So Lets Shaft Our Farmers.....
News7 mins ago
Halal And Kosher Animal Slaughter.
82 Answers
Norway,Iceland,Switzerland,Sweden,Poland and Denmark, have all banned Halal and Kosher animal slaughter, why hasn't the UK joined them?
This report is over a year old, why have the UK still not took action?
http://
This report is over a year old, why have the UK still not took action?
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. 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.
-- answer removed --
Some of us have been screaming for years about how unstunned religious slaughter (of any sort) should be banned, to no avail. There was even one lady in Bradford who was jailed for non-payment of part of her rates on the grounds that she would not pay for halal to be served in schools (all meat in Bradford schools is halal).
It is years since I bought any N.Z. lamb. Mostly we eat pork and we have reduced our meat intake so that we can afford to buy locally-bred meat where we know the abattoir used and that it is humane. It's only a few oz. less per week, which is probably healthier anyway.
Answer to OP - the Govt.is scared of the trouble that would ensue.
It is years since I bought any N.Z. lamb. Mostly we eat pork and we have reduced our meat intake so that we can afford to buy locally-bred meat where we know the abattoir used and that it is humane. It's only a few oz. less per week, which is probably healthier anyway.
Answer to OP - the Govt.is scared of the trouble that would ensue.
-- answer removed --
Being put to death need not be a cruel experience. To think so means one has a strange idea of what cruel means.
The way nature works is that life feeds on life. This includes both plant and animal life. It is a misplaced sense of morality that leads one to believe that bucking the process nature has in place, is the correct thing to do. It's down to sentimentality and a sheltered upbringing. That stated, everyone has the right to select their own diet, just not to suggest than eating normally is somehow wrong.
A creature that knows it is being killed is most likely being treated cruelly. It certainly is IMO. If the abattoirs are failing to achieve cruelty free slaughter that then it is the government's responsibility to see that they do.
IMO an animal that has it's throat cut will know it is badly injured and the person with the knife has done it; so this clearly qualifies as cruel. There should be no exceptions to the banning this. If religions need to revise its laws, that held more use in a tribal past that today, then so be it, and the human race can progress.
The way nature works is that life feeds on life. This includes both plant and animal life. It is a misplaced sense of morality that leads one to believe that bucking the process nature has in place, is the correct thing to do. It's down to sentimentality and a sheltered upbringing. That stated, everyone has the right to select their own diet, just not to suggest than eating normally is somehow wrong.
A creature that knows it is being killed is most likely being treated cruelly. It certainly is IMO. If the abattoirs are failing to achieve cruelty free slaughter that then it is the government's responsibility to see that they do.
IMO an animal that has it's throat cut will know it is badly injured and the person with the knife has done it; so this clearly qualifies as cruel. There should be no exceptions to the banning this. If religions need to revise its laws, that held more use in a tribal past that today, then so be it, and the human race can progress.
I hope this proves enlightening. Note the point made about the way carcasses are split and sold to multiple end markets. Unavoidably, this means all carcasses will get the halal treatment as they'd need two entire production lines and tracking/labelling systems, which only adds cost.
----
What about exemptions for halal slaughter?
In New Zealand there is no exemption to the requirement for pre-slaughter stunning, unlike in some other countries.
(Detail edited; mentions *electrical* stunning)
How much New Zealand meat is "halal", and why?
While there are no official statistics on halal production in New Zealand, nearly all of New Zealand's red meat export slaughter premises are certified to undertake slaughter in compliance with halal requirements.
This gives the New Zealand red meat industry the flexibility to export different cuts from a single carcass to the best-returning markets. The industry currently serves some 120 markets worldwide.
http://
To me, the core issue is, if method A causes less animal suffering than method B, then we should ensure method A is prevalent, preferably using legislative powers.
Assertive countries exercise those powers.
Timid countries allow themselves to be trampled over, in the interests of something called "social cohesion", which was all the rage, in 1940, apparently.
A certain faith makes a big thing out of not having its laws, supposedly authored directly by its deity countermanded by laws of earthly authorship. In rhetoric, they particularly do not want the laws of current, or former, western, imperialist, countries to apply to them and, it appears, from the above, that mere "market forces" are enough to push around small countries, like UK and N.Z.
----
What about exemptions for halal slaughter?
In New Zealand there is no exemption to the requirement for pre-slaughter stunning, unlike in some other countries.
(Detail edited; mentions *electrical* stunning)
How much New Zealand meat is "halal", and why?
While there are no official statistics on halal production in New Zealand, nearly all of New Zealand's red meat export slaughter premises are certified to undertake slaughter in compliance with halal requirements.
This gives the New Zealand red meat industry the flexibility to export different cuts from a single carcass to the best-returning markets. The industry currently serves some 120 markets worldwide.
http://
To me, the core issue is, if method A causes less animal suffering than method B, then we should ensure method A is prevalent, preferably using legislative powers.
