The Folly In A Donald Trump Ban

So, the UK is deciding whether or not it will ban Donald Trump from entering the country. They are doing this because, well, Donald Trump is a loud mouth idiot who said he would close America's borders to Muslims if he was elected.

Now, of course, this is a stupid, stupid thing to say. Yes, Donald Trump is an idiot who says stupid, idiotic things.

But here is the deal, and why I think it's pretty hypocritical of the UK to look at banning the guy.

Donald Trump is a loud mouth presidential candidate. He isn't a leader. He's a candidate, and one that most likely will not make it into power.

Meanwhile, the UK is letting in actual leaders with real power from countries like Saudi Arabia or China that have actually DONE far worse than Donald Trump could possibly do. So, this idea of banning a loud mouth for saying stupid things while letting in horrible dictators who have done horrible, horrible things seems to be a waste of time and energy.

I do not like Donald Trump. I believe earlier even I referred to him as an idiot. And yes, indeed, he is an idiot. But isn't a despot. He isn't a brutal dictator. He hasn't sent people to their death for blasphemy. He hasn't sent anyone to any labour camps. He hasn't actually done anything but express a rather stupid, stupid idea.

Seems rather ridiculous to me to rush to ban the guy. Call him out for what he is: an idiot! But, it is completely hypocritical to tell him he can't come in, but openly embrace far more horrible people. 

Why Pressure on Mo Ansar is Important.

I promise, this will be my last Mo Ansar post for a while. Honestly, he is one of my favourite subjects, because I find him so bizarrely fascinating. Here is an absolute fraud (documented over and over), who has invented a persona, trying to worm his way into being some grand community leader for Muslims, wanting his face on any TV screen he can find, screaming "ISLAMOPHOBIA!!!!!" all along the way.

I'm tired of professional victims like Mo. You want to know why there might be tensions between communities? Look no farther than Mo. While he talks about unity and diversity, he also calls almost anyone he can "Islamophobic". He is obsessed with Islamophobia to the point where he has rendered the term pretty much useless, although it was never a good term to begin with. And, the fact that he is doing this while being a complete fraud is a bit too much to bear.

So, why should people keep pressuring Mo? I don't see all of those who tweet about Mo as being trolls (twitter is Mo's main platform above any other for spreading the word of Mo, and he has a good amount of critics who keep on top of him). Some are. But, as someone who has decided he wants to thrust himself into the public eye with such vim and vigour, he has now put himself into a position where he must be held accountable for what he does and says. He wanted his position, and now he must deal with his position.

Like much of what he does, he wants the glory but not have to actually work for it. Defending ones statements in a logical, reasoned way, being held accountable for wrong doings and fraudulent statements, etc goes part in parcel with wanting the fame and recognition. And he definitely fails on this end, acting like a child in the face of criticism as opposed to handling it with any amount of grace and dignity. He cannot handle the criticism or the being held to accountability. That is not Mo's thing. Mo can only handle praise and agreement with him. He can't handle disagreement or criticism.

People like Jeremy Duns have done an excellent job in his criticizing of Mo (perfect example, right here in his blog post) and holding him to a level of account, despite the fact Mo refuses to be held accountable for being the fraud he is. And this pressure is valuable. It is important to have a counter voice to Mo's, someone who is in tune with Mo's ways and can provide the information that Mo leaves out, or completely distorts.

A public figure of any sort needs to be held accountable. If a guy wants to parade himself around as some kind of a noble, wise community leader, wants to be on national television, radio and in newspapers, dispensing his views which usually involve him telling everyone how Islamophobic they are, how horrible Britain and the US are for almost everything, saying that Muslims were in America 500 years before Columbus, trying to represent a religion with a self appointed voice of authority, etc, then this man MUST be held accountable. It is not a matter of should he or shouldn't he. It is a matter of must be. No matter how much he would like his critics to go away, not only won't they, but they must not go away. They must keep on him. They must counter him. They must continue to hold him accountable for his statements and actions. 

Did Tesco Destroy Ramadan?

There appears to be a kerfuffle going on in the UK, although it is a low level one, where a customer spotted Smokey Bacon Pringles on a Ramadan Mubarak promotional display case in a Tesco store.

Now, the retailer has assured that the misplaced Pringles are now off of the display. But some people seem angry that Tesco would screw up so badly and promote Smokey Bacon Pringles as a Ramadan treat! This despite the fact there is no actual bacon in them. Perfectly halal. But, of course, it's the idea that matters.

