UKC

Follows on nicely from another thread, should it be compulsory?

In reply to stroppygob:

Hello, gorgeous. Been missing me? Sorry, duckling. Halal meat is worth £2.6bn a year. Your opinion, therefore, counts for nothing. Money talks, stroppygob whines.

In reply to Chambers:

Most halal is stunned too, around 90%.. I think that info should be on the package.

In reply to IainRUK:

I'd be interested in seeing where that figure comes from Iain. I'm not doubting you, just would like it confirmed.

In reply to stroppygob:

I'd be interested to see what proportion of people would refuse to buy meat that was labelled as halal.

Probably for all the wrong reasons.

A vet on R4 just now confirmed the roughly 90% prestunned statistic for NZ lamb.

In reply to stroppygob:

A vet on radio 4 gave a number of 89% of halal slaughter being pre-stunned.
It's kosher meat that is less likely to be pre-stunned apparently and (according to countryfile) because only the fore limbs of the animal are considered kosher the rest of the animal is sold as not kosher into the normal market.

In reply to stroppygob:

They seem unsure themselves whether to stun or not to stun...

http://www.organic-halal-meat.com/article/stunning.php

In reply to stroppygob:

I think it is a great idea. The holiness that will be imbued into the meat may help reverse the moral decline of the nation.

In reply to stroppygob:

Also on R4: Most NZ lamb is destined for the mid east - we take a relatively small amount, so get a correspondingly small say in how it gets slaughtered.

In reply to dissonance:


Unless it's the wrong brand of holiness, then all hell will break loose.

In reply to dissonance:


As long as the right prayer has been mumbled over it.

In reply to dissonance:


But will it make it taste better?

In reply to stroppygob:

I think the labelling is important and, with a good dose of moral relativism, I would happily eat halal or kosher chicken but would prefer to know that my lamb and beef has been pre- stunned at slaughter. Not a case I would care to debate, just me exercising what I regard as my rights as a consumer

In reply to stroppygob:

If people are that concerned about the welfare of animals, maybe they should stop eating them.

In reply to mrbird:



I don't know how anyone can read that text and not say to themselves, "What a bunch of nutters!" Mind boggling in this day and age. It reads like a Monty Python parody and yet it is serious, I think.

In reply to stroppygob:

And the mumbling doesn't contain a word beginning with "n".

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Nope, just the usual Islamic shit that's synonymous with death 'Allah Akbar'!

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

Soome of us have.

In reply to stroppygob:

Respect.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:


Or only eat them once they've died of old age. Mutton anyone?

In reply to stroppygob:

me too

In reply to Sir Chasm:


nope, its all the fault of those secular atheists.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

So we aren't allowed to decide a middle ground and I should just not care that animals are suffering unduly because in your eyes there's no difference between humane and inhumane slaughter if I intend to eat it at the end.

Cool, I'll just go and bludgeon my next meal to death with a club.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

So that there are no farm animals to be concerned about, after the remaining ones die of disease and predation? It's not like if we didn't eat them they'd still be around, living jolly little lives.

As for the Halalness, I think it's probably a bit hypocritical for most people to get worked up about it. It's the kind of thing that we might associate with "cruel practice" or "bad animal welfare" without having any kind of comparitor. That said, I'd rather there wasn't any unnecessary cruelty just for some mumbo-jumbo tradition - for economic reasons it's understandable if distasteful, but for religious reasons it's a stage worse for me.

In reply to gethin_allen:

You've read a lot into what I said. Maybe you're feeling guilty.

In reply to gethin_allen:

I don't think that's what he meant at all- it didn't come across that way to me at any rate

In reply to stroppygob:

The usual daily mail story...
Seems a bit hypocritical to me, especially when you see how animals are treated in factory farms.
Nobody complained about restaurant not telling anything about the living conditions of animals they used for their meat, yet as soon as the word "Halal" is out people are scandalised...

It's way more horrible to have chicken and pigs spending their whole life stacked on top of each other indoors, with their head physically stuck in a feeding bench, and still most people buy this meat, however as soon a the world "Halal" is thrown, total panic follows...

In reply to Jon Stewart:

I'd say it's better to not have children, than to have children and then abuse them.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


I'm not sure why you think it's hypocritical - the 'comparator' we have is the system in place before improved animal welfare rules were introduced.

So the principle is simply that the same laws apply to everyone.

In reply to stroppygob:



The letter itself is just a duplicitous attempt to evade the issue.

They are not actually calling for labelling but rather trying to make the tired old point that lawful methods of slaughter may be almost as unpalatable as the ritual methods are.

In reply to stroppygob:

What about pictures of living conditions and slaughter methods on the packet, like cigarettes? That might make people think a bit more carefully about what they eat.

In reply to gethin_allen: I think it came from this..

http://www.rspca.org.uk/ImageLocator/LocateAsset?asset=document&assetId...

In reply to RomTheBear:

This. Says a lot about the seemingly common view of all things Islam as evil.

In reply to Blackmud:

I don't care if someone mutters some nonsense whilst slaughtering my food, but I do care if it's conscious or not.

In reply to stroppygob:
Is it OK to not to buy Halal because you do not think that abattoirs should be pressured into employing only muslims for specific jobs or to follow muslim religious instructions when producing food for non-muslims. Is it politically correct not to want religious symbols on the packaging of your food?

If got a job in an abbatoir why should I be prevented from killing the animals or forced to listen to people chanting Allah Akhbar all day. It's the 21st century FFS and there are employment laws that would stop this in any other context.

In reply to RomTheBear:





Is it ok to criticise unstunned slaughter if I make sure I don't buy factory farmed meat?

