For all it's intent and purposes, the No Pork message is simply to lure Muslim consumers, who are taught since they begin to reason, that BABI is an animal to be avoided as it is mentioned in the Quran not to be consumed and that the stigma remains as a filthy animal that creates a sense of "GELI".
In a very subtle manner though No Pork is just wanting to give a message that the food served is "halal" and safe for Muslim consumption.
Muslims on the other hand, after getting the message from their peers that the food served at any particular No Pork outlet is "SEDAP GILER", gets lured and easily becomes a regular patron.
What if, after sometime, someone detected that the food outlet didn't use pork but frog or non-slaughtered animal instead or did not prepare there menu in contradiction to the Halal requirements?
Can the Muslims who used to have their meals there press charges on the owner of the restaurant? On what charge? Using the Trade Description Act 2011? Misrepresentation?
Well, can we charge summon them to court finally? The owner's slimy lawyers will easily squash the case by simply argued that the No Pork sign doesn't necessary for the Muslims but for all consumers. If they do serve or use frog as an ingredient or excepient they are off the hook by telling the court yes they don't serve pork but not necessarily frog.
And what the authorities can do with these unscrupulous operators is just to remind again and again the Muslim consumers not to patronize these outlet. How long can they do it while the irresponsible food owners will walk free and get to maintain their No Pork signage?
No comments:
Post a Comment