Anyway, it would appear that the offending tubes of chips were found on the top shelf of the display. From the picture it appears that only about 5 or 6 tubes are there. So, I'm guessing this was a cheeky customer playing a prank as opposed to a major marketing error by Tesco. Yet, some of the news outlets that have reported it have made it out to sound like Tesco was deliberately marketing these deliciously bacony snacks directly to people who generally stay clear of bacon.

Well, the display stand used was provided by Pringles themselves and had a Ramadan Mubarak logo on it (the tubes of Pringles themselves did NOT). Now, it could have been an error by someone in the store, indeed, placing the wrong snacks on the display. But most likely it seems someone was probably playing a joke. It does not appear that Tesco OR Pringles OR anyone else is actually marketing Smokey Bacon Pringles to Muslims. But I guess trumping it up as a case of Tesco purposely wanting Muslims to buy Smokey Bacon Pringles makes it sound far more scandalous than it actually is.

Of course, this is all speculation. They haven't said that they are the ones who set it up as a marketing scheme. They admitted the Pringles were in the wrong place and fixed it. Of course Tesco isn't going to say "Some damn punk kids were playin' around with the Pringles again!". They fixed it, story over really. And no, I would say the number of people truly upset about this is low. And it is just a funny story. In fact, it's darn funny, if you really think about it. Delicious Smokey Bacon Pringles on a Ramadan display? HAHAHA! Oh, the hilarity! No? But, of course, the problem is, it now has me craving Smokey Bacon Pringles. Excuse me while I run to the store...and Ramadan Mubarak!

UPDATE:

I KNEW I should have checked in with my all time favourite Muslim commentator, Mo Ansar, on this! Of course he would have something to say about it. And boy, did he.

Wow, he's really gone overboard on this issue. What was most likely a bit of prank by someone has got Mo saying that there is some kind of massive systematic failure (what system, I don't know), and to make it worse, he uses the hashtag #MuslimLivesMatter, almost as if he is equating this rather humourous display with the killing of innocent unarmed African-American's in the US. He's gone over the top on this one! Who knew that Smokey Bacon Pringles placed on a display stand was that heinous of a crime? You would have to be a Mo Ansar to see it this way. I'm sure if it was up to Mo, and it was the type of society he would want it to be, he would have someone's hand chopped off for this. After all, he doesn't seem interested in condemning the cutting off of limbs as punishment...)

To Halal or Not to Halal

Okay, I found another twitter topic to discuss. Yay. Good ol' twitter. Perfect for writing prompts. The issue this time? Halal vs non halal meat. There has been quite a kurfuful regarding the use of halal meats in the UK by some chain restaurants, which has brought a wide ranging discussion about how meat is slaughtered, the role religion plays in this slaughter and in society as a whole, the desire for people to have halal meat labelled as such and then outright right wing attacks on everything to do with Islam or Muslims (as well as right win religious attacks on all that is of the kufr).

Now, apparently, when the glorious Quran was revealed to everyone's favourite prophet, Mohammed, god had a specific way in which he wanted animals slaughtered. This involved a slitting of the neck of the animal and having a lovely prayer said over the beast. That god. He thought of everything, didn't he?

Some say that halal is a brutal, cruel way of killing an animal because it is not stunned before the life ending procedure. Others say is it more humane because....well, god said it was. Truthfully? I don't see it as being any better or worse than non halal slaughter. In theory, both are supposed to be humane or not humane depending on who is determining this (which is not the animals who aren't able to tell us what they would prefer). Too much of our meat comes from factory farms and mass slaughterhouses that hardly provide animals with a decent life. At the same time, there is a growing desire by people to have their meat prepared in more humane ways, wanting to ensure that it is free range and free of growth hormones. They want a better life for the animals they eat before eating them. So, this desire is growing. People want less brutality, but still love a good burger!

Proponents of halal meat say that their method is the antithesis to the brutality of non halal meat while proponents of non halal meat say their method is the antithesis to the brutality of halal meat. Both are right and both are wrong. On paper, both systems look good. In non halal, animals are supposed to be stunned before slaughter. The fact is, that this can often be botched or not adhered to in the most humane of ways. Likewise, the idea that a quick slice to the throat provides a snappy demise is often not properly adhered to with not sharp enough blades, slightly off slices, etc. In the end, both systems have their flaws and benefits.

The demand in the UK is at least for labelling of halal meat so that people know what they are getting and can decide for themselves. Seems fair and reasonable. Yet, for some reason, there seems to be a backlash against this idea. Why? I have no clue. Just label the stuff. There are others calling for an outright banning of religious slaughter like Denmark did. Is this right? Well, sure, I'm not against it, nor for it. I don't believe some god of some sort gave man the idea of how to slaughter animals. It was a man made idea and it's from 1400 years ago (at least in terms of halal). If we have better methods now, and we know how to kill an animal in a more humane way because, you know, we have evolved in our understanding of the world and the creatures we exist with, then we should go with the best method possible. I'm not sure that halal is necessarily, however, as horrible as some say. Again, not being an animal that is about to have it's throat slit, I have no clue what an animal would prefer.