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


The thing is most people will care about whether the animal is conscious or not for a couple of minutes at best, but are perfectly happy buying cheap meat produced in factory farms where animals are suffering their entire lifetime.

Eating cheap meat several times a week is as unnecessary as halal slaughter, and extremely damaging to the environment and animal welfare, yet most people are fine with former (unless they are vegan/vegetarians), but are scandalised with the latter.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Everybody is free to criticise what they want, however it's a bit stupid to criticise Halal slaughter because the animal has suffered two minutes before its death, and then keep eating meat from factories where animals are suffering entire lifetimes.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

How ethical and saintly of you. Does it matter what happens before that?

(That was the point of the original post).

In reply to RomTheBear:


So criticise both. Rather than excuse one.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Is anyone?

Most halal is slaughtered after stunning. I thought in NZ all lamb is halal slaughtered, the animals dead regardless, as long as its stunned I've no issue.

In reply to IainRUK:


Well, rom seems to be doing a fine line in whataboutery, can't criticise unstunned slaughter if we accept factory farming.


Not sure who has said they've an issue if it's pretty stunned.

In reply to IainRUK:

It's it only meat, it's sugar, syrup, soups, biscuits, Salmon, pasta etc etc .
Kids in Muslim minority schools have all their dinners conforming to sharia standards of catering.
Some English schools have never informed the parents.
Recently a Flu vacine for Scottish kids was halted because some ingredients were not 'halal'

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Why would I criticise both when like most people I do eat cheap factory farmed meat ?
I am perfectly willing to accept that some animals will suffer simply, because I enjoy eating meat on a regular basis, purely for pleasure, and eating halal is just as much unnecessary, there is no difference and it's as much irrational.

Those really concerned about animal welfare are probably already vegetarian or vegan, for the other ones not happy about halal then maybe they should look in the mirror first before criticising others.

In reply to RomTheBear: I refer you back to my post of 13:50. I'm quite happy eating non-factory farmed meat and criticising non-stunned slaughter.

In reply to dek:

How are the parents not informed ? Surely they are free to ask their kids what they had for lunch.
Nobody complains about having to eat fish every freaking Friday, why criticise irrational traditions only when they are muslims/jewish.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Yes of course, but we both know well that those millions of daily mail readers who will be outraged by the "halal scandal" will for most of them have factory farmed produced meats in their fridges and not even give a thought about it.

In reply to RomTheBear:

So any laws which aim to reduce the suffering of animals are just a waste of time? Looks like a good way of saving a bit of money then, just get rid of all those inspectors and government departments involved. Amazing no one thought of it before.

In reply to RomTheBear:



Oh you genius! Religious killing methods are above criticism, because they are 'traditional'.

In reply to RomTheBear:


I see, non-stunned slaughter is fine because daily mail readers eat factory farmed meat.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


FWIW, saying that people who bang on about Halal meat are often hypocritical bigots who are only interested in animal welfare for as long as it gives them a stick to bash Islam with isn't the same as saying that non-stunned slaughter is fine.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

You don't really understand what I am saying do you ?
What I am saying is that if one eats factory farmed meat, then one should be fine eating halal meat.

Then that some people think that eating factory farmed meat is wrong and halal meat is wrong, I am fine with that, everybody has a different sensitivity to the matter, but it's a bit odd to single out the issue of halal meat.

In reply to Ramblin dave:


It's not necessarily the same. But rom has already said he's ok with non-stunned slaughter.

In reply to RomTheBear:



One doesn't eat factory farmed meat (although what you call a factory could be open to interpretation) and one is not fine with non-stunned slaughter.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Except the halal/shechita animals are also kept in the same conditions.

But then if you want to campaign on those grounds (and lots of people do) why not join CiWF or a similar organisation?

Of course the animal welfare laws also affected other people, not just jews and muslims and yet you don't seem to be arguing in their favour? Nor for a change in the law so that we can all slit animal throat with gusto when we feel like it?

I don't know why you keep banging on about Daily Mail types, you've got Christine Odone arguing for your side, more little england you couldn't get.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Don't get me wrong I am perfectly aware that non-stunned halal slaughter is completely stupid an unnecessary, but I am also aware that my eating habits are also completely stupid an unnecessary.

What I don't like is that we have big headlines about halal meat being sold in restaurants, but there aren't any big headlines about factory farmed meats being served pretty much everywhere.

In reply to Blackmud:



How unnecessarily sarcastic of you. And yes it does matter. My point was that I want to know how the animals I eat have been treated up to and including their slaughter and it should be every meat consumer's right to know this. A "Non-stunned slaughter" label would capture part of this and leave the religious aspect for another argument.

In reply to RomTheBear:

But it's not about headlines. It's about consumer information. I know that if I thought animals could have a suffering-free existence from cradle to grave then I'd be kidding myself - it's about what each of us is okay with and being able to make decisions based on that. I'm not okay with factory-farmed meat and try within reason to avoid it, but just because someone is okay with factory-farmed meat it doesn't mean that they shouldn't have an opinion on the stunning/non-stunning of animals at slaughter.

In reply to winhill:



I am completely happy with improving animal welfare where we can, and try to improve our ethics.

What I am pointing out, which is in fact completely unrelated to animal welfare, is that many people will be shocked to hear that they have been eating halal unwittingly, but won't question the fact they themselves eat factory farmed meat.

I completely agree that there should more consumer information about the way meat is produced and slaughtered, but then you'll have also to say about the rest of the animal welfare, and not just of the two minutes before it was killed.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


Well it's a bit illogical to be against non stunning of animals before slaughter and then being Ok with factory produced meat isn't it ?
It's a bit like someone saying that red cars are bad for the environment and immoral, but yellow cars are OK, it just doesn't make sense.

