My personal food eating guideline is quite simple: if it’s a carnivore, I don’t eat it. I used to avoid pork products for many years, but now ham and bacon are one of the few foods my picky daughter eats, so that went out the window. Oh, and I can’t eat tree nuts because I might die if I do (that’s not a food rule, it’s a necessity). I don’t mind what food guidelines other people want to adopt (within reason of course; I might be upset if someone wanted to eat other human beings, or if they wanted to eat highly endangered creatures).

Anyway, I read this interesting article about food labelling in Australia, and how the government is thinking about getting involved in the labelling of food as kosher or halal:

There’s more to keeping kosher than avoiding pork chops.

“Kosher”, is a term that describes the complex web of Jewish dietary laws. Ingredients, how they are cooked, and the correct way to use utensils are all issues that can affect the kosher status of food.

Then there are the disputes. As with almost all areas of the Jewish legal system, there is barely a point of law where a difference of opinion does not exist.

For some reason, the federal government has decided to wade into this mire. The government is currently conducting a review of food labelling in Australia and New Zealand.

Question 17 asks: “Is there a need to establish agreed definitions of terms such as ‘natural’, ‘lite’, ‘organic’, ‘free range’, ‘virgin’ (as regards olive oil), ‘kosher’ or ‘halal’? If so, should these definitions be included or referenced in the Food Standards Code?”

What is kosher (or halal for that matter) doing in this document? How are religious dietary laws commensurate with determining what is organic?

It seems to imply that the act of labelling a product as kosher without first attaining the approval of a central, government-sanctioned authority would be illegal under proposed reforms. Halal foods are in the same position.

The author is Rabbi Gottlieb, who blogs at The Sensible Jew.

From what I know, the religious dietary laws are determined by specific religious bodies associated with the particular religions involved. For example, there is a specific body in Melbourne, Kosher Australia, which certifies products as kosher. So, if you are an Orthodox Jew who wishes to eat kosher foods, you would buy food which has been inspected by Kosher Australia (for example, those delicious Yumi’s dips, mmmm). In Sydney, there is another body, Kashrut Authority.

Different Jews follow different levels of strictness. I think my friends probably cover the entire spectrum, from those who love a BLT with mayonnaise to those who cannot eat non-certified products, have a double kitchen and cannot meat and milk within 4 – 6 hours of one another. There are designated “meat” and “milk” cafes they attend, just to make sure that never the twain meet. I have some friends who sit in the middle ground (won’t eat pig or shellfish, keep kosher-for-passover but otherwise not too fussed). Each of my friends has worked out what rules they choose to follow, and that’s fine.

Believe it or not, I did once ask a friend whether any insects were kosher, and he said that Jews in Yemen say that there is a certain kind of grasshopper or locust which is kosher. Nonetheless, he said he’d still decline to eat a kosher grasshopper. (I think the discussion arose in the context of me telling him how I ate a beetle in Cambodia).

I also have friends who eat halal food. Again, there are specific religiously accredited bodies who certify products as halal, such as Halal Australia. Interestingly, one of my Muslim friends gave me the useful tip that if food is kosher, it’s probably also halal for her purposes, and for many years she used to describe herself as “kosher” because it was more generally well known. Of course, she can eat prawns, which is a definite bonus from my point of view.

Ever heard that proverb, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it?” I really don’t think that this is something which the government should interfere with. If particular producers of foods were widely misrepresenting food as kosher or halal, or creating a health risk, perhaps there would be a case. But I’ve never heard of such a thing – if you look at the various websites of these accreditation bodies, they tend to be quite rigourous. If specific religions want to set up their own food accreditation bodies and they are happy with that then that’s their business.

It sounds from Rabbi Gottlieb’s account that the government might have stirred up a bit of a hornet’s nest in the Jewish community, as one body is claiming to be the only kosher authority, but others such as Rabbi Gottlieb are saying that it’s really up to individual Jews to decide which rules they want to follow, and what level of kosher accreditation is acceptable to them. Given that the rules vary, and that different groups have different rules (eg, Ashkenazi Jews believe that rice is not kosher-for-pesach, Sephardi Jews believe that it is) it seems to me that any claim to represent all Jews is problematic.

Incidentally, I’ve never had a problem with the Beth Din either (the Jewish religious court). If someone chooses to be ruled by it, and as long as it doesn’t conflict with fundamental Australian law, that’s fine by me. The same goes for Sharia law courts to oversee divorces. It’s a bit like accepting an independent arbitrator by consent.