There seems to be some ridiculousness on all sides. First off, I'm getting a bit tired of the Muslims who are critical of non Muslims who wish to not eat halal meat. I've seen them be called ignorant racists, over reactionaries, etc. At the same time, if Muslims were eating non halal meat that they thought was halal, the outrage would be significant. So, there seems to be a bit of a lack of understanding of peoples desires outside of the Muslim community, dismissing the requests of non Muslims. Basically, I say, if you would refuse to eat non halal meat, don't get mad at people because they don't want to eat halal meat. At the same time, we have people saying this is another case of creeping Sharia and must be fought and using it as another way to be right wing idiots. Whatever. Both sides are kind of clued out.

Basically, the solution is, just label the stuff. Make sure people know what they are consuming. We have/request labels for everything from GMO's, free range, organic, place of origin, quality, etc. I don't understand why labelling halal meat as halal meat as an issue. One person on twitter said that it would open up restaurants and people to attacks and they shouldn't be singled out. Huh? Look, just label the stuff. Nothing wrong with it.

It's interesting though that the fury echoes an experience had when we were living in Qatar. Qatar is a pork free country. You can't even buy proper marshmallows because apparently they contain pork by products. Alcohol could only be purchased at a few select restaurants, and at a store in the industrial area that you had to have a special permit to shop at. The store thought they might import some pork so that people with this permit could indulge. Oh man, the uproar. The store was run by Qatar Airways. There were calls to boycott the airline, and so much furor over the idea that a bit of pork may enter the country. The backlash was immense. There, however, when there is anger like this, it is called asking others to adhere to "cultural sensitivities". When it happens in the UK...it's racism...:) Mind you, I still can't figure out which race Islam is, or what race halal slaughter is associated with.

Russell Brand visited the East London Mosque (guided by non other than our good friend Mo Ansar) the other day and said something to the nature of "If you don't want to eat halal, become a vegetarian not a racist". Again, there seems to be a lack of understanding of the fact that Islam isn't a race. As I have said a million and one times, it is a religion, a set of ideas that are open to disagreement, debate, satire and even outright dislike. It is not, and should never be, immune to criticism. It is a religion. It's not okay to hate Muslims just because they are Muslims. That's hating people. But to hate ideas? Not an issue. The idea of halal meat is just that, an idea within a greater set of ideas of how the world should be. Therefore, it should not be protected. It should be questioned, and struck down if shown to be wrong.

So, the issue of halal vs non halal is complex yet simple as the same time. Let's go with the simple part of this: Just label the stuff. Accept that there are going to be differing opinions. If determined to be a completely inhumane way of dealing with slaughter, then consider banning it. It isn't racist to ban a practise that isn't good. Will people have an issue with it? Of course. But, first and foremost, animal welfare should come first here. At the moment, because I don't know enough because I am not an expert in this field, I say just label it. If there is conclusive evidence that halal slaughter is not a good way to go, then I'm not against banning it. At the same time, I think we should be looking at factory farming and mass slaughter practises as well. There is a huge movement scrutinizing them, so it's not like it is an ignored issue as some on the pro halal side claim. It is an issue and many are working on it. But there is no doubt, that is just as big of an issue as halal meat. Let's just do the best we can for the animals. Label meat so people know the source. And continue to research the best methods to slaughter.

Educating the Masses: London Burns

It was a rough day in London yesterday. Now, I'm not going to pretend that I know everything (or for that matter ANYTHING) about British politics. Most of my knowledge of UK politics comes from British comedians and The Bugle podcast (with one of my all time favourites, Andy Zaltzam. Check it out!).

So, this is what I gather. In the wake of a coalition government being elected (sorta) to run things, something went horribly wrong. Two completely opposing parties somehow shook hands and decided to work together. These are the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats. Okay. I'm writing this more to get things straightened out in my own mind as opposed to trying to give anyone else info. So, Nick Clegg, the leader of the Liberal Democrats ran on a platform of no new university fees (roughly. Please, someone correct me if I am wrong with any of this). So, this platform went down well with students, so, they voted for him. Then he became part of the grand coalition and changed his mind, thinking it wasn't such a good idea after all. Now, of course the world has been in a bit of a financial mess for the past few years and governments everywhere are trying to cut back on spending. This coalition that is running things in the UK is taking this idea to heart and going nuts with their cuts, by the looks of things.