In reply to RomTheBear:

I assume you mean 'unwittingly' ? But don't let us stop you turning the thread into your usual monotonous, long winded, banal drivel.

In reply to dek:

Yes because your islamophobic nonsense is much better I guess, at least your previous comments showing complete ignorance and hatred of all things Muslim are proving my point.

In reply to stroppygob:

Well, a halal butcher on the radio said, and i quote

"a Prayer is said over the animal so that it doesnt Suffer"

Now, im no theological Expert, but ill wager if he has to have an operation sometime, he will opt for the general anaesthetic, rather than Someone saying a prayer While they open him up?

In reply to stroppygob:

I used to 'know' a slaughter man who would stun cows before he killed them by punching them on the nose. A right nasty bloke!
There's 2 issues.
1) should animals be stunned pre slaughter.
IMO yes.
2) should consumers know how their purchase is killed.
Yes. Personally I'm an atheist, but your average Christian may take some offence at a Muslim prayer being said to their tea
I'm actually amused that some religious folk will be offended about which prayer is said before someone murders one of 'Gods creatures '. Hypocrisy or what?

In reply to RomTheBear:


Some people may not think so. I don't understand why you seem to be arguing against more information for consumers.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:


The human race had these children quite some time ago.

In general, do you think it's wrong for everyone to eat meat, including poor nomadic people who slaughter one of their livestock and really look forward to eating it because it's a special treat? Or is it just the western, gluttonous reduction of magnificent beasts into little grain-to-animal-protein-converters that bothers you?

In reply to Jon Stewart:

I never said it was wrong for anyone to eat meat, it's a complex issue, and I'm not here to judge. If people are really concerned about animal welfare, there's an easy option for them, in this country at least.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


Where have I said I am against more information ? I'm all for more information, but frankly I'd rather have a label telling me how the animal was treated during the whole length of its life rather than only information about its last two minutes before it died.

In reply to winhill:

I think it's hyopcritical for the same reasons as RomTheBear - we are happy to accept other forms of animal cruelty in the meat industry and not ask questions, so making a moral case about the method of slaughter is bit rich.


I agree with this - religious exemption from the law is ridiculous. But that's not the issue at hand, which is about food labelling and the information about the methods of production. We seem to be making a special case about slaughter without caring about the rest of the process.

In reply to Skol:

Why would a Christian be offfended by someone praying?
Its all the same God anyway just a slight variation. One lot think Jesus was the son of God, one lot think he was a holy prophet and one lot think he was just some bloke.

As for who says the prayer it can be a Christian a Jew or a tape recording.

This whole thing is a storm in a teacup stirred up by the press as usual.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:


So would most meat eaters.

Thinking about the lambs one sees in Edale in the Peak District, they seem to be having pretty happy lives?

As far as one can tell, they're outdoors doing their thing.

In reply to Timmd:

So would most meat eaters what?

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

Say what you said about children...

In reply to Timmd:

I'm sure they would. I eat meat.

In reply to Timmd:


But they are only lambs for a few months ( up to a year) the farmer will sell at as lamb to get the best price, and get it to a saleable weight as early as possible . You might be eating lamb ( that looks like a sheep) at 8 months or so.

Not a long life.

In reply to marsbar:

Same god, different bigots

In reply to IainRUK:


No need to put anything on the pack, if it meets current slaughterhouse legislation I don't care if they then say prayers, sing songs or do a dance, what does it matter?

What they are doing is not illegal , so it is fine with me, if it complies with every known religion in the world , will they have to state them all ?
It is a non story.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Except it wasn't taken from the Daily mail. Oh and "Godwin"!

In reply to Removed UserBwox:

Suits me, been vege since 1980.

In reply to stroppygob:
The Daily Mash has it nailed as per norm;

THE row over faith-based meat has escalated with Anglicans demanding that packaging shows an image of Jesus eating a large sausage.



http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/cofe-calls-for-christian-meat-pa...

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:


Yeah, I was pretty sure I'd witnessed you eating meat! Good job you're not here to judge

I see what you mean, I think. Although it's all a bit cryptic.

In reply to stroppygob:




And further more

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/perhaps-your-concern-could-exten...

In reply to stroppygob:


We can agree on that!

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Cryptic or not, I take it all back. Timmd has seen some lambs, and they were happy. Glad there isn't a problem.

In reply to stroppygob:


Why? In practical scientific terms, the overwhelming majority of Halal slaughter is identical to ordinary British practice.


There are two real problems.

1. The untouchable Jews and their methods which allows a cow to be conscious through one or two minutes of bleeding.

2. Employment law issues surrounding Halal slaughterers.

In reply to Jim Fraser:


Some for religious reasons may not want heathen prayers said over their sausage.

Some may find the prospect of eating any type of meat slaughtered by methods which do not come into that 'majority" distasteful.

In reply to dek:


Or - according to the Scotsman - delayed by a couple of days, which sounds a bit less dramatic. http://www.scotsman.com/news/health/pork-in-scots-flu-vaccine-prompts-musli...

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Oh dear.


The labelling is an issue because of the exemption.

In reply to Jim C:


What about Sikhism?

The Sikhs were clever about it, they wanted to break the racist implications of the cornering of the meat market, so they made it a rule not to eat blessed meat, then, knowing that a few hundred years later people would get weak-kneed whenever religion was mentioned, they made it a religious law.

In reply to stroppygob:



Darling, it matters not a jot. Most of the meat eaten in this country conforms to the idiotic practices demanded by those who know no better. Meaningless utterances do not affect flavour or quality. Production for profit rather than need, however, does have a huge effect on both flavour and quality.

The fact remains that much of the meat consumed by humans on this woebegone little planet isn't fit to be consumed by dogs. But that's of no consequence. Is it? xxx

In reply to Chambers:


Care to explain? What's wrong with it?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Because it's not kosher.