It’s best to just leave religious people to make their own food rules in most cases, unless there’s some real endemic problem or a health risk. I was somewhat horrified by a few of the comments under Rabbi Gottlieb’s article which were hostile towards Jews and towards religion generally. It’s a free country, and people are free to:

• choose to eat as they wish;
• wear whatever religious outfit they want (yes, including burqas); and
• follow whatever religious practices they want.

As long as it doesn’t harm that person or others, or break the law in some way, it’s okay, and governments should leave it be.

Now, if only the powers that be would leave kids alone about drinking full cream milk and eating chocolate biscuits…

There’s been a lively discussion at Larvatus Prodeo about the possibility that the French will ban the burqa. Of course, this follows on the heels of Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi’s suggestion that the burqa should be banned in Australia. Bernardi suggested that the burqa was not only a symbol of women’s oppression, but also now ‘a disguise of bandits and n’er do wells.’

Kevin Rudd and John Brumby slammed Bernardi’s comments. Personally, I thought Bernardi’s argument about the risk of burqa clad robbers was a pretty pathetic reason for banning burqas. Still, it was interesting to see that both Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott agreed that the burqa was confronting, but that they would not outlaw it.

As a couple of commenters over at LP noted, France differs from Australia because it has an official policy of laïcité or secularism. So France is starting from a different point than Australia. The other notable democracy which has an equivalent policy of secularism is Turkey. After the fall of the Caliphate, Kemal Atatürk specifically incorporated the principle of laïcité into Turkish society. Religion and governance is strictly separated. As part of this, women who wear headscarves are banned from holding public office in the Turkish Republic.

It’s a difficult one, for me at any rate. My own personal instinct is that the burqa should not be banned, taking a leaf from Mill’s harm principle. As long as a woman consents to wear a burqa willingly and does not harm herself or others by doing so, then she should be allowed to make that choice.

But I do have a considerable degree of discomfort about it. As I’ve argued in a previous post, the reasons why people wear religious garb are threefold:

1. As an outward sign of inner faith. In essence, you are telling the world by your religious garb that you are faithful to God and proud of it.
2. As a gesture of modesty before God.
3. To reflect a belief that the body should be covered because it is lewd and may incite lewd thoughts in others.

Now, I don’t have any problem with the first two reasons. But the third reason is one that I find very problematic. This is because it’s almost always the woman’s body that is particularly lewd, and it’s always her fault that she incited lewd thoughts in others. Of course, in many religions, people of both genders have to cover themselves up to an extent when visiting holy places. But you never see a guy in a burqa. Maybe if both men and women wore it, I’d feel less ambivalent towards it as a symbol of sexism — but then the point occurs to me that any society which did this wouldn’t be able to function…

One of the things that makes me so very uncomfortable about the burqa is that it reduces the woman who wears it to a non-person. I’m someone who talks with my hands and my face as much as my voice. I don’t like telephones as a result, and I vastly prefer face-to-face contact if at all possible. It’s very hard to interact properly with someone whose face is wholly covered, or whose eyes are the only part of their body showing. That person is also vastly hampered in how she can interact with others, how she can interact with society outside her immediate family, and what jobs she can do. I can’t imagine how I would go wearing such an outfit.

But should my discomfort be a reason for banning the burqa? I don’t think so. There are many things in society which make me uncomfortable. Those billboards on Alexandra Parade which say, “Want Better Sex Now?” make me pretty damn uncomfortable, but obviously in a very different way to the burqa. Clowns make me want to vomit and scream, but I wouldn’t want to ban them either. There must be some people on this earth who like them and find them amusing, just not me. As long as no one demands that I wear a burqa because they do, then I’m happy for others to wear them if they choose.

The more difficult question for me is whether we treat women who wear burqas in the same way as we treat other women in our society. I think we should acknowledging that wearing a burqa is a choice women are entitled to make, but we should also acknowledge that it hampers them in certain important ways which means they can’t be treated in exactly the same way as other women in our society. If they want to work in a job where face-to-face communication is particularly important, and they have to wear the burqa, it’s likely that they can’t do that job.

If the burqa obscures the vision of a female driver, they should not be allowed to drive. Of course, this is a vexed one, and the recent debate in France was sparked anew by the fining of a woman in Nantes who was driving while wearing a burqa. The woman claims that her peripheral vision was not affected by the veil. I suspect one would have to do tests on the particular veil in question. Certainly someone with a veil with gauze over the eyes could not drive a car. Mind you, I’d suggest equally that someone whose rear window was populated with piles of fluffy animals should remove the fluffy animals if they obscured vision. I find it disquieting to drive behind cars with piles of fluffy animals in the rear window for the precise reason that they may obscure vision.

If, like the woman in this post, they won’t unveil for the judge when giving evidence in a legal case, then it is likely that they cannot communicate their evidence as effectively as a woman who does not wear a veil. This was a controversial one over at LP, but I think the point still stands — communicating face-to-face is generally more effective than any other means of conversation. The woman’s evidence would not be totally worthless, but it would render it no better than evidence given via phone, for example. It would be slightly better than evidence handed up in written affidavit. Generally one is not allowed to give evidence via phone, or from behind a screen, or wearing glasses or clothing which obscure the face — this seemed to surprise many people on the LP thread, but a fundamental part of assessing someone’s credibility as a witness is seeing them face-to-face.

Ultimately, it’s a woman’s choice, and if she believes that she has to wear such clothing according to her religion, then she should have the freedom to do so. Part of religious freedom is that people are entitled to wear clothing which is an outward sign of their inner faith, and which professes their modesty before God (the first two reasons listed above). I just cannot quite feel comfortable with the French concept of laïcité, perhaps because I’ve never lived in a theocracy. Nonetheless, I think we should take care that when we accept the freedom to wear a burqa, we do not imply in any sense that the third reason has validity. Our belief should be that men should take responsibility for harassment and for their own actions, and a woman’s body is not inherently lewd or something of which a woman should be ashamed.

A SENIOR official at Amnesty International has accused the charity of putting the human rights of Al-Qaeda terror suspects above those of their victims.

Gita Sahgal, head of the gender unit at Amnesty’s international secretariat, believes that collaborating with Moazzam Begg, a former British inmate at Guantanamo Bay, “fundamentally damages” the organisation’s reputation.

In an email sent to Amnesty’s top bosses, she suggests the charity has mistakenly allied itself with Begg and his “jihadi” group, Cageprisoners, out of fear of being branded racist and Islamophobic.

Sahgal describes Begg as “Britain’s most famous supporter of the Taliban”. He has championed the rights of jailed Al-Qaeda members and hate preachers, including Anwar al-Awlaki, the alleged spiritual mentor of the Christmas Day Detroit plane bomber.

Amnesty’s work with Cageprisoners took it to Downing Street last month to demand the closure of Guantanamo Bay. Begg has also embarked on a European tour, hosted by Amnesty, urging countries to offer safe haven to Guantanamo detainees. This is despite concerns about former inmates returning to terrorism.

Sahgal, who has researched religious fundamentalism for 20 years, has decided to go public because she feels Amnesty has ignored her warnings for the past two years about the involvement of Begg in the charity’s Counter Terror With Justice campaign.

Where the story gets really interesting is that Sahgal has now been ‘suspended‘ for her whistleblowing (it seems, these days, that no-one is willing to man up and use the word ‘sack’). Weasel Words ‘R’ Us, I’m afraid.

Sahgal herself has a long history of activism on human rights, women’s rights and the dangers posed to both by religious fundamentalism. While Sahgal wholeheartedly supported the Amnesty campaign against the illegal detention and torture of Muslim men at Guantánamo, she raised pertinent anxieties about Amnesty’s close engagement with Begg internally several times without success. She pointed out the obvious but significant fact that being a victim of human rights violations does not automatically make you a defender of human rights, the dangers in eliding the two and the need for Amnesty to maintain a distance from individuals whose attitude to the Taliban could undermine otherwise excellent work done by Amnesty on violence against women.

Within hours of the article appearing she was suspended from her job by Amnesty for, as Gita says in her statement, “trying to do my job and staying faithful to Amnesty’s mission to protect and defend human rights universally and impartially”. And for some hours yesterday, negative posts on Amnesty’s website were being filtered out.

Even worse, Amnesty’s response to criticism has been to resort to the worst sort of postmodern obscurantism, revealing that this once fine bastion of liberal ideas (John Stuart Mill, Harriet Taylor, Thomas Paine, Mary Wollstonecraft, remember them?) has been infected from bow to stern with a philosophy that, while interesting and often illuminating, is fundamentally illiberal. I mean, Nietzsche started it — what do you expect? As Norm Geras points out in this very funny post:

The criticism of Amnesty International is not that it doesn’t ‘other’ Mr Begg in the sense of treating him as less than human. It’s that a human rights organization, rightly regarding no one at all as other in that sense, rightly regarding everyone as being a bearer of human rights, has made common cause with others who may be less than friendly to human rights and be somewhat indulgent towards a movement very unfriendly to human rights. No one should be othered who is a human being. However, if ‘to other’ someone meant to regard him as an unsuitable ally, then there are others whom supporters of human rights should certainly want to other.

It seems that Amnesty does not care what Mr Begg believes. As long as he does not believe it out loud on their dime and time, then all will be well:

[...] The best that they can say is that he hasn’t promoted the more, ahem, problematic components of his politics from an Amnesty platform.

Perhaps he hasn’t. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Cageprisoners spokesman calling for violent jihad against Britain and in support of the Taliban from an Amnesty platform. They normally save message for University ISOCs and Hizb ut Tahrir platforms, after all.

So, looking forward to seeing Nick Griffin on the Amnesty International Free Speech Tour – just as soon as he promises not to preach race hate while standing under the Amnesty banner!

As someone with a public commitment to freedom of speech, I am aware that this can mean sticking up for some pretty toxic people; as I mentioned in my comments on the current Geert Wilders blow up, sometimes this can even go so far as ‘Illinois Nazis’ (with apologies to the Blues Brothers). However, there is a fine but very clear line between public support for freedom of speech and public support for the views that the censors wish to censor. Often (not always, of course), censors have quite sure instincts about what is bad speech, and it is pretty clear that the stuff both Illinois Nazis and Talibs spout falls into the category of ‘bad speech’. The task for people like me is to argue that the best response to speech is more speech, not repression. It is not the easiest argument to win (repression is so much easier), but it has to be made.

Amnesty International’s position in this situation is analogous to that of the free speech advocate: there is a fine but distinct line between arguing that Illinois Nazis have human rights and arguing that Illinois Nazis may have something meaningful to say about human rights. They don’t. Nor do the Taliban. 

Part of the problem is the modern tendency to feel sorry for victims and losers, and to think that victims and losers should always and everywhere have a voice or be enabled to speak in their own voice, without the ventriloquism usually provided on their behalf by a more powerful individual or organisation. Amnesty have not only spoken up for Mr Begg (legitimately), they have given the man a star-studded revolving platform funded by member donations from which to pontificate (illegitimately). They have — cliche time — crossed that fine but distinct line:

What worries her [Sahgal] is the assumption among some of her Amnesty colleagues that Begg is “not only a victim of human rights violations but a defender of human rights” (my italics). Sahgal raised the issue in two memos before her concerns became public at the weekend. But what she has identified is too important to be dismissed as an internal matter, namely an intellectual incoherence which isn’t confined to the higher echelons of a single human rights organisation.

The thinking goes like this: someone who has suffered terrible human rights abuses must necessarily be opposed to similar abuses against others. It’s a nice idea but history tells us it’s wrong; today’s prisoners of conscience may turn out on release to be doughty campaigners for human rights, but they might just as easily become tomorrow’s apologists for extremism.

Gita Sahgal’s sacking offence seems to have been to make the mistake of believing that Amnesty should ‘defend human rights universally and impartially’. Universal human rights. Defended impartially. How old fashioned of her. How… liberal.

[Note to US readers: the English definition of liberal is much closer to your 'classical liberal'. English people have great difficulty recognising the version of 'liberal' commonly labelled as such in the USA].

UPDATE: Gita Sahgal now has her own website, but is struggling to get legal representation [a tip of the hat to Lorenzo and Chris Hitchens]:

As I write this, she is experiencing some difficulty in getting a lawyer to represent her. Such is—so far—the prestige of Amnesty International. “Although it is said that we must defend everybody no matter what they’ve done,” she comments, “it appears that if you’re a secular, atheist, Asian British woman, you don’t deserve a defense from our civil rights firms.”

Gita, if you’re reading this, if you can find me a leader I’d make a very useful junior counsel

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96ZUZ9CPZII&feature=topvideos[/youtube]

More (mainly in Dutch, alas) here.

A Muslim protester accused of calling soldiers murderers at a parade claims he did not intend to upset anyone. Munim Abdul told Luton magistrates he did not expect to cause offence because his group had spoken “the truth”.

Seven men deny using threatening, abusive or insulting words and behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm and distress. A video of them calling troops “murderers” and “terrorists” has been played in court.

Their protest was made as the Royal Anglian Regiment marched through Luton town centre on 10 March last year…

Prosecutor Avirup Chaudhuri suggested Mr Abdul used the words to insult and abuse people and was aware that they would have that effect. But Mr Abdul said he completely disagreed.

He said: “If it’s the truth then there’s no way they would find it upsetting. It’s like calling a paedophile a paedophile, that’s what he is.”

The trial was adjourned to Monday, when defence speeches will continue and the judge is expected to give her judgment.

- BBC News

In breaking news, five of the seven were found guilty. I loved this delicious little detail:

Earlier in the day Jubair Ahmed’s lawyer used philosopher Voltaire’s views on freedom of speech to defend him.

In her closing speech for his defence Sonal Dashani said: “Voltaire said ‘I disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.’ That was in the 18th Century. Things have moved on since then, though perhaps not as quickly as one might have liked.

“If you believe in freedom of speech you have to accept that some things will be said that you will like and some things will be said that you will not like.”

Australian readers may not be aware that Anjem Choudary (who has featured in our funnies before) is not only spokesman for the group convicted in Luton, he also masterminded the Danish Cartoon protests in London back in 2006.

Ten people have been arrested during a demonstration outside a mosque in north-west London where an anti-Islamic protest was planned.

At least 1,000 people gathered outside Harrow Central Mosque as activists from Stop Islamification of Europe planned to demonstrate outside the mosque. Unite Against Fascism were also present to “defend the mosque”, they said.

Bricks, bottles and firecrackers were thrown at police officers who were present in riot gear at the scene. Just after 2000 BST, police said there were a small number of people in the area. Mobile patrols were continuing in a bid to reassure residents.

Earlier, hundreds of youths, some covering their faces with scarves, were in the area and there were skirmishes with police as some demonstrators broke a police cordon. Supt Julia Pendry said police had to “intervene” to stop things from “escalating”.

She said: “Officers came under attack from bricks and bottles and we had to deploy our staff in protective equipment a number of times.

“Police had to take fast-time action to stop events from getting even worse this afternoon, by intervening to prevent an imminent breach of the peace.

“What played out on the streets of Harrow today is completely unacceptable to everyone,” she added.

- BBC News

A radical Muslim who dressed his baby daughter in a hat with “I love al-Qaeda” on it tried to firebomb the home of the publisher of a controversial novel about the Prophet Mohammed.

Ali Beheshti, 40, along with Abrar Mirza, 22, have admitted conspiracy to recklessly damage property and endanger life after they poured diesel through the letterbox of a publishing house in Islington, North London.

Abbas Taj, 30, a mini-cab driver, was found guilty at Croydon Crown court of conspiracy to firebomb the home of Martin Rynja, the publisher of The Jewel Of Medina. He was to be the getaway driver, but was stopped in his car and arrested by armed police near Angel Tube station in the early hours in September last year, just after they had set fire to the premises.

Beheshti’s 20-month-old daughter, Farisa, was pictured wearing the hat when he took her along to a protest against Danish cartoons of the prophet Mohammed and proudly called her “the youngest member of al-Qaeda”. He waved banners vowing to “Massacre those who insult Islam” and promising “Europe, your 9/11 will come!” During the protests in 2006 he called himself Abu Jihad — meaning holy war.

The three men began their attack when publisher Mr Rynja was preparing to release The Jewel Of Medina, a novel about the Prophet Mohammed and the life of his child bride, Aisha.

The trio were planning to spend the night at Regent’s Park Mosque, in North London, as part of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, but shortly after arrival they set out with “fire-making equipment” for the home of Mr Rynja…

The publication of The Jewel of Medina was cancelled by one major publisher in the United States over fears that it could offend Muslims.

- TimesOnline

Run that “religion of peace” line past me again…

Muslims have complained that the Koran is often displayed on the lower shelves, which is deemed offensive as many believe the holy book should be placed above “commonplace things”.

Now officials at one library have recommended keeping all holy books, including the Bible, on the top shelves.

The move has come despite concern from Christian charities that this will put the Bible out of the reach and sight of many people.

Guidance published by the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council, a quango answering to Culture Secretary Andy Burnham, brought the situation to light.

It said Muslims in Leicester had moved copies of the Koran to the top shelves of libraries, because they believe it is an insult to display it in a low position.

A report into the issue said the city’s librarians consulted the Federation of Muslim Organisations and were advised that all religious texts should be kept on the top shelf to ensure equality.

The guidance states: “This meant that no offence is caused, as the scriptures of all the major faiths are given respect in this way, but none is higher than any other.”

- The Telegraph

As a religious nutjob myself it’s a term I try to avoid, but there really are occasions I’d like to see Muslims forced to write 100 times “Liberal secularism is what gives me religious freedom.”