129

Islamophobia as a Deterrent to
Halal Global Trade

Barbara Ruiz-Bejarano
UNESCO-UA Chair “Islam, Culture and Society”

University of Alicante, Spain

ISLAMOPHOBIA STUDIES JOURNAL

VOLUME XX, NO. X Season 2017, PP. 129-146.

Published by:
Islamophobia Research and Documentation Project,
Center for Race and Gender, University of California, Berkeley

Disclaimer:
Statements of fact and opinion in the articles, notes, perspectives, etc.
in the Islamophobia Studies Journal are those of the respective authors and
contributors. They are not the expression of the editorial or advisory
board and staff. No representation, either expressed or implied, is made
of the accuracy of the material in this journal and ISJ cannot accept any
legal responsibility or liability for any errors or omissions that may be
made. The reader must make his or her own evaluation of the accuracy
and appropriateness of those materials.

129
 130 ISJ 4(1)

Islamophobia as a Deterrent to Halal Global Trade

Barbara Ruiz-Bejarano
UNESCO-UA Chair “Islam, Culture and Society”

University of Alicante, Spain

Abstract: Islamophobia continues to be on the rise in Europe and other regions, such as
Australia, Canada and the United States. It is now a global phenomenon which has multiple
manifestations and is generated at different layers of society, and does not only affect
citizens1 in non-Islamic countries, but has recently shown a new expression: the target has
shifted towards Islamic economies, and more specifically towards the halal trade. Emerging
economies in the region of Asia-Pacific and the Gulf are net importers of halal products
(particularly foodstuff), which, paradoxically, are produced in non-Islamic economies. A
report commissioned by the Dubai government, and researched and written by Thompson
Reuters and Dinar Standard,2 valued the halal food and beverage (F&B) market at US$
1.37 trillion in 2014. That represented 18.2% of the total global F&B market. In addition,
the youthful population of the Muslim world – with 60% under the age of 30 – indicates
that demand for halal products and services is likely to continue its upward growth curve
and become an increasingly influential market over the next decade. This tremendously
attractive market niche, combined with the slow growth of the economies of Europe, Canada,
Australia and the United States, has prompted many industries to seek halal certification and
to adapt their products and services to the requirements of Muslim consumers worldwide,
including the significant minorities already living outside Islamic economies.3 However,
some newcomers to the halal global market have found that there is another obstacle to
overcome, apart from those already present in global trade: Islamophobia. In this article,
I will explore the many expressions of Islamophobia aimed at stopping the growth of the
halal market, and the different policies and attitudes of governments and institutions when
confronted with the need to balance economic growth with cultural misunderstandings and
hatred. I found systematic attempts to undermine the halal food industry made by some
European Members of Parliament, claims of animal cruelty sparked by animal rights groups,
bans on halal sacrifice in the meat industry, the “boycott-halal” on-line campaign, alleged
funding of terrorism, threats and other expressions of hatred that have managed to prevent
many businesses from accessing the emerging halal market.

Keywords: Islamophobia, trade, halal, boycott

ISLAMOPHOBIA IN EUROPE 2016

Islamophobia is no longer a phenomenon restricted to a particular region; it has spread nota-
bly in Europe, Canada, Australia and the United States. In 2016, the rise of Islamophobia presented
some more nuances: together with the “Islamization” topic, suspicions of terrorist links and the crimi-
nalization of (mainly) Syrian refugees have become the trending topics of the phenomenon.

130
 131

As reported by the Foundation for Political, Economic and Social Research (SETA), in
their European Islamophobia Report (EIR), since the 2015 Paris attacks, “the refugee-migration-
Islam-terrorism nexus became the standard argument justifying a number of domestic and inter-
national measures”. This contributed to the spread of the coinage of the Islamophobic discourse:
the pretence that Muslims are violent and potential terrorists, that they aim to impose Sariah
and the Islamization of Western countries, that they are economic migrants, and that they rep-
resent a great risk to the democratic foundations of European constitutions and social peace.
Hate speech (the preamble to hate crimes) has increased in intensity, particularly in
social and mass media, but also in the European right and far-right arena. These channels con-
tinue to convey a stereotyped vision of Muslims as an alien nation, incompatible with Western
values (whatever these are), linked with terrorism and violence. Refugees became “rapefugees”,
allegedly organised to commit despicable criminal actions.4
The European Union (EU) faced the “refugee crisis” quite biasedly and handled it
poorly (or at least not at the best EU standards). According to figures from the International
Organization for Migration (IOM), about 1 million refugees arrived in Europe,5 while Frontex
reported a figure of 1.8 million “illegal border crossings”.6 Reactions were sparked by the poli-
cies proposed to resettle these people fleeing from the Syrian conflict, with some countries
bearing most of the burden7 and some showing their unwillingness to accept any refugee
quota.8 The EU even produced a “List of Safe Countries of Origin”9 that represents a de facto
discrimination of people’s rights. In 2015, the Refugee Facility for Turkey was set up, together
with the EU Civil Protection Mechanism, to “coordinate the delivery of immediate material to
support Member States and neighbouring countries facing major peaks in the refugee crisis
that overwhelm their immediate response capacities”. Note that “the assistance, provided only
upon the request of the affected country, is based on voluntary contributions from countries
participating in the Mechanism”.10
The number of refugees who could be granted asylum in Europe, according to the
established quotas (160,000 people), when compared with the top host countries (Turkey, 2.5
million; Pakistan, 1.6 million; Lebanon, 1.1 million),11 portrays Europe’s reluctance to abide
by article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The year 2016 also witnessed how Islamophobic discourses from right and far-right
political organizations gained significant ground.12 The refusal of refugee asylum applications
is also linked to the political colours of particular governments. Thus, those countries ran by
right or far-right parties showed the strongest rejection of the quotas or even to take a single
refugee who was a Muslim (such is the case of Poland). Scholars following the development of
Islamophobia in Europe and elsewhere are familiar with the discourses and policies of these
parties.