In reply to winhill:


??. No one seems to have articulated an argument as to why it's consistent to care so much about the means of slaughter while flagrantly not giving a f^ck about animal welfare more generally. It's hypocritical.

Are you arguing that there are no problems with animal welfare, and eating cheap misery-chicken is totally fine and humane, but if the meat's halal then that means there's a 10% chance it wasn't stunned before slaughter so it's an outrage? I don't get it, it sounds like a load of crap.


The exemption is an issue. The labelling issue would not arise without it, however, saying "I demand to know if my meat's halal" doesn't relate to substantive issue (the exemption). Halal does not equate to "poor animal welfare" (90% stunned) and not halal certainly does not equate to good animal welfare.

The hypocrisy is that while getting in flap about halal labelling, the pretense is that this is to do with animal welfare - but it isn't, as evidenced by 90% stunned fact and the shitty welfare of the rest. It's hypocrisy.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Not really, it's because a lot of people don't like religious nutters, or religious, full stop. What's wrong with that?

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Who says they don't give a f#ck? Big assumption there. Some of us are vegetarian.


You're hyperbole is based on what? Can you give an example of someone here arguing there are no problems with animal welfare? What you are spouting sounds pretty much like made up crap to me.


I think the 10% not stunned is 10% (ie a f#ck of a lot of animals) too much.



No, that's just your made up justification, no one else has claimed it. It's not hypocrisy, it's you putting words in other people's mouths. Never mind Jon, you keep up the hate mate. You keep up the middle class guilt.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

If animal welfare is important to you, then why not seek higher standards across the board?

I'm sure all the other animals would understand if you only focus on the suffering caused by religious practices.

Either animal welfare is important to you or it isn't Bruce...

In reply to Timmd: Does it have to be all or nothing, can we only get rid of the ridiculous exemptions on unstunned slaughter when every other aspect of animal welfare has been resolved? Or perhaps we could limit unstunned slaughter to those animals kept in crap conditions.

In reply to stroppygob:


That's the implication of saying "cheap misery chicken - fine; unlabelled halal - outrageous". Doesn't apply to veges, you guys can sit smugly atop the moral high ground, objecting to unstunned slaughter to your heart's content, without being massive hypocrites. You do, however, miss out on the profound and deep joy of eating a delicious venison pie. Everything's a trade-off.


That's the implication of objecting to the non-labelling of halal while not complaining about the whole of meat labelling and the info it gives (or doesn't) about animal welfare.

What I'm doing is giving the implications of the argument: in order to make what you said consistent, you must also believe this...


Fair enough, and I agree (but not very passionately). What I'm saying is that complaining about the labelling is not addressing this issue.


Just because you're unable to follow implications of arguments doesn't mean that others can't. Who is the hate directed at? What on earth has "middle class guilt" got to do with it. That really is a load of crap!

In reply to Sir Chasm:
One can aim to approach many or all aspects at once, I'd have thought?

Like buying free range eggs, and organic milk if one thinks this makes a difference to welfare of the cows, as well as buying non halal/kosher slaughtered meat, and contributing to online petitions and the like.

It's what I generally try and do.

In reply to Timmd:



So what's the problem with either removing the exemptions for unstunned slaughter or, if religious nutjobs can't get their heads around that, clearly labelling it as such.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


That's fine, and I'm with them. It's not hypocritical to say "all this halal/kosher/mumbling mumbo stuff is a load of crap".

It is however hypocritical to say "it's an outrage that I've been eating this cruel halal meat without being told - think of the poor animals! This product falls below the high welfare standards that I consistently demand!"

In reply to stroppygob:

Just to add to the mix of this debate.

This popped up on facebook a few days ago. If you wanted to know if hala meat is stunned see for yourself. Not much to say really. but animal rights have a lot to be desired. Im a meat eater all the way and it made me think.

Be warned its a shocking video and I would say tells it as it is.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=545_1345800806#j5IPDg9TTdHRjis5.01

In reply to Jon Stewart:



That.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

There isn't one, I'm just trying to encourage a broadening of focus a bit. It's good for the animals, and it means one can't be accused of being bothered just for religious reasons, which undermines the argument a little.

In reply to floss_81:


How would you know? You might not like what you see in the video, but how do you know it's representative of halal? Clearly it isn't because 90% of halal is stunned.

Watching videos of animal slaughter is always going to be a bit gory isn't it?

In reply to Jon Stewart:



Why? If you do consistently demand high welfare standards.

In reply to stroppygob:

Slight aside, but mentioned somewhere up thread.

There is a UK way to get slaughter Free milk and dairy Produce if you want to...

http://www.ahimsamilk.org/

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Who said that?


Who is smug?


Bollocks. One can complain about one part of an industry as being unnecessary, without needing to drag the whole rest of the wrongs of the industry into your complaints. One step at a time old boy.



No what you are doing is cheating. You are making up stuff, pretending that others have said it, or believe it or ignore it, in order to give yourself some credence. You are a cheating



It is addressing the problem of a label. Some amongst us may not want to support the medieval barbarism of the halal production method, we have a right to complain, and to ask for clear labelling.



You obviously hate anyone who has a different view to you, to the extent that you are prepared to cheat, lie and dissemble in debate to point score. See above. I get the impression, though stand to be corrected that you are rebelling against your own white Christian middle class upbringing and culture, and are prepared to argue anything, even religious based slaughter as good, as long as it is not good from a white middle class perspective

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Because halal does not equate to poor welfare: it equates to religious mumbling with or without poor welfare. Knowing whether it was or was not halal wouldn't help the oh-concerned-about-welfare know about the welfare standard.

