Classical Values :: forgive us our pork

forgive us our pork

I doubt very many readers will remember that post more than two years ago, I complained about an employer who prohibited his employees from eating pork or having pork products on company premises. What I didn't like was the bizarre notion that eating pork was discrimination against anyone:

This is an interesting test case, and I predict that if it goes anywhere, a few misguided American religious zealots will follow the usual left wing ideologues and side with the Muslim employer. One reason is that (apart from the fact that homosexuality is more charged emotionally than eating pork) there is no logical difference between discriminating against someone for tastes in food and tastes in sex partners (something I have pointed out before), but there is a shrill movement seeking the right to do the latter. And they're always looking for new opportunities.

It never ceases to amaze me how thoroughly confused people can be over the concept of discrimination. Failing to follow the religious dictates of other people is not discrimination, nor is it persecution.

I can understand the employer's position of course, and there's always the right to freedom of association (which presumably would allow me to discriminate against vegans or other people who refuse to eat pork). But if there is such a thing as "accommodation" I don't see why it doesn't work both ways.

Anyway, in today's interesting coincidence, the brother of the pork-banning employee has been indicted for funding terrorist groups, but (apparently in mitigation) gave money to the GOP:

Abdul Tawala Ibn Ali Alishtari gave $15,250 to the NRCC since 2002, according to FEC records published on the Web site opensecrets.org.

On Friday, Alishtari pled not guilty to funding terrorism and other crimes, including financial fraud.

The NRCC is the main political group dedicated to helping the Republican party win seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. Reached Monday morning for comment, an NRCC spokeswoman declined to discuss the matter on the record.

The indictment against Alishtari unsealed in Manhattan federal court Friday charges him with providing material support to terrorists by transferring $152,000 between banks to allegedly be used to purchase night-vision goggles and other equipment needed for a terrorist training camp.

Gee, I hope it wasn't for the training camp around the corner. (I never know when today's sarcastic remarks will turn out to be tomorrow's news.)

As Glenn Reynolds points out, Alishtari's GOP donations might be an exercise in CYA:

This is an embarrassment -- though if I were a terrorist I'd be a big GOP donor, too. It might help, and at the very least would ensure that prosecution would be an embarrassment.

It's embarrassing, but not as embarrassing to the GOP as the pork busting. (Sorry!)

Anyway, the reason I know Alishtari is the brother of the employer I blogged about in '04 is that in another article on the same case, it was reported that,

Kweli [the employer] introduced the policy because Rising Star shared a building with its main client, GlobalProtector.net, owned by A.T. Alishtari, Kweli's brother. Kweli voluntarily instituted the no-pork policy in 2000 or 2001 after he found out some of Alishtari's employees, who were devout Muslims, felt they could not eat in the shared lunchroom because of the presence of pork.

Elsewhere Alashtari claims to have saved Internet commerce from online identity theft, as he holds the patent on some new technology that does appear quite lucrative. As Riehl World View notes, he's also behind a charity called the Global Peace Film Festival, which is aided by famous actors and Nobel Laureates. Their site features such screen classics as "Criminalizing Dissent" and "Forgiving Dr. Mengele." (The latter is reviewed here.)

I guess money probably buys a lot of forgiveness -- especially from pork lovers.

There's so much corruption in high places that it's hard to know what to think about these things, or in what directions I am supposed to care. Starting with my local Saudi madrassa -- which probably funds both parties.

Comments

If the Jewish employer was in the food business and keeping kosher was an important part of that business then the no pork rule makes sense.

M. Simon · February 21, 2007 09:13 AM

I agree. And a vegan product business might be able to make argument too.

But telling people in an ordinary business what not to eat in a shared lunchroom, where does it end? If the employer is Muslim, does that give him the right to impose Muslim dietary rules on his employees? If so, then suppose Bill Gates goes vegan; should he have the right to prohibit meat eating and wearing leather at Microsoft?

And how far does freedom of association go? What if a vegan employer prohibited all meat-eating, whether on of off the job? Should a Muslim employer be allowed to insist female employees be veiled?

Eric Scheie · February 21, 2007 09:34 AM

Banning pork, without a strong reason to do so (preparing kosher or halal foods, or running a place of worship) is potentially discriminatory on national origin grounds - eating pork products is a established tradition among people from Spain, and several other european countries (and some pacific islanders), and banning pork creates a hostile work environment for them.

Anthony · February 21, 2007 02:30 PM