ISLAMOPHOBIA AIMED AT ISLAMIC ECONOMIES AND THE HALAL MARKET

The current economic state of the EU has prompted a number of small and medium-
sized enterprises (SMEs) to seek new business opportunities in more dynamic markets. The
focus has shifted to regions experiencing a more powerful economic boost, the Islamic econo-
mies of the Middle East and Asia-Pacific, notably India, Iran, Indonesia and Malaysia. The
Muslim population represents approximately 23% of the world population, about 1.6 billion,
and it is forecast to reach 2.2 billion by 2030. The growth potential of the halal sector is there-
fore quite attractive, particularly considering that some of the biggest Islamic markets are net
 132 ISJ 4(1)

importers of foodstuff, particularly Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries and the Maghreb.
Also, the EU has an increasing number of Muslim citizens which thus constitutes an emerging
domestic market for European companies.
This represents an opportunity for enterprises wishing to add value to their products/
services or to grow via exports. To reach Muslim consumers, SMEs in Europe must adapt their
products and production methods to the Halal requirements of their destination markets. The
Arabic word “Halal” means “permissible”, and it refers to those things and actions which are
permitted according to the Islamic Law or Shariah. When focusing on consumers’ goods, the
Halal concept applies to food & beverages, cosmetics & pharmaceuticals, logistics, finances,
fashion, tourism & hospitality, lifestyle and so on. It is regarded as an ecosystem by various
Islamic economies and includes other components such as “Ethical”, “Fair”, and “Safe”.
Islamophobic incidents are relatively recent in the Economic research area, which
explains the difficulty in finding statistics. When I tried to focus on the economic impact of
Islamophobia, the main obstacle was the profusion of unconnected incidents, lack of well-
structured data, lack of official reports and the impossibility to assess the economic impact of
these events in figures. Incidents connected with halal food can be as bizarre as a newspaper
announcing that the United States will track “halal food choices” in their airlines to “combat
terrorism”13 (although I have not been able to confirm this piece of news from a reliable source).
Let’s take an incident to illustrate the economic impact of Islamophobia. This can be
considered a minor incident, caused by an arsonist (hence, not an institution or political party).
On 27 June 2016 (the context: the aftermath of Brexit vote to leave the EU, on 26 June) a halal
meat establishment (Kashmir Meat & Poultry) in Walsall (the Midlands, UK) was attacked with
a Molotov cocktail.14 The bomb was thrown at the owner of the shop while he was working, and
then ignited. The owner suffered minor injuries, but his business was destroyed by the fire. He
will not be reopening his business. One single person managed to destroy the livelihood of an
entire family, plus sent a message of hatred to the whole community. How does the story end?
Was the criminal identified, even convicted? The only news, later on 1 July reported the police
stating it was “not a racially or religiously-motivated hate crime”.15 I can only add, when track-
ing hate crimes, the tremendous difficulty in obtaining a proper follow up of the incidents. The
detention, prosecution and, if so, sentence of the criminals do not normally appear in the news-
paper or hate crime reports. Nor is the economic damage stated.
Other incidents take us to Australia. In these cases, actions inspired by hatred were
promoted by a lobby of interconnected Christian organizations. A major halal exporter,
Australia’s halal food market was estimated at US$13 billion in 2015-2016.16 The economic
impact of hate crimes on the Australian Halal industry counts for several tens of thousands of
dollars at the least.
Fleurieu Milk and Yoghurt Company dropped an AU$50,000 contract with the
Emirates airline after being targeted on Facebook by the “Halal Choices” and “Boycott Halal”
campaigns, calling to boycott the company’s products because they were halal-certified.17
Byron Bay Cookie Company was also targeted by the “Boycott Halal” campaign. A
representative reported “aggressive calls and emails” for more than eight months,18 with some
of these calls thanking the company for supporting the 9/11 terror attacks. The owners decided
to maintain the halal certification and to seek help, in order to keep their 65 employees.19
The last Australian example is that of the Halal Certification Authority of Australia
(HCAA). After a campaign led by anti-Islamic activist Kirralie Smith (founder of “Halal
Choices” and member of Australia Liberty Alliance) and the Q society (more below), the HCAA
decided to sue them for defamation.20 In two videos, Smith accuses the director of HCAA, Mr
El Mouelhy of being “reasonably suspected of providing financial support to terrorist
 133

organisations”.21 The case was settled out of court22, with Smith and the Q Society publicly
apologizing to Mr El Mouelhy23 (and requesting funds in their website to cover their court
expenses, which amounted to more than AU$500,000).
But the example with the biggest impact on economy is the case of Dubai Ports World
from 2006. DP World dropped a deal to manage six ports in the United States after a group of US
Congress members entered a bill raising concerns about security at ports being managed by an
Arab state owned company.24 The deal was worth US$6.8 billion. The powerful lobby did not act
in their country’s best economic interest, but blocked the deal because of “security concerns”.
Islamophobia is evolving in different spheres of public life, and it can come from politi-
cians, institutions, authorities, organizations, associations or citizens. Targeting economic
interests is another aspect of Islamophobia and comes from a variety of sources. We will explore
some other examples and consider the impact of the discourses and actions launched.