And if anyone is claiming that they do consistently demand high welfare standards, perhaps they could put some flesh on those bones, so to speak. How does the rest of meat labelling allow them to choose the right products?

In reply to stroppygob:

You fail to follow the arguments and then hurl insults. Bored.

In reply to Jon Stewart:



Yeah your right.

Im a meat eater and have shot animals to eat in the past, But i have always tried to be as humane as I can and believe that cruelty should be kept to a minimum. Why should slaughter houses be different?

Is even 10% not stunned acceptable. That's a lot of animals!

It made me think about how my meat is killed and isnt that the point of videos like that?

In reply to Jon Stewart:

It wasn't an insult? Being white middle-class and Christian, is not a bad thing to be. If I have failed to follow the argument, how can I point out the huge holes in your position caused by you making things up which no one has said? (aka Cheating.)

In reply to Jon Stewart:



Could you stop switching between halal and unstunned slaughter? If I buy free-range chickens (for example), labeled as such, why should they not be stunned before slaughter? And if those chickens aren't stunned, what is your objection to them being identified as unstunned?

In reply to Timmd:


That's a bit like saying to someone who is campaigning for help for the aged that they should shut up 'cos they aren't worried about child abuse. They can be against both but choose to push one issue at that moment in time. It's a dishonest argument used frequently.

In reply to stroppygob:

The main thing you've failed to follow is that I disagree with *unstunned* halal slaughter, particularly the idea of an exemption to legislation to make way for religious bullshit.

You haven't followed what I'm saying, which couldn't possibly be connected with my Christianity because I'm very firmly atheist and treat all religions with equal bemusement or anything like that. I'm not defending halal, I'm saying that objecting to the lack of labelling doesn't address issues with animal welfare. It's not a pro-halal argument!

In reply to RomTheBear:


the only thing I'd mention here is that slaughter used to be able to be done on the farm. Now it HAS to go to dedicated abattoir. So even organic, free range meat has to be transported to be slaughtered in a manner that goes against the ethic of trying to raise the animal as naturally as possible.

Just something that hasn't been brought up.

In reply to floss_81:

There's no more to say really, is there? People that do this and or condone it are monsters. Makes you feel like putting a few of them in the machine.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Don't get you. There is an important distinction to be made here: unstunned is a subset of halal. Arguing against unstunned slaughter is a sensible position, demanding that you know whether your meat is halal is not (unless something about the mumbling bothers you).


Eh? Don't get you. I'm in favour of all animals being stunned and there being no need for labelling to tell you. If we're going to have to let religious nuts produce meat without stunning the animals, then it would be sensible to put that on the packet, as part of a review of meat labelling that made welfare more transparent.

However, labelling meat as halal (might or might not be stunned) doesn't help us know more about animal welfare.

In reply to Jon Stewart: If you look at the first post the call is for clear labeling about how the animal was slaughtered, not whether it is halal or not.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

It's a bit confused really. The quote from "religious leaders" is about both "exactly how the animal has been killed" but the cause of the outrage is about unknowingly eating halal (not unstunned).


My problem is with maintaining this confusion by equating halal with unstunned. Also, "I demand to know how the animal is killed" seems like a strange or hypocritical demand if you're not also bothered about how the animal is reared.

There seems to me to be a confusion over animal welfare and religious tradition. People need to be clear about what they're bothered about and argue for that issue to be resolved. "I care about animal welfare so I demand that my food is labelled halal" is not a consistent position because it confuses the two.

In reply to Jon Stewart:




Ah, well I'll leave you to discuss it with people who've made such demands.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Exactly, people seem more concerned about whether their meat was killed by a Muslim or not than animal welfare.

I would like to have a label giving me a general idea of how the animal was treated and slaughtered, however I don't need a label telling me the religion of the guy who killed the animal.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

So do other many people. Yet you have made up bull about other not caring about animal welfare etc, and put word's into people mouths, created unstated belief systems, and many other fantasies of your own. Would you like me to, again, point out the fallacious thoughts and posts that you have made up and attributed to others?

In reply to RomTheBear:


Care to quote where anyone has exhibited that hypocrisy Rom? Of course you wont. Liar.


Why do you always do this? Why do you find it impossible to debate without lying?

In reply to stroppygob:

What you're missing is the implication of objecting to one thing while failing to object to another.

In reply to stroppygob:

I wasn't talking about you or anyone on this thread, not everything revolves around you you know.


Blah blah blah moaning blah blah blah more moaning. Why do you find it impossible to debate without insulting people ? More a sign of weakness than anything else.

In reply to stroppygob:


Edited that for you. Thought it was falling a bit below your usual standards.

So basically, we mostly agree:

1. Additional information on animal welfare can only be a good thing. Un-stunned/Stunned labelling wouldn't tell the whole picture (which would clearly be better), but is a step in the right direction
2. The religious aspect of it is a bit of a red herring, apart from where religion exempts individuals and organisations from adhering to standard welfare legislation, ie. being permitted to kill an un-stunned animal
3. The Daily Mash is the only reliable source of news in the world

Well done, everyone.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

4) Halal meat being the default choice for the likes of Pizza Express shows how super-sensitive mainstream society is of offending minorities ?

In reply to Jim Hamilton:

Or maybe Pizza Express just thought they'd gain more customers than they'd lose?

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Maybe not much but it will enable people who don't like this sort of practice to avoid buying it. As they don't have the same hygiene constraints the meat can be sold cheaper and many people may want to know where their dead flesh comes from. Does that pose a problem in some way?

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:


Looking above, I know who'd I'd prefer to sit down and eat with.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Are you saying halal meat is less hygienic than non halal meat? That's different to the constraints not being the same, it's a different method of slaughter and there might be differences in the legislation.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I don't think Halal meat is less hygienic not cheaper, they have the same hygiene constraints as far as I am aware. If anything religious slaughter is extremely marginally safer as you don't have the risk of nervous system tissues being mixed with the meat.

