Feature
State Pork Producers Threaten to Sue Over Prison Meal Offerings By Teresa Cajot When Muslim death row inmate Abdul Awkal accused the Ohio state prison system of infringing on his religious freedoms by refusing to provide halal meals, officials responded by removing pork products from the prison menus altogether. However, instead of calming the situation, this “resolution” only served to escalate the problem. First of all, Awkal has no intention of dropping the federal lawsuit in light of the newest menu alterations and secondly, the state’s pork producers and processors have now stepped in with threats of a counter lawsuit.
While Carlo LoParo, the spokesman for the state corrections department, insists that the pork ban serves to ensure that “Muslims or any inmate who has a specific prohibition against pork products” will not receive pork in error, the state’s pork industry says that the decision is unreasonable. Dick Isler, the executive director of the Ohio Pork Producers Council argues that the prison system is “letting a small group make the rules when it really isn’t in the best interest of the rest of prisoners.” According to Isler, pork is an affordable and nourishing meat and thus suitable to serve the large prison population. However pork is exactly what the prison targeted in 2009 when it sought to cut expenses. The pig farm and processing facility that served the inmates was shut down and pork remained off the menu until last year when pork rib patties once again made their way onto the menu, but only two times each month. While it is clear that the Ohio pork industry is upset at the potential loss of income, the prison system has other matters to consider. The financial burden of providing halal meals is an obvious issue to the state of Ohio but unfortunately, cutting pork from the menu doesn’t provide much of a resolution either. According to Islamic law, pork and blood are not to be consumed, while other meats must come from animals that are slaughtered in a specific manner, which includes allowing the animal to bleed out after its throat has been slashed. Therefore, the state’s officials will have to reconsider their “solution” if they want this lawsuit to go away.
PAGE
While the new pork restrictions do guarantee that pork will not contaminate the food of those who choose to abstain from it, prison guidelines already guarantee that Muslim inmates be provided with meals “free of all pork and products containing or derived from pork.” Furthermore, the state’s plan fails to address the issue of slaughter methods at all. While the state argues that the inmates have the option of vegetarian and non-pork options Awkal and inmate Cornelius Causley say that these options do not meet the required preparation methods and are therefore not acceptable. Awkal further argues that while he is denied meals prepared according to Islamic law, Jewish inmates have access to kosher meals. The state of California, which offers kosher and halal meals options, spends about $3.50 per day for halal meals, compared to an estimated $2.90 a day for regular meals, according to spokesman Paul Herke. According to David Singleton, the executive director of the Ohio Justice and Policy Center, which is presenting the lawsuit for Awkal and Causley, pork can stay on the menu as long as the state offers prepackaged meals, like those provided for Jewish inmates, to Muslim inmates. Lawyers and inmates for the state must finish filing documents in support of their arguments by next month. A trial is expected in January.
www.lawcrossing.com