Assertive countries exercise those powers.
Timid countries allow themselves to be trampled over, in the interests of something called "social cohesion", which was all the rage, in 1940, apparently.
A certain faith makes a big thing out of not having its laws, supposedly authored directly by its deity countermanded by laws of earthly authorship. In rhetoric, they particularly do not want the laws of current, or former, western, imperialist, countries to apply to them and, it appears, from the above, that mere "market forces" are enough to push around small countries, like UK and N.Z.
@Svejk
//Haven't read the links but I'm sure the anti-halal people wanted halal meat to be designated as such. But the government refused to do that at the behest of our Muslim friends.
14:28 Mon 29th Feb 2016
//
If I understand that rightly, that Muslims have persuaded (!) the government (of the UK) that halal meat NOT be labelled as such (in case it repels unwitting Judeo-Christian fundamentalists, animal rights fans or other sundry objectors) then it really IS all about sales and marketing.
@andy-hughes
//
retrocop - //But Mike Judge, from the campaign group the Christian Institute, said: ‘The idea of having Islamic ritual said over meat would be objectionable to some Christians. I would find it objectionable, so it //
Not sure what the rest of the quote is, but what a very strange attitude from a Chrrstian!
I don't object to the cruel slaughter of the animal - which is against God's teaching, but I have got myself het up about the fact that a heathen mumbles words over it first!
Bizarre!
13:55 Mon 29th Feb 2016
//
Why is that any more bizarre than Muslims rejecting meat which lacks such incantation? They regard meat done our way as simply not good enough.
I can't accept arguments about hygeine; our cattle are treated with antibiotics so blood retention poses no identifiable infection hazard.
I CAN accepts arguments such as they are a bit squeamish about steaks which leak blood during the cooking or eating.
I CAN accept that the blessing is merely saying "thanks for the food" to their god.
I cannot accept, although I may stand to be corrected, that the blessing is saying "sorry" to the animal for what it is about to suffer. Animist religions do things like that, as might believers in reincarnation, where humans can "go down a level".
Worst slaughter technique I've seen to date was a sequence on The Deadliest Catch which I can imagine the industry has had redacted from repeat showings. I've looked at YouTube but the required close up isn't shown. You can read the patent for the machine concerned. I was reminded of the Monty Python "Architects" sketch.
Bon appetito.
//
retrocop - //But Mike Judge, from the campaign group the Christian Institute, said: ‘The idea of having Islamic ritual said over meat would be objectionable to some Christians. I would find it objectionable, so it //
Not sure what the rest of the quote is, but what a very strange attitude from a Chrrstian!
I don't object to the cruel slaughter of the animal - which is against God's teaching, but I have got myself het up about the fact that a heathen mumbles words over it first!
Bizarre!
13:55 Mon 29th Feb 2016
//
Why is that any more bizarre than Muslims rejecting meat which lacks such incantation? They regard meat done our way as simply not good enough.
I can't accept arguments about hygeine; our cattle are treated with antibiotics so blood retention poses no identifiable infection hazard.
I CAN accepts arguments such as they are a bit squeamish about steaks which leak blood during the cooking or eating.
I CAN accept that the blessing is merely saying "thanks for the food" to their god.
I cannot accept, although I may stand to be corrected, that the blessing is saying "sorry" to the animal for what it is about to suffer. Animist religions do things like that, as might believers in reincarnation, where humans can "go down a level".
Worst slaughter technique I've seen to date was a sequence on The Deadliest Catch which I can imagine the industry has had redacted from repeat showings. I've looked at YouTube but the required close up isn't shown. You can read the patent for the machine concerned. I was reminded of the Monty Python "Architects" sketch.
Bon appetito.
Hypognosis - //@andy-hughes
//
retrocop - //But Mike Judge, from the campaign group the Christian Institute, said: ‘The idea of having Islamic ritual said over meat would be objectionable to some Christians. I would find it objectionable, so it //
Not sure what the rest of the quote is, but what a very strange attitude from a Chrrstian!
I don't object to the cruel slaughter of the animal - which is against God's teaching, but I have got myself het up about the fact that a heathen mumbles words over it first!
Bizarre!
13:55 Mon 29th Feb 2016
//
Why is that any more bizarre than Muslims rejecting meat which lacks such incantation? They regard meat done our way as simply not good enough. //
It isn't any more bizarre - which is why I didn't say that it was.
I made no mention of the Muslim approach to slaughter because I was commenting on the Christian gentleman's objection to the Halal ceremony.
My objection would be to the cruelty of animal slaughter anywhere, by anyone.
But I raise no objection - I am not entitled so to do because I am a meat eater, and to protest against cruelty would make me a Grade A hypocrite.
//
retrocop - //But Mike Judge, from the campaign group the Christian Institute, said: ‘The idea of having Islamic ritual said over meat would be objectionable to some Christians. I would find it objectionable, so it //
Not sure what the rest of the quote is, but what a very strange attitude from a Chrrstian!
I don't object to the cruel slaughter of the animal - which is against God's teaching, but I have got myself het up about the fact that a heathen mumbles words over it first!
Bizarre!
13:55 Mon 29th Feb 2016
//
Why is that any more bizarre than Muslims rejecting meat which lacks such incantation? They regard meat done our way as simply not good enough. //
It isn't any more bizarre - which is why I didn't say that it was.
I made no mention of the Muslim approach to slaughter because I was commenting on the Christian gentleman's objection to the Halal ceremony.
My objection would be to the cruelty of animal slaughter anywhere, by anyone.
But I raise no objection - I am not entitled so to do because I am a meat eater, and to protest against cruelty would make me a Grade A hypocrite.
//Norway,Iceland,Switzerland,Sweden,Poland and Denmark, have all banned Halal and Kosher animal slaughter, why hasn't the UK joined them?//
Because not enough people have protested about it, - though the bete noir of many on AB, Tommy Robinson has, along with the building of yet more mosques and the general Islamification of Europe.
Halal butchery is not British!
Because not enough people have protested about it, - though the bete noir of many on AB, Tommy Robinson has, along with the building of yet more mosques and the general Islamification of Europe.
Halal butchery is not British!
@andy-hughes
You said, and I quote
//
Bizarre!
13:55 Mon 29th Feb 2016
//
I am *guessing* that *this particular* Christian's objection to Halal is that his meat has become "contaminated" by dint of a religion which sets itself as counter to his.
I went on to assert that Muslims, in a similar manner, regard meat to be "contaminated", if it is left wanting, with regard to the blessing. It cannot be retro-actively blessed, it has to be seconds before death.
Although I am, in effect, saying that both religions are just being silly, or priggish, about this and that it would be criminal for good food to go to waste, in a world with so much poverty and hunger in it, I think the Christian is being the sillier of the two, citing "religious contamination". Luckily, none of the AB contributors are suggesting anything along those lines.
What baffles me is that it was beyond any of your correspondents to say "yes, andy, we take your point about all animal husbandry and slaughter being cruel but…" before going on to state their case.
You have tried to punt the faith issue into the long grass, claiming it is an irrelevance but what they are complaining about, here, is that people of a faith *which is in the minority in this country* are successfully dictating to the world quite how their livestock should be slaughtered.
They object vehemently to having our way of life undemocratically subverted by (frankly) uppity recent arrivals to these shores.
If you invite a guest into your home and they start bossing you about, getting everything changed to make *them* comfortable, at inconvenience to yourself and your sprogs, then you are a wuss, are you not?
There's nothing wrong with being Muslim, andy, but there is something wrong with going way beyond just being assertive.
Equal opportunities, equal rights, no abusive language or behaviour by all means but bossing us around? No ef'ng way.
At least that is a distillation of the sentiments I see expressed on many AB threads in the years I've been here. I am surprised how far my sympathies have shifted in that direction. I'm sure I could PC with the best of them, 10 years ago.
You said, and I quote
//
Bizarre!
13:55 Mon 29th Feb 2016
//
I am *guessing* that *this particular* Christian's objection to Halal is that his meat has become "contaminated" by dint of a religion which sets itself as counter to his.
I went on to assert that Muslims, in a similar manner, regard meat to be "contaminated", if it is left wanting, with regard to the blessing. It cannot be retro-actively blessed, it has to be seconds before death.
Although I am, in effect, saying that both religions are just being silly, or priggish, about this and that it would be criminal for good food to go to waste, in a world with so much poverty and hunger in it, I think the Christian is being the sillier of the two, citing "religious contamination". Luckily, none of the AB contributors are suggesting anything along those lines.
What baffles me is that it was beyond any of your correspondents to say "yes, andy, we take your point about all animal husbandry and slaughter being cruel but…" before going on to state their case.
You have tried to punt the faith issue into the long grass, claiming it is an irrelevance but what they are complaining about, here, is that people of a faith *which is in the minority in this country* are successfully dictating to the world quite how their livestock should be slaughtered.
They object vehemently to having our way of life undemocratically subverted by (frankly) uppity recent arrivals to these shores.
If you invite a guest into your home and they start bossing you about, getting everything changed to make *them* comfortable, at inconvenience to yourself and your sprogs, then you are a wuss, are you not?
There's nothing wrong with being Muslim, andy, but there is something wrong with going way beyond just being assertive.
Equal opportunities, equal rights, no abusive language or behaviour by all means but bossing us around? No ef'ng way.
At least that is a distillation of the sentiments I see expressed on many AB threads in the years I've been here. I am surprised how far my sympathies have shifted in that direction. I'm sure I could PC with the best of them, 10 years ago.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