Point is, if you want to know how the animal was treated and slaughtered then ask for a label telling you about how the animal was treated and slaughtered. Whether the guy who killed it was Muslim or not has nothing to do with it.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:


Neither one nor the other, it's because it's cheaper.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Maybe so Bruce, I don't know, I was just indicating it was more likely a business decision than anything else.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

It's not generally cheaper, when meat is cheap it's simply because it was cheaply produced. The cost of the method of slaughter is totally insignificant compared to other inputs.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Lets get this right, it's ok for a muslim to insist that his (or her but her don't count much, it's true) meat be slaughtered by a muslim but it's not ok for a non-muslim to do the same?

How do you justify this?

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
I think it was mentioned in the video, I know I read it somewhere today and I haven't read anything elsewhere on this subject, but I think you are right it's business as far as pizza restaurants are concerned. I wouldn't buy a pizza there though as they use turkey instead of ham and turkey just doesn't taste like smoked ham.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
So you want your meat to be slaughtered by a non muslim, is that what you mean?

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

This is all rather odd!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Only a bit, because somebody could ask why you're picking on the religious practice and not other things like factory eggs, and tell you to bugger off if that's their character, if they're Jewish or Muslim and feel picked on.

Where as if it's apparent that people are concerned about animal welfare more generally, there's less grounds for that kind of response to be valid.

My animal loving friend has always asked where meat came from, and for free range eggs, and about anything else which makes a difference, since the mid 90's before it became more 'fashionable', and sometimes got funny looks and responses.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

More fun than trying to climb in this weather. I could be here all weekend.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

As far as I am aware we don't force restaurants and packaging to display "non-halal meat" label on every bit of meat.

However if you are a Muslim you are free to go to a halal shop where they will sell you halal meat or buy meat labelled as such.

If you want to make sure you have non halal meat, then do the same and go to a Christian butcher or something.

You allusion about "her doesn't count much" comments makes me think you have more of a problem with Muslim faith than with animal welfare or slaughter method.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:


No, I'm not a religious person myself so I don't feel the need to stipulate but I don't buy halal meat because I don't want to encourage religious extremism nor unnecessarily cruel methods of slaughter, the video above rather clinches the affair though, have you watched it - the people concerned a monsters, unbelievable that someone could be so cruel.

In reply to Timmd:

I admit, I find it hard to believe the objections to halal slaughter come from animal welfare concerns, or hygiene concerns for that matter.

In reply to Timmd:


What's wrong with picking on cruel people? I think we should do it whenever possible.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I might watch it later, when I get bored with posting on here.

But I don't understand your statement, about non-muslims and what they want? Am I the only one who's struggling to understand?

In reply to RomTheBear:


Of course I do, don't you?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

No, people can believe what they want, as long as they don't break laws, I don't give a toss.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I agree entirely, I'm saying it's easier not be accused of picking on them for religious reasons if you pick on other people who are cruel to animals, where religion isn't involved.

I don't think it's very difficult to pick on more than one cruel practice either to be honest, but we're all busy to different degrees, or have different budgets.

I'm not going to preach...

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Are you familiar with the concept of "cherry picking"?

In reply to RomTheBear:


But if you have an exemption from the law that says animals should be stunned before slaughter then you're not respecting the law, you're changing it.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Laws get changed. When people say 'respect the law', they mean not break it don't they?

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:


I see, they respect the law if it's changed to suit their religious nutjobbery.

I was looking at how chicken are killed in factory scale slaughterhouse.
Basically they are hung upside down, alive, on a conveyor belt of hooks, and transported to an electrified bath where they are stunned, but it's not 100% efficient so many survive.
Then they go through an automatic neck cutter, which also is not 100% efficient so many are still hanging there bleeding, waiting to be plucked alive in the automatic plucking machine.

And then people complain because the chicken on their overpriced pizza was killed by a Muslim with a knife instead of that...

In reply to Sir Chasm:

I can see where you're coming from now.

In reply to TobyA:


Still a few days during which all the presbyterians, catholics and atheists could have been protected.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

One question, are you saying all Muslims are nutjobs?

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

You do have to be a bit of nutjob to think that mumbling while you butcher animals is worthwhile.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:


I haven't mentioned a religion (but I note your association). But no, I wouldn't say all members of any religion are nutjobs.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

I would imagine most Muslims have been brought up by Muslim parents. I think it's likely if I was brought up in that culture, I'd be Muslim too. That makes more sense to me, rather than just assuming a huge number of people are all just nutjobs.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Did you write it down?

Not my association, and you know that, thanks for the insinuation though. We were discussing halal slaughter weren't we?

In reply to Sir Chasm:


I think the main reason why the law was designed with some provisions for religious slaughter is because we prefer Muslim/Jewish people being able to buy their meat in the shop rather than have people slaughtering live animal illegally at home in their bathtub.
It's just a pragmatic decisions from policymakers rather than a purely ideological one, and I agree with them.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:


?


Not really, religious slaughter in general, I don't see any need to leave other religions with batshit crazy ideas out of the picture.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Yes. And I would also complain if Pizza Express decided that it would only buy chicken from abattoirs that only employed men or only Protestants.

In reply to RomTheBear:



Good for you.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
That's a perfectly good explanaion of their nutjobbery, but it just semantics as to whether or not that exempts them from being nutjobs. If I'd spent all of my youth on LSD and now I spent my time twirling poi and crystal healing, there would be a good explanation...but I'd still be a nutjob!

