Jews, Christians, Hindus etc.  Muslims raise money through all sorts of channels, including rackets like halal certification, school funds, charities.  Authorities avoid a close look because any scrutiny would fuel the already excessive victim mentality (a very handy tool for avoiding close scrutiny).

Quote:

Freediver, all I am asking is for a single example that correlates with what you have said, and you have not provided it.

And I explained why. You ignored this, and kept demanding, like a parrot.

freediver wrote on Nov 26^th, 2014 at 8:04pm:

And I explained why. You ignored this, and kept demanding, like a parrot.

Was this the comment where you said it was common sense, or maybe the one where you yourself said there was no data to support your belief?

freediver wrote on Nov 26^th, 2014 at 8:04pm:

Quote: Freediver, all I am asking is for a single example that correlates with what you have said, and you have not provided it. And I explained why. You ignored this, and kept demanding, like a parrot.

How about this one then...


polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 25^th, 2014 at 10:51pm:

freediver wrote Yesterday at 9:38pm: Profit margins will only be decreased if a benefit in total profits as a result is anticipated Say like anticipating more business by entering a previously unavailable market? Are you now saying there are potential situations when increased production costs won't always necessary translate into higher prices for the consumer?

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 2:15pm:

f ucking retarded rhetorical questions

So just so we're clear - there are no situations, ever, when an increased production cost won't result in increased prices for the consumer? - even when profit margins are "decreased if a benefit in total profits as a result is anticipated"?

(hint: this is not a rhetorical question)

Just as a BTW, as far as I can see Aldi does not have any halal rego on its products.
So I guess it won't be a target for the anti-halal warriors .. .lol

Just so we're on the same page FD:


freediver wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 3:18pm:

For the same reason I probably buy Halal food. Most of these extortionist fees are applied at the abattoir level, which allows them to squeeze the entire industry. There are a small number of abattoirs, compared to say the number of farmers or the number of retail outlets. This affects prices across the entire industry. Even if you buy the non-halal product, the price will be influenced (increased) by this extortion. That's what barriers to trade do.

Would you care to revise this claim of yours, in view of the fact that you are now saying there can be situations in which businesses will allow profit magins to decrease (as would be the case if an extra production cost was not passed on to the consumer)? Would you agree that in such a situation "the price will *NOT* be influenced (increased)" by this extra cost?

And there is a clear logical flaw in your argument FD, which as a noted person who "thinks for himself" I'm sure you will understand: this is not a simple matter of comparing the price on the shelf with the production cost and concluding that because the former is invariably more than the latter, all costs are therefore passed on to the consumer. No, your argument as quoted above is that "the price will be influenced (increased)" by the extra cost to production. And this is easily refuted by your own admission that there can be situations when profit margins will be "decreased if a benefit in total profits as a result is anticipated". That is the point of contention here: you are attempting to maintain the position that halal certification fees will always result in a higher price for the consumer - at the same time acknowledging the completely contradictory fact that there can be situations in which increased production costs will be absorbed (in the form of decreased profits) if its expected it will result in an eventual increase in profits (such as entering a previously unavailable market). This is in fact the exact argument being used by the industry itself. You call them liars, but in view of the perfectly reasonable basis for such a claim as described above (call it 'thinking for yourself' if you like), and with absolutely no evidence to support your accusation, you don't have a leg to stand on.

|dev|null wrote on Nov 26^th, 2014 at 2:52pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Nov 26th, 2014 at 10:09am: bogarde73 wrote on Nov 26th, 2014 at 10:03am: Apparently the authorities have not yet been able to establish what is happening with the money extorted through this halal crap. It would be safer to assume it is being assigned to a criminal or terrorist use and immediately make its collection illegal. On that basis, I have to assume that any money going to Catholics is going to child abuse, so we should make that illegal. Isn't child abuse already illegal?  Do you mean we should stop funds going to the Christian Churches and organisations for their failure to prevent it?  You have my vote!   ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D :D :D

I was working on the slippery slope argument, that since we don't know apparently where the halal certification funds go, we shouldnt give them any. By the same token, we don't knwo where Catholic charity/funding goes so we shouldnt give them any,

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Nov 27^th, 2014 at 11:16am:

I was working on the slippery slope argument, that since we don't know apparently where the halal certification funds go,

Do the funds go to the Australian federation of Islamic councils?

Was the AFIC named as the group Islamic schools were diverting government funding for schools to?

Yes Baron, and as FD has already established for us by "thinking for himself", diverting government funding = unquestionably sending funds to terrorists.

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 27^th, 2014 at 12:35pm:

Yes Baron, and as FD has already established for us by "thinking for himself", diverting government funding = unquestionably sending funds to terrorists.

Was the money ever accounted for,where did it go?

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 27^th, 2014 at 9:10am:

So just so we're clear - there are no situations, ever, when an increased production cost won't result in increased prices for the consumer? - even when profit margins are "decreased if a benefit in total profits as a result is anticipated"? (hint: this is not a rhetorical question)

Sometimes a question is just a question.

bogarde73 wrote on Nov 27^th, 2014 at 9:18am:

Just as a BTW, as far as I can see Aldi does not have any halal rego on its products. So I guess it won't be a target for the anti-halal warriors .. .lol

Aldi sells Vegemite.  Vegemite is halal.   ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D

Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 27^th, 2014 at 12:24pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Nov 27th, 2014 at 11:16am: I was working on the slippery slope argument, that since we don't know apparently where the halal certification funds go, Do the funds go to the Australian federation of Islamic councils? Was the AFIC named as the group Islamic schools were diverting government funding for schools to?

One school was.  Did the AFIC actually demand the payments or were they donated voluntarily by the school.  Was anybody from the AFIC charged?

|dev|null wrote on Nov 27^th, 2014 at 3:26pm:

Did the AFIC actually demand the payments or were they donated voluntarily by the school.  Was anybody from the AFIC charged?

The transferred money was for backdated rents. No one is disputing that AFIC wasn't owed this money from the Malik Fahd school, and it was all accounted for and invoiced.

The only 'impropriety' was the fact that the school paid these rents out of the funds allocated by the government (around 10% of their revenue). The fact that the school passed two government audits (one state one federal) into the matter with no criminal investigation or charges following should put the matter to rest, but we all know better don't we?  :P

Still can't figure out what it has to do with Halal certification in Australia though.  Perhaps they're getting desperate to prove their claims?   ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D

AFIC also issues halal certificates. So of course they are guilty - and halal certification is condemned  :P

Ignoring, of course, the fact that AFIC was legitimately charging for rent that was owed to them, and that it was the Malik Fahd school, and not AFIC who was in the wrong (as if AFIC cared from which funds they received the money owed to them)

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Nov 27^th, 2014 at 11:16am:

|dev|null wrote on Nov 26th, 2014 at 2:52pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Nov 26th, 2014 at 10:09am: bogarde73 wrote on Nov 26th, 2014 at 10:03am: Apparently the authorities have not yet been able to establish what is happening with the money extorted through this halal crap. It would be safer to assume it is being assigned to a criminal or terrorist use and immediately make its collection illegal. On that basis, I have to assume that any money going to Catholics is going to child abuse, so we should make that illegal. Isn't child abuse already illegal?  Do you mean we should stop funds going to the Christian Churches and organisations for their failure to prevent it?  You have my vote!   ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D :D :D I was working on the slippery slope argument, that since we don't know apparently where the halal certification funds go, we shouldnt give them any. By the same token, we don't knwo where Catholic charity/funding goes so we shouldnt give them any,

You shouldn't donate money to any charity if you don't know where it is going. That is why Muslims are so keen to compel people to 'donate'.


polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 27^th, 2014 at 9:57am:

Just so we're on the same page FD: freediver wrote on Nov 23rd, 2014 at 3:18pm: For the same reason I probably buy Halal food. Most of these extortionist fees are applied at the abattoir level, which allows them to squeeze the entire industry. There are a small number of abattoirs, compared to say the number of farmers or the number of retail outlets. This affects prices across the entire industry. Even if you buy the non-halal product, the price will be influenced (increased) by this extortion. That's what barriers to trade do. Would you care to revise this claim of yours, in view of the fact that you are now saying there can be situations in which businesses will allow profit magins to decrease (as would be the case if an extra production cost was not passed on to the consumer)? Would you agree that in such a situation "the price will *NOT* be influenced (increased)" by this extra cost? And there is a clear logical flaw in your argument FD, which as a noted person who "thinks for himself" I'm sure you will understand: this is not a simple matter of comparing the price on the shelf with the production cost and concluding that because the former is invariably more than the latter, all costs are therefore passed on to the consumer. No, your argument as quoted above is that "the price will be influenced (increased)" by the extra cost to production. And this is easily refuted by your own admission that there can be situations when profit margins will be "decreased if a benefit in total profits as a result is anticipated". That is the point of contention here: you are attempting to maintain the position that halal certification fees will always result in a higher price for the consumer - at the same time acknowledging the completely contradictory fact that there can be situations in which increased production costs will be absorbed (in the form of decreased profits) if its expected it will result in an eventual increase in profits (such as entering a previously unavailable market). This is in fact the exact argument being used by the industry itself. You call them liars, but in view of the perfectly reasonable basis for such a claim as described above (call it 'thinking for yourself' if you like), and with absolutely no evidence to support your accusation, you don't have a leg to stand on.

Gandalf, the price will always be increased relative to the situation where no fees are required to label a product halal. Given that halal certificates do not actually lower production costs in the way you are hinting with your silly questions, there is no way they can lower prices in an absolute sense.

Furthermore, a company will choose to alter it's profit margins based only on the impact on total profits. It will not do this in an effort to 'absord' a specific cost. Given that it's goal in adjusting profit margins is to maximise total profits, and that total profits musty take total costs into account, it is inevitable that all costs will be passed on. Companies do not adjust the total profits on top of this with some absurd goal of hiding costs in the itnerests of political correctness.

There were several claims on top of this, by both yourself and the spin doctors you quoted, that are misleading or outright lies.


Quote:

Yes Baron, and as FD has already established for us by "thinking for himself", diverting government funding = unquestionably sending funds to terrorists.

Do you have a better explanation? I believe "common thieves" was your only other theory. This probably popped into your head when I kept throwing out the term "respected Muslim community leaders".


Quote:

One school was.  Did the AFIC actually demand the payments or were they donated voluntarily by the school.  Was anybody from the AFIC charged?

It was the same guy on the AFIC and the school board, as I recall. As you would expect, it is a fairly small community of "respected Muslim leaders" shifting all this money around.

Quote:

The only 'impropriety' was the fact that the school paid these rents out of the funds allocated by the government (around 10% of their revenue). The fact that the school passed two government audits (one state one federal) into the matter with no criminal investigation or charges following should put the matter to rest, but we all know better don't we?

If they did nothing wrong, why did they have to give the money back to the government?


Quote:

Still can't figure out what it has to do with Halal certification in Australia though.

You made the claim in another thread that because the government has control over these school funds, we have no reason to be concerned about the fund raised through halal certification rorts.


Quote:

Ignoring, of course, the fact that AFIC was legitimately charging for rent that was owed to them, and that it was the Malik Fahd school, and not AFIC who was in the wrong (as if AFIC cared from which funds they received the money owed to them)

Wasn't it the same people involved on both sides?

freediver wrote on Nov 27^th, 2014 at 7:33pm:

Gandalf, the price will always be increased relative to the situation where no fees are required to label a product halal. Given that halal certificates do not actually lower production costs in the way you are hinting with your silly questions, there is no way they can lower prices in an absolute sense. Furthermore, a company will choose to alter it's profit margins based only on the impact on total profits. It will not do this in an effort to 'absord' a specific cost. Given that it's goal in adjusting profit margins is to maximise total profits, and that total profits musty take total costs into account, it is inevitable that all costs will be passed on. Companies do not adjust the total profits on top of this with some absurd goal of hiding costs in the itnerests of political correctness.

Thats well done FD - I didn't think you would miss the point quite so expertly, but as always you exceed expectations.

