Will Charles Also Ban Halal?

[webbo3]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63676759

will Charles also ban Halal in all royal residences, even when a Muslim dignitaries attend.

[Atheist]

Thanks for an enlightening contribution to an interesting topic, Davebro.

[jno]

I'm sure Charles wouldn't deliberately alienate the followers of a religion who are required to eat foie gras. I just can't think of any at the moment.

[Peter Pedant]

Having a bolt shot in to the skull distresses animals

manslaughter case - where an abattoir worker boasted he was James Bond 007 and then stunned a colleague wivviz stunner
the springy thing that rips the brayne out....
unbelievably stupid

[jourdain2]

I sincerely hope that if given the chance King Charles would ban both Halal and Kosher slaughter. The French are not squeamish, but we lived about 4km from an abbatoir and the son-in-law of a neighbour was employed there. He DETESTED halal-days and told us some terrible stories. (He was quite happy to help our neighbour shoot his pig once a year.)

Halal, at least, is not absolutely necessary because the Koran gives permission for those who live where it is not available to eat whatever is available - as did the first Moslem arrivals in Bradford.

Re. slaughter. I know a pig-farmer quite well and he has gone to great lengths (literally travelling miles) to discover an abattoir where he knows that his pigs won't be distressed. They walk into an area and are quietly gassed - they just go to sleep.

I do like foie gras. Again, I knew a producer who assured me that he just faces his geese with constant mountains of food and they gobble it up quite happily. I don't think it's in the same league as ritual slaughter.

[tomus42]

I think that if superior aliens came here and decided we were edible and tasty, I'd rather be shot in the d than have my throat cut.

I wouldn't give a cuff what their king thought.

[tomus42]

Head

[andy-hughes]

andres - // Slitting the animals throat and hanging it up until it's life's blood drains away causes a lot of distress to the other animals in the queue that are waiting for death . //

I'm pretty sure that the perceived wisdom in this circumstance is that the notion of animals feeling 'fear and distress', is an emotional reaction attached to them by animal cruelty campaigners, rather than the actual experiences the animals undergo.

I have read testimony where a cow standing next to a cow that is slaughtered showed no reaction whatsoever.

I believe that is more believable for species of animals where notions of 'distress' and 'fear' in situations which they would not regard as being potentially and imminently harmful, do not experience such emotions.

The anthropomorphication of animals in order to cause a reaction in other humans does not make the notion a fact.

[andy-hughes]

webbo - I believe the apparent logical link between the two situations you offer is actually flawed.

A comparison of force-feeding of one species, to the ritual slaughter of another, cannot reasonably be made.

The King may well ban Halal practices in meat offered for consumption by himself and his guests, but it will not be linked to his ban on fois gras.

[tomus42]

I've read through it a few times. Still not sure what you're on about. Sorry.

[emmie]

agree entirely with Andres, sadly one doesn't know that much of what we eat is halal, due to the fact that packaging doesn't always highlight it. I abhor that fact, but what can you do.

[1ozzy]

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/may/08/what-does-halal-method-animal-slaughter-involve

[emmie]

we have had this discussion before. I don't think i will make my feelings known other than what i have already said.

[douglas9401]

The power of British royalty may have been exaggerated.

Menu altering is more or less it.

[Old_Geezer]

All higher species animals will be subject to feeling fear & distress. It is a natural survival mechanism.

Life feeds on life as we can see over the whole food chain. Given that species eat species throughout, believing it's more moral to eat plants than animals is likely a decision based on squeamishness rather than anything else, even if others can see where you're coming from.

The big issue is to avoid causeing suffering or fear, and one can not believe it is beyond the wit of humans to avoid such during the slaughter of animal species designated as human food sources. If that is presently failing then it is the system that needs modifying.

As for showing one animal another being slaughtered, or attacking a conscious animal so it knows it has been seriously injured, both are surely that which must be avoided. One needs compassion within farming and slaughtering of livestock.

[Atheist]

Good post, OG. I do feel that the word squeamishness is not quite right, as it makes it sound as if vegetarians are merely put off by the mechanics of slaughter. I certainly am, but I don't regard that as weakness; it is just an expansion of the range of my concerns from humans to other sentient beings.

[andy-hughes]

Old_Geezer - // As for showing one animal another being slaughtered, or attacking a conscious animal so it knows it has been seriously injured, both are surely that which must be avoided. //

Once again I believe this is the anthropomorhisising of animals, and attributing to them reactions and feelings which in reality they do not possess.

I believe that slaughter animals do not possess the levels of intelligent thought either to understand that another animal is being slaughtered within their sight and hearing, or that they understand that they are 'injured'.

[naomi24]

//I believe that slaughter animals do not possess the levels of intelligent thought either to understand that another animal is being slaughtered within their sight and hearing, or that they understand that they are 'injured'. //

Why do you 'believe' that? I think animals have been known to show what appears to be concern at distress in other animals - and in human beings.

[Atheist]

Andy; cows are social animals who live in herds and nurture their young - like antelopes etc. When they are threatened by a predator, they realise what's happening and they run like hell. That is fear, panic, adrenalin etc. Sometimes animals will defend their young against attack, or act out mournful and distressed behaviour after the death of a relative or young one. Elephants do that. Chimpanzees do similar things. Dolphins and whales do similar things.

[andy-hughes]

naomi - // Why do you 'believe' that? //

I have read it, but am unable to quote the source, so I prefer to say that I believe it, rather than state it as a fact.

[andy-hughes]

Atheist - // Andy; cows are social animals who live in herds and nurture their young - like antelopes etc. When they are threatened by a predator, they realise what's happening and they run like hell. That is fear, panic, adrenalin etc. Sometimes animals will defend their young against attack, or act out mournful and distressed behaviour after the death of a relative or young one. Elephants do that. Chimpanzees do similar things. Dolphins and whales do similar things. //

I think I did not make myself clear in my posts.

Animals such as the species you mention, are able to understand the 'fight or flight' reaction, because that is inherent in their survival in their normal environments.

My point is, slaughter animals have no experience of the slaughter process, in terms of it frightening them, so that is why I understand that they do not react with fear or distress when another animal is killed near them - it is outwith their usual experiences.