In reply to RomTheBear:



Oh, and would you favour a similar pragmatic decision about FGM? After all, it's going to happen anyway so better it happens in a hospital than girls are butchered at home?

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


It's their choice who they buy their meat from, if they want to put only halal meat on the menu I don't see where is the problem. Lots of other places to go to for people who have a problem with it.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

What's your definition of a nutjob?

I'd agree with the urban dictionary...

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/nutjob

In reply to Sir Chasm:


I don't know how you can even begin to compare the two things.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

Yeah fair enough, they're not actually crazy, they just hold beliefs that are crazy from a rational standpoint. So perhaps 'nutjobs' is borderline unfair.

In reply to RomTheBear:


I'm comparing the pragmatic principle, dear boy, of legalising things that you think are going to happen anyway.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Borderline unfair, harsh I would say.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

But the nice thing about being pragmatic is that you can actually take into account the specifics of the individual issues rather than blindly sticking to an oversimplified principle regardless of the consequences.

In reply to Ramblin dave:


Do you think there would be more FGM if we legalised it?

In reply to Sir Chasm:


That's not what being pragmatic is.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Oh yes it is.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

What a well argued response.
No it's not, a pragmatic can make the difference between religious slaughter of animals and FGM, and treat it differently, apparently you can't.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Maybe. Selling or producing halal for everyone is arguably against the spirit if not the letter of the religious exemption to the animal welfare and employment laws. Parliament made a narrow exemption to allow a relatively small number of religious people to comply with religious rules. They did not foresee the whole market being supplied with meat that does not comply with cruelty laws or the entire industry discriminating on the basis of religion when hiring.

Independent of the law the easiest thing is to let the market fix the problem by not buying from organisations that take the lazy approach of only buying halal.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Until you go and look up the meaning of pragmatism it's all you warrant.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Ohhhh no its not!! (Pantomime style)

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Pragmatic: "dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations."

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/pragmatic

I'm not sure how you get from that to "always legalize things if they were going to happen (possibly to a much lesser extent and causing much less harm) anyway."

In reply to FreshSlate:


That took ages.

In reply to Ramblin dave:




I'm searching and searching for where I said that. Scroll back up and look at where pragmatism was brought in.

In reply to Sir Chasm:



"I'm comparing the pragmatic principle, dear boy, of legalising things that you think are going to happen anyway."

In reply to Ramblin dave:


Further up. Trouble reading today?

In reply to Sir Chasm:

To cut back to the chase, are you genuinely having trouble understanding how a pragmatic approach to lawmaking can mean legalizing halal slaughter but not FGM?

In reply to Ramblin dave:


Are you genuinely having trouble understanding that justifying legalising unstunned slaughter because "it's going to happen anyway", could be applied to lots of things?

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Yes, it's almost like more factors than "is it or is it not going to happen anyway" were taken into account, but Rom was giving a very simplified summary of the justification in order to fit it into a forum post. (Edit: and "it's going to happen anyway" is itself a simplified summary of his simplified summary...)

He was presumably crediting you with the intelligence to realize that that wasn't the full extent of the justification and the good faith not to deliberately take an overly literal interpretation of it in order to pick a spurious argument, but he seems to have got that wrong.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


And are you having trouble understanding that being pragmatic means that we can treat things differently ? It means that we can decide to ban some things and allow some others.

Is it right to allow some form of controlled and legalised religious slaughterer, so we don't end up having illegal slaughterhouses, especially when we know that the non religious slaughtering method are not even remotely more humane ? It would say that it is.

Would it be right to allow any form of mutilation of young girls under any circumstances whatsoever ? I would say not.

Now if you can't understand that we can apply different rules to completely different situations it's your problem but I think most people can make the difference.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

I'm sure you're sloper, you know, that's his kind of tone.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

No, what I am doing is not allowing you to introduce imaginary things, which you provide no evidence for, into a debate on a specific topic. You are, again, cheating.

In reply to RomTheBear:

So you openly admit that you were making accusations against imaginary people who, according to you believe these imagined things which exist only in your head, and which you have no evidence for?

Well I admire that bit of honesty at least.

In reply to stroppygob:

youtube.com/watch?v=LAQJ-FZo1cA&

In reply to stroppygob:

So you really think that most people who complain about halal do so because of animal welfare ? Then you are just a big naive, most of us don't even check the provenance of our meat, and most of us eat value factory farmed meat.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


BTW Brucie, you should vote Marine, they just started banning halal meat in schools were they have been elected.

In reply to RomTheBear:


I suppose it's slightly less preposterous than your earlier suggestion that people would be dragging cows up to their bathrooms to slaughter them but there is no evidence that this has happened, on a scale that would be necessary to feed the size of the populations involved, in countries where ritual slaughter has already been banned.

With the traceability required in modern farming it would be almost impossible.

I've been discussing this issue for years with groups involved and I've never seen this objection before, quite possibly because it simply doesn't occur to them and quite possibly because it essentialises minority groups as prone to criminality, which isn't a view they want to promote.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Yes, I do. Have you watched the video? Which part of it is inexact?


Speak for yourself, next time you go shopping watch other people when they buy their meat... it could be you who is the odd one out.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Don't call me "Brucie", we didn't bring up zee pigs togeether!

(Nous n’avons pas gardé les cochons ensemble !)

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Do you really think that given we've been sold horse meat in our food recently, anybody knows?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


You are so dishonest.
In the case of pizza express they use exclusively stunned halal which is way less cruel than the industrial method of killing bird, which leaves some to be plucked out alive.
Yet there is a big outrage at pizza express for not displaying halal on their menu, and you want to argue with me that this is because of animal welfare ?

You are simply deluded


Really ? I don't see many people asking their restaurant where their meat comes from, and most people buy the same stuff, cheap packaged or processed meat.
I don't know in which world you live in.