INSTITUTIONAL ISLAMOPHOBIA25: CLAIMS AGAINST HALAL PRODUCTS IN

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
“Hundreds of child deaths each year due to consumption of ‘halal meat’”. This is the
title of the parliamentary question submitted by Franz Obermayr to the European Commission
on the 24th of April 2012, where he states that “according to media reports, it is generally
assumed that hundreds of children die in France each year after consuming halal meat”. Other ques-
tions posed by the same MP include other topics connected to Islam: “Polygamy among refu-
gees and asylum-seekers” (2016), “Turkey as a sponsor of Islamism” (2016), “Ligue de
Musulmans de Belgique” – related to foreign funding of Islamic Centres in Europe (2016),
but two others that refer to the halal market: “Halal certification” (2016) and “Consumer
information and labelling of meat originating from ritual slaughter” (2015). Rather than
approaching halal certification or the halal market as a business opportunity for Europe, the
MP takes quite the opposite approach, suggesting connections with death, unhealthiness or
even cruel practices.
MP Robert Kilroy-Silk also forwarded to the Parliament several questions that could
be considered Islamophobic, some focusing on the “halal” question (“Cruelty to animals killed
for Halal meat”, “Halal and kosher meat”). Other topics included “Cartoons about Mohammed
and Arab trade boycott”, “Sharia law”, “British Muslims and separate Muslim enclaves in
Britain”, “British taxpayers subsidising Hamas”, “Muslim threatened with death for convert-
ing to Christianity”, “Child abuse in Islamic religious schools”, “European women to wear
burkas”, “Refusal of Muslims to integrate”, “Muslim domination of Europe”, “Teachers wear-
ing the veil” and so on, only in 2006. The bias against Islam goes further in another rather
abstract question namely the “Relativity of values” (19 July 2006) that reads: “Does the
Commission believe all cultures are equal?”26
The connection between halal meat and the death of consumers is addressed in yet more
parliamentary questions, for example, those of Andreas Mölzer: “Child deaths caused by halal
meat”27 and “A danger to health posed by halal meat”28 (2012). In this second question, he
mentions that
slaughterhouses run more profitably if they use only one method of slaughter (halal slaughter).
Muslims consume only certain cuts of meat and the rest is not discarded but often sold – with halal
slaughtered meat apparently ending up on the market without relevant labelling.
The message conveyed by a few European Members of Parliament (EMPs) focuses on
halal slaughtering and halal labelling, not for the consumers’ sake (as the deaths referred to by
 134 ISJ 4(1)

Mr Obermayr and Mölzer were discovered to be connected with E. coli-infected cucumbers),

but because of the economic implications of a developing halal industry in Europe. Raising
consumers’ concerns had, obviously, an impact: campaigns were organised about animal wel-
fare in connection with religious slaughter and the labelling of halal products.

THE QUESTION OF THE HALAL LABEL IN THE UK

Halal labelling is not always apparent, as some producers (as we have seen in the case of
Australia) receive threats and public campaigns to boycott their products and prefer not to
disclose whether their products are halal-certified or not. Regarding humane slaughtering,
there is much controversy animating the debate, particularly on the compulsory declaration of
pre-slaughter stunning and the method employed (gas, electrical shock, bolt stunning, bolt
pneumatic and cartridge pistols).
The possibility that consumers in the UK were eating unlabelled halal meat sparked
the campaign led by the British Veterinary Association and the RSPCA (where more than
10,000 signatures were collected demanding pre-stunning in religious slaughtering),29 the
leaflets30 distributed anonymously by an organization aiming at protecting “our nation’s
Christian identity”, or the demands of CIWF (Compassion in World Farming), which describes
halal slaughtering as “inhumane”.31
The requisite of pre-stunning is an exception for religious ritual slaughtering,32 stated
in Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009.33 Depending on the destination market of exported
meat, stunning is permissible when specific circumstances concur, the only methods being
accepted in some markets being those called “reversible stunning”. One of the requirements of
halal slaughtering is that the animal is alive at the moment of the sacrifice and that measures
are taken in order for it to not be stressed. As some stunning methods kill the animal prior to
sacrifice, they are not accepted. Another source for controversy is the amount of pain sustained
by stunned animals, particularly by electrical shock or concussion by pneumatic pistol. Besides
humane matters, there is plenty of literature on the quality of meat depending on the stunning
and slaughtering methods (though inconclusive, so the matter remains on shifting sands).

BANS ON DHABIHA OR NON-STUNNING SLAUGHTER

Legislation on Halal or Islamic slaughtering can be an indicator of a country’s policy
towards the development of the halal industries. Although EU members must apply the excep-
tion stated in Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 (which allows religious slaughtering
without prior stunning), non-members can legislate differently. The case of Denmark (which
retained its own currency and opted out of the Common Security and Defence Policy as well as
from the Charter of Fundamental Rights) made stunning compulsory in 2014.34 Slaughter of
animals without stunning is banned in Sweden, Norway, Switzerland and Iceland.
In Switzerland, ritual slaughter (without stunning) was made illegal in 1893; however,
a 1978 Law on the Protection of Animals explicitly allows for the importation of kosher and
halal meat, which is imported mainly from France and Germany.35 This resulted in a popular
initiative to protect animal rights and prohibit the import of meat from animals bled without
stunning in 2003, with background allegations of “unfair competitiveness” as halal imported
products had cheaper prices than national produce; however, the sponsors withdrew their ini-
tiative in December 2005, before it had been submitted to a national vote after Parliament
adopted a revision of the Law on the Protection of Animals. Pre-stunned halal meat has been
recently accepted.36
 135

A compromise had to be found to satisfy all parties. “Le compromis Suisse” has been
reached by proposing a very mild stunning prior to slaughter which, at the moment, satisfies
the Muslim community, meat traders, animal rights’ activists and policy makers. The Swiss
economy is thus integrating halal production and certification, at Swiss prices. The country of
banks saw the scales tipping towards the side of economic interest.

POLITICAL ISLAMOPHOBIA: THE Q SOCIETY IN AUSTRALIA AND

PROPAGANDA AGAINST HALAL PRODUCTS; THE “BOYCOTT HALAL
CERTIFICATION IN AUSTRALIA” AND “HALAL CHOICES” CAMPAIGNS
Australia is highly dependent on its halal exports. Indonesia, which has the world’s
largest Muslim population, was the third biggest market for Australian food exports in 2012-
2013, with a value of AU$2.4 billion or 7.7% of all food exports; Australia sold AU$1.2 billion
of wheat and AU$302 million of live animals to Indonesia in 2013. Malaysia, Saudi Arabia and
the United Arab Emirates were also in Australia’s top 10 food export markets in 2012-2013,
and, combined with Indonesia, represented 16% of all food exports.
Meat exports for 2014-2015 represented AU$11,332 billion, while those of live sheep
and cattle for slaughter was AU$140.8 billion.
The Australian Meat Industry Council (AMIC), representing the commercial export
and domestic processing industry, has 2,000 member companies, representing over 50,000
workers directly employed in meat processing, exporting, wholesaling and retailing in Australia
– an industry worth an estimated AU$17 billion to the Australian economy in total.37
But this huge market has become the target38 of three linked organizations: the Q soci-
ety (“Q Society was formed in response to growing concerns about the discrimination, violence
and other anti-democratic practices linked to Islam” http://www.qsociety.org.au/about.htm);
“Halal Choices” (http://halalchoices.com.au/) and “Boycott Halal Certification in Australia”
(http://www.nonhalal.com.au/ and https://www.facebook.com/pg/Boycott-Halal-Certification-
in-Australia-693361674081960/about/?ref=page_internal).
The particularity of these three organizations is that they act in coordination, lobbying
from consumers to politicians against halal products and halal certification, as well as present-
ing a biased representation of Islam. The Q society states that their purpose is “to critically
inform Australians about Islam and the impositions of fundamentalist Muslim organisations
on Australian communities”.
First, concern was planted that Halal Certification was funding terrorist groups. Later
on, the focus moved on (in)humane slaughtering; third, they claimed that consumers were
being “forced” to consume halal products (therefore paying a “religious tax for Muslims”).
In 2012, the Q society submitted a petition39 to the House of Representatives stating
that Halal Certification Schemes funding Islamic Terrorism and Shariah Law was already being
implemented in Australia.
Details of the complaint reproduced the idea that halal certification is a sort of tax
imposed on the consumer: “This includes discrimination at the workplace, inhumane slaughter
practices and de facto imposition of an Islamic religious tax on the wider, non-Islamic com-
munity”. The claims of discrimination in the workplace rather point at a number of jobs taken
by Muslims over workers of other confessions: “In many Australian abattoirs only Muslim
males can now find employment as slaughterers”.
Another great concern was that Islamic Finance systems will discriminate against “haram”
industries, which might be “perfectly legal in Australia”, but so is the right of the financial ser-
vices to decide whether to agree to work with a customer or not, based on ethical principles:
 136 ISJ 4(1)

Sharia finance advocates paint a picture of more “ethical”, “innovative” and even “sustainable”
banking products by claiming moral superiority based on the prohibition to invest in and provide
loans for business activities Islam regards as forbidden (haram). However, this one-sided concept
does not merely repackage interest payments under a different label. In practice, sharia-compliant
banks would be required to discriminate against perfectly legal Australian businesses such as
wineries, breweries, pig farmers, butchers using pork meat, restaurants serving wine and beer,
lotteries, Western defence industry, and even certain forms of art.

The Q society discourse on Islam (“Why we oppose Islam”) presents, as if they were
facts, a number of misconceptions (repeating the icons coined by European and American
Islamophobia: Sharia law includes

Polygamy, with up to four wives and an unlimited number of concubines; child marriage, as
Mohammed (the “perfect example” of mankind) married a 6 year old; slavery, as agreed by all
four schools of Sunni jurisprudence; killing of those who leave Islam, adulterers, blasphemers,
critics of Islam and homosexuals; women and non-Muslims being second-class citizens and men
can legally beat their wives; parents going unpunished if they kill their children, making “honour
killing” legal; punishments such as beheading, whipping, stoning, cutting off hands and throwing
off buildings; the imposition of a humiliating tax on all non-Muslims to support the Islamic
ruling class; and enforcement of Sharia being a right of each Muslim, encouraging vigilante street
“justice”.

A more recent campaign led by the Q Society intends to undermine efforts for mutual
understanding between the Islamic and other Australian communities. The campaign is called
“SOS Save Our Schools from Islamization” and offers a “critical” reading of a new educational
project proposed by the National Centre of Excellence for Islamic Studies (University of
Melbourne).
The project “Learning From One Another; Bringing Muslim Perspectives into
Australian Schools” was devised by several educators and universities40 as a

unique educational tool, offering Australian teachers some very practical ideas to ensure the
continued engagement of Muslim pupils in a rich and rewarding educational process […] It is
critical to emphasise that embracing diversity and transcending cultural barriers is a two-way
process. Our educators play a critical role here, nurturing in future generations the values of mutual
respect and learning. By introducing pupils to lesser known cultures and traditions while helping
those from minority communities see the shared values that draw us closer, our teachers help shape
the future of our society.

There is also a section dedicated to respond “to some of the most common misconceptions
and stereotypes about Muslims, most of which come from ignorance about Islam and Muslims,
though some reflect prejudiced attitudes”. This section obviously confronts some of the Q Society’s
statements about Islam and refers to stereotypes often included in Islamophobic discourses: Islam
condones terrorism and the killing of innocents; Muslims are potential terrorists and a threat to
national security; Islam is intolerant of other religions; Islam is against democratic values; women
are inferior to men in Islam; Muslims want to be different and dress differently; Muslims do not
want to “integrate”; Muslims want their own system of law; and so on.
The Q Society offers a “response”41 to this “very disturbing curriculum project”,
including criticism of halal menus being served in Australian schools (“Why should it be
 137

recommended that schools source halal-certified products when students can either choose
to eat freely based on the above understanding, or simply choose to adopt a vegetarian diet
on this occasion? Why foster halal? Had it occurred to NCEIS and ACSA that some non-
Muslims may object to eating halal?”), again suggesting the idea that halal is “forced”
upon non-Muslims; and another reference to terrorism (“The Quran is noted as a source of
guidance in belief, law and ethics and the importance of recitation emphasized. However,
80% of Muslims are non-Arabic speaking, and even for the Arabic speakers, they cannot
often comprehend the ancient Arabic. So this guidance does not come directly from the
Quran but more often from Quranic scholars who both interpret and translate it. Today,
the Quran is not ‘plainly understood’ as it actually claims. Those who follow what some
would call the ‘plain teachings’ become what we call Islamists or terrorists. This is a text
that must be handled with great caution”). The conclusion offered is that this is a pam-
phlet for propaganda and indoctrination, with a call for action to prevent shariah from
taking over Australia.
In 2014, Halal Choices filed an enquiry to Australia’s Senate stating that the income from
halal certification directly funded terrorism. The Australian Crime Commission and Australian
Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC) concluded there was no such link.42
Halal Choices website effectively targets the economy of halal-certified companies and
products. Their rationale is that halal certification fees equal a religious tax, which is unduly
imposed on non-Muslims:

halal certification does involve a transfer of funds from non-Muslim to Muslims to serve religious
purposes. This is because most Australian halal certifiers are Islamic organisations such as
mosques and the majority of those who purchase halal certified products are non-Muslims. The
often excessive halal certification fees – quite disproportionate to any service actually provided by
certifiers – are a means by which non-Muslim consumers involuntarily subsidise the Islamic faith.
This is our basis for referring to halal certification as a religious tax.43

Informing consumers seems to be the primary object of this website, which explains,

This website is not concerned with products that are halal approved but rather we are concerned
about the products that are halal certified. That is, foods that have undergone the halal certification
process where a fee has been paid to an Islamic certifying body. Primarily this means consumers
are incurring an Islamic tax under the Sharia law. Some products do display a certifying symbol,
and others, like Nestle, do not. So here, at Halal Choices, you will find a list of products that are
halal certified. We have also included a list of products that have not undergone the halal
certification process […] Halal Choices is here to help consumers make informed decisions in the
supermarket. To aid consumers, we have produced a handy pocket guide which is now available
for purchase.

It is unknown how many consumers seem to take in the message of the “shariah tax”.
In the section “How to take action”, they are referred to the on-line information of halal-certi-
fied and non-halal products (this latter category should actually be read as “non-halal-certi-
fied”). The first list, curiously enough, is longer than the second. Halal Choices also issued an
app (AU$5.99). At the time of writing this article, the app had negative reviews because it had
not been updated since 2014 and because “Many of the products listed as non halal are in fact
halal”.44 The organization’s Facebook page has been temporarily suspended and has been
replaced by the “Halal: Your Choice” one.
 138 ISJ 4(1)

Both the Q Society and Ms Smith (founder of Halal Choices) have experienced protests
at their events, which they qualified as “attacks against freedom of speech”.

GROUND LEVEL ISLAMOPHOBIA: “BOYCOTT HALAL” WORLDWIDE

Leading politicians or institutions, however, are not the exclusive actors of the fight to
prevent halal business from going global. Ordinary citizens are very active on social networks,
particularly Facebook and Twitter, in order to spread their message. User “@espectro17”, quite
aware of the economic background of halal food, stated in his Twitter account, “With each euro
you spend in halal restaurants of the Muslim invaders, you contribute to the ruin of Spain. Do
not eat like a Moor!” (tweet no longer available).

The campaign that is gaining momentum is “Boycott Halal”45 (89,094 likes – 14,006
talking about this). There are numerous mirror Facebook pages (Boycott Halal UK, Boycott
Halal in Europe, Boycott Halal in Canada, etc.). Messages and slogans are much the same with
the ones we have seen in “Halal Choices”. The motivation is the same, only they might be mis-
taken when they argue that boycotting halal is going to help their economy:

We aim to Boycott all companies and organisations that promote or use Halal products and
services in order to reduce demand and slow production. We aim to avoid Halal Farm or Fork or
Finance. We aim to support our own country’s economy by seeking out and buying mainstream
traditional products and using our traditional national services. We aim to lobby those in Power
to curb the over-production of halal. We will BOYCOTT HALAL!

Claims in the “About” section repeat a number of topics already explored:

Islam is introducing shariah into our society via halal products and services…this is a Stealth
Jihad in the West. Halal food, food prepared according to Islamic shariah law, is becoming an
increasing part of the Western diet and has become a multi-billion dollar global industry involving
Farming, Food Processing, Catering, Pharmaceuticals, Trade & Finance.
 139

The idea of halal “being forced upon” is once more stated (linked to the economic envi-
ronment, but never a word about the healthiness or safety of halal food), a mention is made to
the power of the halal industry over big distribution players:

Well-known brands and chains have been targeted and challenged to alter their traditional recipes
in order to comply with halal standards. Halal is now making it difficult to disassociate from the
Islamic Religion by commercial intrusion, due to lack of product information which should be a
legal requirement.

Links to terrorism or organisations allegedly connected with terrorism are naively

introduced (but never from authoritative sources):

Undercover investigations have found that the halal industry is increasingly controlled by
organizations belonging to the Muslim brotherhood. When consumers buy Halal food, part of the
price paid goes as a fee to Halal Islamic experts who devoutly pay Zakat Tax on their income –
one-eighth of which funds Islamic Freedom Fighters…in other words Islamic Terrorist groups,
such as the Mujahideen.

And more surprisingly, in this discourse aimed at the average consumer, the macroeco-
nomic insight is offered, while giving away the monitoring of economic events related to halal
to uncover their terrifying global conspiracy:

Wealthy Muslims, including the Muslim Brotherhood, have been financing the fast paced Halal
Industry from the start and want payback…this it is clearly becoming more apparent now as we
are beginning to witness the inevitable convergence of the Halal and Islamic Finance sectors…
This notable paradigm shift was announced on the 10th of April 2011 at the 6th World Halal
Forum, where the theme was titled “The Power of Values in Global Markets”.

Consumers do certainly have power when well organized. Several boycott campaigns
have been successful in putting pressure on the industry, usually for ethical reasons. However,
a look at some of the comments on the “Boycott Halal” Facebook page shows that this move-
ment is not as well organized as the lobbyists in the Q Society and “Halal Choices”:

Barry Whittingham: Buy pork. It’s about the only safe meat left.

The thread on Cadbury’s (Halal-certified) versus Lindt’s (unknown halal status) Easter
eggs leaves a taste of confusion:

Barry Whittingham: Lindt tastes nicer anyway. I don’t care for what they changed in the Cadbury
recipe but it now tastes like American chocolate. Plastic with an aftertaste of floor polish.
Guy Mcfadden-Newman: American chocolate is made with more sugar than milk, UK Cadbury
uses 20% cocoa, US Cadbury uses only 10% cocoa, the recipe for chocolate used at Cadburys since
it’s US take over has remained the same as it’s always been, it’s the law that UK and Ireland
made chocolate must be manufactured in this way.
Stories of a change in recipes are just stories.
 140 ISJ 4(1)

Patterson Suzanne: Nope, its different. Please don’t tell me how to control my taste buds

Mike Howard: You do know that Lindt is Halal?

Pam McAllister: I don’t think that most people understand that the word Halal only means
“allowed”. http://halal-or-haram.com/blog/2014/02/16/lindt-chocolate/

Lindt Chocolate Halal or Haram

***Lindt Chocolates Halal or Haram?*** ***Read The Response From Them!***

Peter Spicer: Guy Mcfadden-Newman the recipe was changed last year to save money along with
putting fewer in the boxes.

Steve Arnott: Don’t eat Chocolate...Easy solution

Seorsa Bhreanan: Guy Mcfadden-Newman...Rubbish, it’s changed. I can taste that fact. It’s not
the same. There is no UK Cadbury’s and American Cadbury’s. It’s just Cadbury’s and the recipe
has changed.

John Lunn: Lindt is best and non halal. Hope they are working overtime to keep up the demand/
supply. Cadburys are on the way out now is the time to pressure the other halal suppliers. Go
Lindt. We love you 👍😎❤️

However, the Chocolate Egg case left traces of the power of consumers, be it because of
the change in recipe or the halal factor (almost impossible to ascertain). According to the
press,46 Cadbury (Mondelez) was reported to have lost in 2016 more than £6m in the product
line. It also changed the name from Easter Egg to Creme Egg (which sparked yet another row
from Islamophobic forums47). The company had to make a statement assuring their Christian
customers the word had not been removed, but placed “at the back” of the packaging48 (this
was regarded as a “joke”).
How many consumers did actually notice the removal of the word “Easter” or reacted
to this? This is also almost impossible to express in figures. What is clear is that the fears of
“losing our Christian country” rank high among some of these contributors to the page:

Peter Ridgeway: Let’s send these companies broke. I feel sorry for the workers, but our Christian
country is losing its identity when it comes to religion
Tory Burdett: We are a secular country lol
Tommy Marshall: Bigot
Aidan Aurelius “Christian country” good luck with that ; )
David Cooper: Tory, actually that’s not technically correct if you’re living in the United Kingdom.
While that might be true if you’re living in the US, and by “country” you mean “state”, (As the
US is a secular state but a Christian nation), the same cannot be said...
Craig Knight: Christian country ???
Rikki Forster: “Christian country” LOLOLOL
Tory Burdett: David Cooper the laws that govern the country are secular
 141

Lynette Stevenson: Who cares if you don’t want to eat it then don’t eat it how about a non religious
country we’re no religion is recognised save all the arguments
Mike Howard: David Cooper Tory lives in Australia so he is correct when he says, “We are a
secular country”

I will conclude with an obvious remark. The debates around the “halal” word in these
contexts have created such a deformation of its original meaning: “halal” means permissible,
healthy, whatever is good for human beings. The battle against halal certification surely misses
what is obvious, that most of the foodstuff is halal anyway.

Claire Barnett: Karen I’m totally against halal and go out of my way to avoid anything that is
halal certified, aside from where the money goes...all or most of these chocolate bars say “suitable
for vegetarians” so surely no animal products used...? Please correct me if I’m wrong (very high
possibility I’m missing the obvious here)

CONCLUSION
Islamophobic discourses have gone global, affecting most regions in the world, and
being orchestrated from all components of society. Be it by members of the European Parliament,
ordinary citizens or petty offenders, Muslims and Islam continue to be targeted, defamed,
attacked and excluded from the mainstream in many societies. The economic component of
Islamophobia remains to be further explored, as markets move towards new dynamics and the
halal industries go global. Islamic economy must be seen as an opportunity to engage with dif-
ferent communities that have positive values to offer, and the hate speech criminalizing halal
businesses must be stopped. It affects families and livelihoods in all regions of the world.
Tracking hate crimes to the end of the process (a conviction or settlement) is arduous work at
the least, and so is assessing the economic impact of Islamophobic attacks aimed at the
industry.

ENDNOTES
1
Islamophobia affects all citizens, whether Muslim or not. Andres Breivik’s attack in Norway is considered an
Islamophobic attack, as his motives were to remove “Marxist/Multiculturalists” because they were “preventing
us from stopping our own national/cultural suicide as the Islamic colonization is increasing annually. […] You
cannot defeat Islamisation or halt/reverse the Islamic colonization of Western Europe without first removing the
political doctrines manifested through multiculturalism/cultural Marxism…” Berwick Andrew (Anders Behring
Breivik), 2083, A European Declaration of Independence, 2011. See also: Bangstad, S. Anders Breivik and the Rise of
Islamophobia, 2014.

2
Thosom & Reuters and DinarStandar, State of the Global Islamic Economy, 2014-2015 report (Thosom & Reuters,
DinarStandar).

3
International Trade Centre, From Niche to Mainstream. Halal Goes Global (Geneva, 2015). http://www.intracen.
org/uploadedFiles/intracenorg/Content/Publications/Halal_Goes_Global-web(1).pdf.

4
The news broke after New Year’s Eve 2016 that “more than 1,200 women had been sexually assaulted” (https://
www.nytimes.com/2016/01/06/world/europe/coordinated-attacks-on-women-in-cologne-were-unprecedented-
germany-says.html?_r=0). Despite the fact that the first accusations were pointed at immigrants/refugees
as the perpetrators, no perpetrators of the 509 crime cases investigated could be identified a year later. “The
 142 ISJ 4(1)

prosecutor’s office could initiate 58 criminal investigations against 83 persons. Only 6 were convicted so far”.
(https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article159765841/Wie-es-aussieht-kommen-fast-alle-Taeter-davon.
html).

5
https://www.iom.int/news/irregular-migrant-refugee-arrivals-europe-top-one-million-2015-iom.

6
http://frontex.europa.eu/news/frontex-publishes-risk-analysis-for-2016-NQuBFv.

7
Council Decision (EU) 2015/1523 of September 14, 2015, and 2015/1601 of September 22, 2015. The
provisions intended the relocation of a total of 160,000 people.

8
See http://www.euractiv.com/section/justice-home-affairs/news/many-eu-countries-say-no-to-immigration-
quotas/ and http://www.epgencms.europarl.europa.eu/cmsdata/upload/d15622d3-b9fc-466c-960b-
57c1fecef29b/Session_2_-_Briefing_Asylum_in_the_EU_facts_and_Figures.pdf (First Instance decisions on
Asylum, 2014). Nine of the 28 states gave a positive decision in more than 50% of asylum applications.

9
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a common list for EU
of safe countries of origin for the purposes of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the
Council on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, and amending Directive
2013/32/EU.

10
http://ec.europa.eu/echo/refugee-crisis_en.

11
UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees), Global Trends. Forced Displacement in 2016
(Geneva, 2017). http://www.unhcr.org/5943e8a34.pdf.

12
Humayun Ansari and Farid Hafez (eds.), From the Far Right to the Mainstream: Islamophobia in Party Politics and
the Media (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2012).

13
http://www.worldbulletin.net/europe/154078/airplanes-to-track-halal-food-choices.

14
http://www.carbonated.tv/news/halal-meat-shop-west-midland-england-petrol-bomb-vandalism; http://metro.
co.uk/2016/06/28/butcher-hit-by-petrol-bomb-in-latest-racist-incident-5971947/.

15
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-birmingham-36688520.

16
http://www.salaamgateway.com/en/food/story/overviewaustralias_13_billion_halal_food_industry-
salaam14092016063348/.

17
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/south-australian-company-bows-to-social-
media-campaign-and-scraps-its-halal-certification-costing-it-contract-with-airline-giant/news-story/
db4902b4eec95cd4be5d59977dbe0220.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-25/byron-anzac-halal/5841118; http://www.smartcompany.com.au/
18

marketing/44247-byron-bay-cookies-cops-racist-abuse-for-disrespectful-halal-certified-anzac-biscuits/.

19
http://www.thepointmagazine.com.au/post.php?s=2014-12-05-food-industry-bites-back-at-anti-halal-groups.

20
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4201700/Halal-certifier-suing-anti-Islam-campaigner-defamation.html.

21
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/feb/11/
anti-halal-campaigner-sued-over-claims-islamic-certification-supports-terrorism.
 143

22
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/28/halal-certifiers-defamation-case-against-kirralie-smith-and-
q-society-settled-out-of-court.

23
http://www.qsociety.org.au/downloads/QSAsettlementstatment.pdf.

24
H. R. 4807 (https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/house-bill/4807/text) and S. 2333 (https://www.
congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/senate-bill/2333/text?r=53); http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/
article/Dubai-Ports-Fallout-Islamophobia-on-the-rise-2539608.php; http://www.nbcnews.com/id/11435262/#.
WLw7Nv4ixKY; Jim Krane. City of Gold: Dubai and the Dream of Capitalism (New Yok: Picador-McMillan,
2009).

25
Although it is not the purpose of this article, other Islamophobic parliamentary questions (2016) include:
Marie-Christine Arnautu (ENF): Award of a European grant of EUR 2.5 million to the exhibition “Islam, it’s
also our history”; Mara Bizzotto (ENF): Prohibition of burkinis to protect the rights and freedom of women
in Europe from Muslim extremism. Both representatives of the European National Front implied that certain
expressions of Islam (Islamic values were never mentioned) are not compatible with European values. Jean-Luc
Schaffhauser (ENF): Political Islam (in relation to the link between Islam and terrorism); Anna Elz.bieta Fotyga
(ECR): Indirect support for terrorism and hate speech from EU funds; and so on.

26
Answer given by Mr Figel on behalf of the Commission: “Article 151 of the Treaty establishing the- European
Community defines the competence of the Community in the cultural field and indicates in its fourth paragraph
that “the Community shall take cultural aspects into account in its action under other provisions of this
Treaty, in particular in order to respect and to promote the diversity of its cultures”. Moreover, cultures are, by
definition, unique and therefore different from each other. In line with Article 151, the EU should therefore
contribute to the flourishing of cultural diversity in Europe. In the view of the Commission, this implies fair,
equal and non-discriminatory treatment of cultures in the European context”. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/
sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=E-2006-3829&language=EN.

27
Answer given by Mr Dalli on behalf of the Commission: “In particular, the Commission reminds the
Honourable Member that from the annual European Union Summary Reports on zoonotic infections and food-
borne outbreaks monitoring the evolving situation in Europe prepared by the European Food Safety Authority,
which are based on data collected by the EU Member States, no indication is found to assume that halal meat
has a significant role on food-borne outbreaks”.

28
The “ritual” slaughter practised to ensure that meat is acceptable to Muslims involves severing the entire neck
save for the spinal column and draining blood from the animal without anaesthetization. Under EU guidelines
on hygiene standards with regard to slaughter, this practice is forbidden. The trachea and oesophagus should not
be harmed during bleeding. This type of ritual slaughter allows pathogens to enter the blood easily and spread
through the body of the animal while it is in its death throes. While the creature is slowly dying and suffering,
it can suffer strong convulsions, which mean that the entire slaughter area becomes contaminated with urine and
excrement.
Slaughterhouses run more profitably if they use only one method of slaughter (halal slaughter). Muslims
consume only certain cuts of meat and the rest is not discarded but often sold – with halal slaughtered meat
apparently ending up on the market without relevant labelling.
1. What is the position of the Commission with regard to the allegation that halal slaughtering is practiced
in a manner which contravenes EU regulations on hygiene standards with regard to slaughter?
2. To what extent is the meeting of hygiene requirements during halal slaughter monitored by the Member
States, and who conducts the inspections?
3. Is the allegation being looked into at EU level that halal meat is supposedly being sold without
labelling?
Answer given by Mr Dalli on behalf of the Commission:
 144 ISJ 4(1)

EU legislation on food hygiene provides that the trachea and oesophagus must remain intact during bleeding.
This rule is not applicable when slaughter takes place according to a religious custom. In addition, EU
legislation on animal welfare provides for an exception from stunning in the case of religious slaughter.
However, even if the exception is applied, bleeding must always be carried out without undue delay and in a
manner that avoids contaminating the meat. It is therefore the responsibility of food business operators using
the derogation to ensure that contamination does not occur.
It is the responsibility of the Competent Authorities in the Member States to carry out appropriate official
controls to ensure that food business operators comply with the requirements of EU legislation. In particular,
they must verify that hygienic rules and procedures are always respected.
The EU legal framework for food labelling covers all foods to be delivered as such to the ultimate consumer,
including halal meats. However, there is no legal obligation to indicate the method of slaughter of animals
used in the production of such foods. The recently adopted Regulation on the provision of food information to
consumers indicates in its Recital 50 that a study on the opportunity to provide the consumer with information
on the stunning of animals should be considered in the context of a future Union strategy for the protection and
welfare of animals.
The Commission has now adopted this strategy and plans to carry out this study in 2013.

29
https://www.bva.co.uk/News-campaigns-and-policy/Newsroom/News-releases/E-petition-to-end-non-stun-
slaughter-hits-100,000-as-FSA-figures-show-increase-in-non-stun/; https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/
petitions/64331.

30
Penn Free Methodist Church owns the page “RealChristianity.org” where the leaflet can be downloaded.
http://realchristianity.org/Handout%20protest%20leaflet%20re%20unlabelled%20halal%20meat.pdf.

31
https://www.ciwf.org.uk/contact-us/faqs-halal-chicken-slaughter/.

32
For a review of the legislation in UK and Switzerland on religious slaughter, see F. Bergeaud-Blackler, Journal
of Ethnic and Migration Studies 33, no. 6: Governing Islam in Western Europe: Essays on Governance of Religious
Diversity. New Challenges for Islamic Ritual Slaughter: A European Perspective; pp. 965-80 (2007).

33
Art. 18. Derogation from stunning in case of religious slaughter taking place in slaughterhouses was granted
by Directive 93/119/EC. Since Community provisions applicable to religious slaughter have been transposed
differently depending on national contexts and considering that national rules take into account dimensions
that go beyond the purpose of this Regulation, it is important that derogation from stunning animals prior
to slaughter should be maintained, leaving, however, a certain level of subsidiarity to each Member State. As
a consequence, this Regulation respects the freedom of religion and the right to manifest religion or belief in
worship, teaching, practice and observance, as enshrined in Article 10 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of
the European Union.

34
Executive Order No 135 of 14 February 2014 on the slaughtering and killing of animals.

http://www.lepoint.fr/societe/suisse-la-concurrence-deloyale-du-halal-05-08-2016-2059271_23.php; https://
35

www.letemps.ch/suisse/2016/08/03/viande-halal-nouveau-prise-cible-parlement.

36
http://bit.ly/1jEHadm.

37
Submission to Department Of Foreign Affairs & Trade in response to Indonesia Australia – Comprehensive
Economic Partnership Agreement (IA-CEPA) by the Australian Meat Industry Council (AMIC), July 2016.
http://dfat.gov.au/trade/agreements/iacepa/Documents/australia-meat-industry-council-2016.PDF.
 145

38
http://www.smartcompany.com.au/marketing/social-media/44555-halal-hate-campaign-businesses-targeted-
by-organised-social-media-attack-as-anti-islam-lobby-group-claims-success/.

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_committees?url=mig/
39

multiculturalism/subs/sub335_2.pdf.

40
http://arts.unimelb.edu.au/nceis/welcome/community-engagement/learning-from-one-another.

41
http://www.qsociety.org.au/soscampaign.htm.

42
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-24/senate-inquiry-no-direct-link-between-halal-certification/6801968.

43
http://halalchoices.com.au/tax_answer.html.

44
https://itunes.apple.com/au/app/halal-choices/id951371363?mt=8.

45
https://www.facebook.com/BOYCOTTxHALAL/.

46
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/12094209/Cadbury-loses-more-than-6m-
in-Creme-Egg-sales-after-changing-recipe.html; http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/cadbury-s-
loses-6m-after-changing-creme-egg-recipe-a6807591.html.

47
http://www.barenakedislam.com/2016/04/03/update-sharia-compliant-cadbury-axes-the-word-easter-from-its-
halal-islamic-approved-easter-eggs/.

48
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/03/27/cadbury-easter-not-banned-from-eggs--its-just-hiding/.