So, yesterday, it was decided that tuition fees would rise from roughly 3000 of those pound things to somewhere around 9000 of those pound things. Now, that is one heck of a crazy increase if you ask me. Apparently this doesn't have to be paid right away. Very nice of them. This is paid back once the grad gets a job that pays enough to be able to get them deep into debt paying this cash back. At least this is what I'm garnering. Cuts to university budgets also seem to be going through which will cut the number of available seats in university classrooms by 6000. That's a whole lot of seats. Think of a game of musical chairs with 6000 seats? Less seats means less opportunity to get into a school that is getting increasingly harder to afford. This just doesn't sound very good all around for students.

And there have been protests. Oh have there been protests. Lots and lots and lots of protests by some very angry students. And rightfully so, although some of the violence that has gone along with it hasn't gone over well with the British public, understandably. Last night, when the vote went through to approve all of this stuff, things got pretty heated...literally. People lit fires. Well, mostly because they were cold. But, there were fires none the less. And vandalism. Even poor Charles and Camilla had their car dented up a bit. That wasn't overly cool. It was a nice car! Students battled with police, horses were involved and, according to angry callers in the BBC, Christmas shopping was interrupted in some places. Tragedy.

Why should these students be protesting? That's easy. Here is why, based on my knowledge as a Canadian. I am going to do a bit of assuming that there are some parallels between Britain and Canada. We are both pretty common, what with our...um...our....well, we have the same Queen. There.

My wife went through 8 years of university. Or more. I can't recall. I guess I could ask her. Anyway, we'll be paying off that education for the next 25 years (or less...or more. Again. I should ask her). Basically, a lot of money was spent and a lot of money is owed. Now, it's impossible to get a decent job WITHOUT a university education. Jobs that at one time only need secondary education now require college diplomas or university degrees. There are so many people looking for jobs, the competition is high, and without a good education, chances are pretty bleak. In addition, traditional jobs in manufacturing were shipped to countries where workers are paid far less meaning that there aren't jobs out there for those without an education, unless it is in the service industry. And what kind of future is that? If someone is living in London, Vancouver, Toronto or some other big city, how can they possibly do that on a McDonald's paycheque?? Then, add on to that, less and less companies are actually hiring people full time. They are preferring to go with contracts. That makes things pretty tough. Insecurity abounds. Education can relieve that. The more one can bring to a company, theoretically, the safer their job may be. Things have changed a lot even in the past 10 to 15 years. More and more, employers are doing what they can to circumnavigate involvement of unions and doing more and more to shed any responsibilities to their employees, and....um, I think I'm getting off on a tangent here.

Anyway, the point is that if fees go up and cuts are made to education, meaning fewer seats for students (at least those that can afford it) opportunities will dry up even faster. More unemployment or underemployment because people can't get access to education? I can see that happening, for sure. That doesn't seem like it would help the economy of a country that is looking to improve it's economy. In fact, that sounds like it would do the opposite! Why create a situation where it may be even harder for people to get decent jobs?? Education is an investment. The better educated a nation is, the better off that nation...well...is. Don't take away educational opportunities. That's like shooting yourself in the foot. Make sure people can get the education they need so that they can get to work and keep the economy going.

I'm sure I'm missing some points in here. There is plenty more to say. It seems like a very complicated and tough situation all around. I feel for the students. I support their protests. It would nice if stuff wasn't wrecked in the process, but that seems to be a small minority of people who are doing that stuff. So, keep up with it kids! Will it help. No, probably not. Sorry to end that on a negative note. Damn.  

Crying Over...You Guessed It!

The latest traffic news from the Crewe and Nantwich Gaurdian in the UK (http://www.creweguardian.co.uk/li/traffic.in.Crewe/?ref=ltp) as of April 12, 2010 at 10:00pm Doha time....

____________________

A534 Wheelock
Both ways between Crewe Road and Houndings Lane
Last updated 39 minutes ago
Road cleared and traffic returned to normal, spillage of milk cleared and recovery work completed on A534 both ways between Crewe Road and Houndings Lane.

_____________________

I cried.

Vote BNP for Britian!

It has been brought to my attention, through the grapevine that is Twitter, that as of 3pm on April 10th, 2010, the British National Party's twitter bio reads as follows:

"The British National Party exists to secure a future for the indigenous peoples of Great Britian."

Yes, indeed. The British National Party spelled Britain wrong. I repeat, the BRITISH NATIONAL PARTY spelled their beloved country's name incorrectly. Shall I repeat that again? No, I don't think it is necessary.

I think it might be time for the BNP to get a new PR person. Better yet, maybe it would be better for the party to get out of politics altogether.