In reply to winhill:

In fact it did happen in France, but with sheep, not cows. At a certain muslim festival during which people traditionally had a "mechoui", ie. a sheep roasted on a spit, it was fairly common for muslims to buy a live sheep and slaughter it themselves in their bathroom. I think it is less common today as halal meat is available more openly.

It used to be a bit "underground". I was once talking to a sheep farmer on Romney Marsh and when he heard where I lived in Seine et Marne he said "I know that place, I used to deliver lorry loads of sheep there." all "on the hoof", ie. alive. When he described the slaughter house it was an old farm house now in ruins next to a motorway. When I got home I checked it out and it had been an illegal halal slaughter house for a while.

None of which justifies cruel slaughter methods for religious reasons though IMO.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:


They should do, legally the origins of the meat should be on the packet or indicated at the point of sale. You may have missed it but the horse meat in the pies affair caused quite a scandal and those concerned were prosecuted. The company involved in France closed down.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Hardly a post goes by without a patronising comment!

I notice you're saying now 'they should do'.

In reply to RomTheBear:


The real one. As for restaurants I rarely go to them, you never know what they might put in their food! In your view what percentage of meals do the average family with 2 kids and a dog eat in restaurants?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Given the amount of families in and out of the KFC and Kebab place across my street every day I would say a lot.

In your opinion what percentage of the the average family with 2 kids and a dog buys exclusively ethically farmed eggs and ethically farmed meat, and never buys meal with processed meat ?

What you don't understand is that like most people I want to know more where my food comes from, let's focus on that rather than discussing whether it's hala/non-halal, which frankly is irrelevant to health and safety and animal welfare, and is more a religious problem than anything else.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:


A normal reaction to falsely naive posting.


Yes, legally they should. Take a look at the packet.. I just did in the fridge and the chicken legs, all we have except for some old pork sausages, had the country of origin, but it's true it doesn't mention the method of slaughter, I always assumed that if it was halal it was indicated and that no mention meant normal methods of slaughter. So at present, in Britain, the only way to be sure is to eat dead pig instead.... there's no halal pork I assume?

In reply to RomTheBear:


Then you'd be wrong - do you really imagine the average family can afford to eat out all the time? You really are a little out of touch, no kids I imagine?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:



The question is why do you think halal slaughter is more inhumane than the "normal" way. If it's stunned (and the vast majority of it is) there is no difference really.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

It would be easier and more positive to confront your own prejudice, than to defend your position, Bruce.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I am not saying they eat out all the time, but I think most families will order a takeaway or go to a restaurant once in a while. Most of them don't really question the origin of the meat.
I come from a very modest family myself and we were still going to the McDonald maybe twice a year.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:


Come on now, call a spade a spade, what is my prejudice for you? The definition of prejudice is a belief held for no logical reason, being against archaic religions is based on a great many good reasons - look at the news this, and every, morning.

Just watch the video, don't keep your head in the sand, see what this is really all about. As for halal stunning, this was covered far up the thread by a halal supplier who explains in a pdf doc how it is only partial stunning and the animal comes round enough to bleed, ie to suffer, many muslims consider that stunned meat isn't halal.

Anyway why not think a bit about what all these rules are for, why force people to wear particular clothes, prostrate themselves 5 times a day, not eat pork etc etc. ? There is a reason and the reason in the case of islam is there for all to see in the name - "islam" means submission, as usual politics and domination are behind it all, at the family level, at the gender level, at the local and international level. That's what religions were invented for, humanity has risen against most of them and put them in their place, but the battle is never won definitively.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:


no, it's because it minimises the risk of complaints.

In reply to stroppygob:


If I accuse somebody of something that isn't true, because I think that what they've said implies that it is true, then they can defend themselves by showing that I'm wrong (that means providing some evidence).

You accusing me of "cheating", whatever that means, is not a contribution to the discussion.

In reply to Jon Stewart:



Leave him alone, it's his only argument on every thread.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:



I think you just need to get in your head that our western consumerist culture is not morally superior to other cultures by any stretch.
Between a woman wearing a Hijab and a woman weary sexy clothes there is no difference, in both case there is pressure from society for women to conform to a certain image. As well as there is no difference between a Western atheist man being somehow forced to wear a suit and a Muslim man being somehow forced to have a long beard.

Instead of fighting other cultures maybe it would better to accept them all and then collectively decide where we draw the lines of what people can and can't do, instead of targeting only specific groups.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:




Bruce is proof that being half right can leave you being totally wrong.

In reply to RomTheBear:


But do people insult, spit on, threaten and physically attack women who don't "conform"? Are they told they will go to hell? If they decide to stop wearing the clothes you claim they are forced to wear what happens to them? Anything bad at all? I think you know the answers but you are so tied up in your desire to conform that you have lost the thread completely.


That's where we differ, I'm not particularly into consumerism but I don't think that this is the principal characteristic of modern society, for all it's faults the humanist, democratic, secular, egalitarian (semi-) model has a lot to say for it... It must have something going for it or all these people from all over the planet wouldn't be queuing up to get in.

Take a breath and calm down and then actually look at how people live in parts of the world dominated by the religion you are defending here... would you really feel at ease living there, or, more important, bringing up your daughters there? I have two daughters and there's no way I would want them to have to suffer what girls in muslim families have to put up with, even the most "moderate".

In reply to RomTheBear:


That's what we do, but the process cannot be global, there will always be a certain number of subjects being addressed at any one time and each will have their own priority... for you food, animal welfare and women's rights don't come high on your list, for others they may do.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Again you putting words in my mouth because you have no arguments. You still haven't explained why you think that Halal slaughter is more of a threat to animal welfare than factory farming.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Don't you understand ? