Film, Media & TV0 min ago
A Step In The Right Direction
24 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ukanonymous. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.I agree. I think Gromit is right that a change will be resisted, but I think that will change over time.
I thought that I had read somewhere that Danish Jews had accepted the use of a non-penetrative capture bolt prior to slaughter, and I am pretty sure that the proscription on stunning by muslim scholars is an issue of interpretation.
So, rather than bleating about anti-semitism and being denied their religious freedoms, they should just recognise that stunning does not contradict their precious holy teachings.
I thought that I had read somewhere that Danish Jews had accepted the use of a non-penetrative capture bolt prior to slaughter, and I am pretty sure that the proscription on stunning by muslim scholars is an issue of interpretation.
So, rather than bleating about anti-semitism and being denied their religious freedoms, they should just recognise that stunning does not contradict their precious holy teachings.
All farmed livestock are humanely killed. There is no accounting for private kill but it would be against the law.
http:// www.rsp ca.org. uk/alla boutani mals/fa rm/slau ghter/f actfile
http://
I cannot agree that this ruling is anti-Semitic or indeed against any faith.
The ruling is made on the basis of unecessary cruelty, which is always a step in the right direction for any culture.
I would agree that a change in the rule in the UK is unlikely any time soon - if the law was going to have been changed, given the animal-loving (?) nature of the UK electorate - it would have happened by now.
The ruling is made on the basis of unecessary cruelty, which is always a step in the right direction for any culture.
I would agree that a change in the rule in the UK is unlikely any time soon - if the law was going to have been changed, given the animal-loving (?) nature of the UK electorate - it would have happened by now.
What I object to is the fact that religious slaughter does not account for the whole beast. Some meat which religious butchers reject will be sold to the unsuspecting public as normal meat, which keeps down the cost of the stuff which they do accept. I might buy meat without knowing that it is in fact meat slaughtered using less-than-humane methods. I want this kind of meat labelled as such so that I can avoid it.