Who was talking about lowering production costs? No one - you made it up all by your little self - just now. I was however talking about certification enabling them to enter an otherwise unavailable market and thereby increasing profits, and thus making good business sense. But you please go on with your little fantasy that all I'm talking about is  "hiding costs in the interests of political correctness", if nothing else you are the master of reducing everything to inane catchphrases.

If you weren't so dishonestly creating strawmen and twisting this into something that its not (lowering production costs, all about political correctness) - you would have no choice but to agree this could quite easily be the exact situation you yourself acknowledged: a business willing to reduce profit margins in anticipation of greater profits down the track. Thus making your claim that these halal certification costs are always, absolutely, never-ever going to increase the price of chicken the baseless and illogical crap that it is.


freediver wrote on Nov 27^th, 2014 at 7:33pm:

Do you have a better explanation? I believe "common thieves" was your only other theory.

You are seriously asking why you need to back up a baseless claim. Yes you are. Did you ever stop to ask yourself why the federal police are not investigating something that you are claiming is such an open-shut case - even after two government audits into the matter?

Soren wrote on Nov 26^th, 2014 at 7:15pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 25th, 2014 at 11:55pm: Brian Ross wrote on Nov 25th, 2014 at 12:27am: Still haven't seen any evidence about Australian Halal certification funding Terrorism.   Looks like its just the usual Islamophobic bullshit to me.   ::) Still waiting to see some...   ::) There has been evidence of corruption in Islamic school boards, evidence of terrorism funding by Islamic money transfer companies (Sharrouf's family), world-wide evidence of charities being used, knowingly or unknowingly, as vehicles for money laundering and money transfers. Governments tread very carefully because even inviting Muslims to be part of the TEAM makes them all resentful and victim-like. But if there was a, say, Royal Commission into the activities of Islamic organisations, all sorts of schemes would come to light. Islamic terrorism is funded by Muslims - not Jews, Christians, Hindus etc.  Muslims raise money through all sorts of channels, including rackets like halal certification, school funds, charities.  Authorities avoid a close look because any scrutiny would fuel the already excessive victim mentality (a very handy tool for avoiding close scrutiny).

And all of this has what to do with Halal Certification in Australia, Soren?

If you don't have any evidence might it not be better to keep your trap shut and not remove any doubt that you're a bigoted Islamophobe?

So, anybody got any evidence to support the contention that Halal Certification in Australia is funding Terrorism (either here or overseas)?  Any hard, actual, real evidence and not supposition or innuendo or rumour?

Didn't think so.   ::)

Quote:

Who was talking about lowering production costs? No one - you made it up all by your little self - just now.

Well that's what happens when you ask stupid rhetorical questions. That's what the western economy has been doing for centuries - making new investments (costs) that lower the unit price. Obviously this is different from costs give nothing in return but a piece of paper.


Quote:

I was however talking about certification enabling them to enter an otherwise unavailable market and thereby increasing profits, and thus making good business sense.

And I did address this directly.


Quote:

You are seriously asking why you need to back up a baseless claim. Yes you are. Did you ever stop to ask yourself why the federal police are not investigating something that you are claiming is such an open-shut case - even after two government audits into the matter?

I have no idea what they are investigating. Are you privy to ongoing federal police investigations? I know you seem to think that not being privy to them is a far greater threat to our freedom of speech than Muslims hacking the head off people who insult the profit. But I do know that they were forced to give the money back to the government, which would not have happened if they had done nothing wrong.


Quote:

And all of this has what to do with Halal Certification in Australia, Soren?

It is the same people involved Brian. They will steal from their own children.

freediver wrote on Nov 28^th, 2014 at 7:56pm:

Quote: And all of this has what to do with Halal Certification in Australia, Soren? It is the same people involved Brian. They will steal from their own children.

Really, FD?  Why haven't you reported this to the Federal Police?    ::) ::)

freediver wrote on Nov 28^th, 2014 at 7:56pm:

Well that's what happens when you ask stupid rhetorical questions.

No, thats what happens when you construct strawmen - ie:


freediver wrote on Nov 27^th, 2014 at 7:33pm:

Gandalf, the price will always be increased relative to the situation where no fees are required to label a product halal. Given that halal certificates do not actually lower production costs in the way you are hinting

I "hinted" no such thing, you invented that false argument so you could knock it down. Thats what we call constructing a strawman.

The question is whether the increase in production costs (such as purchasing halal certification) are a) always automatically passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices as you insist or b) could be absorbed by the producers in anticipation for higher profits as a result of accessing a previously unavailable market that certification enables. This is in fact that an eminently sensible and logical position that you must reject if you are going to remain consistent with your ill-thought out original position - even while you directly contradict yourself by conceding that scenario b is a perfectly reasonable possibility.


freediver wrote on Nov 28^th, 2014 at 7:56pm:

And I did address this directly.

Indeed you did - when you said that production costs may be absorbed if there is an anticipation for a subsequent increase in profits

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 28^th, 2014 at 10:55pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 28th, 2014 at 7:56pm: Quote: And all of this has what to do with Halal Certification in Australia, Soren? It is the same people involved Brian. They will steal from their own children. Really, FD?  Why haven't you reported this to the Federal Police?    ::) ::)

Well?

It's remarkable isn't it how these unerring detective skills don't seem to extend to actual reporting of these supposedly detected crimes...   ::)

FD's response: "can you prove the police are not investigating these claims??"

If people like Brian want me to explain why the federal police are not investigating something, it is up to them to first demonstrate that this is in fact the case. Otherwise it is just another


polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 2:15pm:

f ucking retarded rhetorical question

Quote:

I "hinted" no such thing, you invented that false argument so you could knock it down. Thats what we call constructing a strawman.

Like I just finished explaining Gandalf, that is how I interpreted your stupid rhetorical question. It is not a false argument, it is simply how our economy works. It is not my fault if this never occurred to you while composing the question.

freediver wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2014 at 8:45am:

It is not a false argument, it is simply how our economy works

Maybe if it is how our economy works you could find a solitary example of what you claim?

freediver wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2014 at 8:45am:

Like I just finished explaining Gandalf, that is how I interpreted your stupid rhetorical question. It is not a false argument, it is simply how our economy works

How our economy works:


polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 1^st, 2014 at 1:50pm:

The question is whether the increase in production costs (such as purchasing halal certification) are a) always automatically passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices as you insist or b) could be absorbed by the producers in anticipation for higher profits as a result of accessing a previously unavailable market that certification enables. This is in fact that an eminently sensible and logical position that you must reject if you are going to remain consistent with your ill-thought out original position - even while you directly contradict yourself by conceding that scenario b is a perfectly reasonable possibility.

And here is the statement that FD is falling over himself to try and abandon:


freediver wrote on Nov 25^th, 2014 at 9:38pm:

Profit margins will only be decreased if a benefit in total profits as a result is anticipated. Those total profits will inevitably take into account all costs incurred. Costs also will only be incurred if there is a net benefit.

FD, in view of the above statement, in regards to the domestic chicken market, would you care to revise your previous claim that:


freediver wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 3:18pm:

Even if you buy the non-halal product, the price will be influenced (increased) by this extortion.

?

Given that you don't have a damn clue how much Baida pays for certification, and in view of your (sensible) statement about the possibility that profit margins could be decreased "if a benefit in total profits as a result is anticipated", and that Baida entering a previously unavailable market may well represent such an anticipated benefit - will you now concede that your insistence that halal certification costs will always, absolutely, never-ever, have the effect of increasing the price of chicken for the consumer - is nothing but baseless and prejudiced crap?

Gandalf, you and the apologists spent a fair chunk of this thread arguing that there is no way a company would produce two separate product lines - one halal and one non-halal - because it would waste money and push up prices.

And if you know what it costs, why don't you say?

freediver wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2014 at 1:17pm:

And if you know what it costs, why don't you say?

I don't, and thats not the point. The point is you stumbling over yourself trying to convince us that on the one hand halal certification will always, absolutely, never-ever drive the price of meat up - while on the other hand acknowledging that there are some situations in which producers may be prepared to absorb some costs and reduce their profit margins - if there is an expectation of even higher profits as a result.

Of course I understand that the original claim came from your wrong assumption that Baida purchases its certificates from the same "extortionist" monopolies that operated the frozen beef trade to Indonesia. I'd just like to hear you at least acknowledge this mistake - and agree that your original rant about trade barriers and regional monopolies squeezing the industry is completely irrelevant to the domestic chicken market (whose certification is sourced locally).

Quote:

I don't, and thats not the point.

You made quite a big deal about me not knowing.


Quote:

Of course I understand that the original claim came from your wrong assumption that Baida purchases its certificates from the same "extortionist" monopolies that operated the frozen beef trade to Indonesia.

Wrong. All costs, even the small ones, are passed on.


Quote:

and agree that your original rant about trade barriers and regional monopolies squeezing the industry is completely irrelevant to the domestic chicken market (whose certification is sourced locally)

Well that would depend on the price paid, wouldn't it?

freediver wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2014 at 6:55pm:

You made quite a big deal about me not knowing.

Yes that tends to happen when its you whose making the baseless BS claims, not me.


freediver wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2014 at 6:55pm:

Wrong. All costs, even the small ones, are passed on.

Nice try, but this is the point of contention:


freediver wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2014 at 3:18pm:

Most of these extortionist fees are applied at the abattoir level, which allows them to squeeze the entire industry. There are a small number of abattoirs, compared to say the number of farmers or the number of retail outlets. This affects prices across the entire industry. Even if you buy the non-halal product, the price will be influenced (increased) by this extortion.

We can settle this quite easily - just acknowledge that there are potential situations in which halal certification may not "influence (increase)" the price of meat - such as when this cost enables the producer to enter a previously unavailable market, and thereby give the producer confidence of a subsequent increase in profits as a result - just like the industry itself claims. You know this is a perfectly reasonable proposition - because you admitted it yourself. You just can't bring yourself to acknowledge halal certification might not be the rip-off to customers you've been so determined to portray it as.

It will always increase the cost Gandalf, as already explained countless times. Do you have anything new to add, or are we just repeating ourselves?

freediver wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2014 at 9:03pm:

It will always increase the cost Gandalf, as already explained countless times. Do you have anything new to add, or are we just repeating ourselves?

Are we?

Sorry, I forgot the question.

What was it again?

freediver wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2014 at 9:03pm:

It will always increase the cost Gandalf, as already explained countless times. Do you have anything new to add, or are we just repeating ourselves?

Yes just one thing - its a rubbish circular argument that completely ignores what you yourself acknowledged about the possibility to absorb costs and reduce profit margins (and thereby potentially not affecting the end price).

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2014 at 8:31am:

freediver wrote on Dec 2nd, 2014 at 9:03pm: It will always increase the cost Gandalf, as already explained countless times. Do you have anything new to add, or are we just repeating ourselves? Yes just one thing - its a rubbish circular argument that completely ignores what you yourself acknowledged about the possibility to absorb costs and reduce profit margins (and thereby potentially not affecting the end price).

Aren't all FD's arguments ultimately circular?   ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D :D :D

Quite right HB:

Halal Certification pushes up the price of chicken because.... Halal Certification pushes up the price of chicken

Islam represents a terrorist threat because.... Islam represents a terrorist threat

Islam sux because.... Islam sux

Are you lying or have you simply not understood a single thing I have posted here?

freediver wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2014 at 7:52pm:

Are you lying or have you simply not understood a single thing I have posted here?

FD, your problem is that your credibility is shot.  No one is listening to or believing a word you claim on this (and most other) matter[s].   Your bias is self-evident and your bigotry obvious.  You fail to present any evidence and make the most astounding lies up about people.    ::)

freediver wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2014 at 7:52pm:

Are you lying or have you simply not understood a single thing I have posted here?

Mendacious or stupid? Stupid or mendacious?

Questions questions.

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2014 at 9:50pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 3rd, 2014 at 7:52pm: Are you lying or have you simply not understood a single thing I have posted here? FD, your problem is that your credibility is shot.  No one is listening to or believing a word you claim on this (and most other) matter[s].   Your bias is self-evident and your bigotry obvious.  You fail to present any evidence and make the most astounding lies up about people.    ::)

You don't understand Brian - FD thinks for himself.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2014 at 11:01pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 3rd, 2014 at 9:50pm: freediver wrote on Dec 3rd, 2014 at 7:52pm: Are you lying or have you simply not understood a single thing I have posted here? FD, your problem is that your credibility is shot.  No one is listening to or believing a word you claim on this (and most other) matter[s].   Your bias is self-evident and your bigotry obvious.  You fail to present any evidence and make the most astounding lies up about people.    ::) You don't understand Brian - FD thinks for himself.

Ah.  That explains so much.    ;)

http://www.nationalsecurity.gov.au/Informationforbusiness/Pages/Terrorismfinancing.aspx

Charities and non-profits have been targeted for terrorism financing. Halal certification income is used for charitable and non-profit purposes.

Soren wrote on Dec 4^th, 2014 at 5:14pm:

http://www.nationalsecurity.gov.au/Informationforbusiness/Pages/Terrorismfinancing.aspx Charities and non-profits have been targeted for terrorism financing. Halal certification income is used for charitable and non-profit purposes.

Ah, simplistic logic.  Got to love it Soren.  Problem is, not all Muslim charities and non-profits fund Terrorism.  You're assuming they all do.  Why?  Islamophobia perhaps?   ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D 

|dev|null wrote on Dec 4^th, 2014 at 5:21pm:

Soren wrote on Dec 4th, 2014 at 5:14pm: http://www.nationalsecurity.gov.au/Informationforbusiness/Pages/Terrorismfinancing.aspx Charities and non-profits have been targeted for terrorism financing. Halal certification income is used for charitable and non-profit purposes. Ah, simplistic logic.  Got to love it Soren.  Problem is, not all Muslim charities and non-profits fund Terrorism.  You're assuming they all do.  Why?  Islamophobia perhaps?   ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D

Am I assuming they all do?? Really?

No. I am saying that halal certification income is diffused among charities, schools, other NPOs and these are subject to rorts, fraud, extortion and so on. It's in the report. Not every one. But some are.

Some are. There is also external control of halal certification.


POWERFUL Muslim clerics in Jakarta are raising money for Islamic schools and mosques by forcing Australian businesses to pay an inflated religious levy on meat exports.
The Indonesian Council of Ulama (MUI), the top Islamic body which orders Fatwa religious rulings, is dictating how much Australian companies must pay to have their food certified as Halal, or legal under Islamic law.

In an eyewateringly corrupt place like Indonesia there would be an even more significant exploitation of charities and NPOs for financing radical Islam and terrorists. Islam without borders, what?

Show us the links, Soren.  If you can.  If you can't, piss off.   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 5^th, 2014 at 7:20pm:

Show us the links, Soren.  If you can.  If you can't, piss off.   ::)

Er... I did.  Click on it.


POWERFUL Muslim clerics in Jakarta are raising money for Islamic schools and mosques by forcing Australian businesses to pay an inflated religious levy on meat exports.The Indonesian Council of Ulama (MUI), the top Islamic body which orders Fatwa religious rulings, is dictating how much Australian companies must pay to have their food certified as Halal, or legal under Islamic law.

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 5^th, 2014 at 7:20pm:

Show us the links, Soren.  If you can.  If you can't, piss off.

Soren has proven it.

Why don't you urinate off Brian, also from the stench, I think your bowels have let go! ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

---

Soren wrote on Dec 6^th, 2014 at 4:50pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 5th, 2014 at 7:20pm: Show us the links, Soren.  If you can.  If you can't, piss off.   ::) Er... I did.  Click on it. POWERFUL Muslim clerics in Jakarta are raising money for Islamic schools and mosques by forcing Australian businesses to pay an inflated religious levy on meat exports.The Indonesian Council of Ulama (MUI), the top Islamic body which orders Fatwa religious rulings, is dictating how much Australian companies must pay to have their food certified as Halal, or legal under Islamic law.

No, where is the link to Terrorism funding, Soren?    ::)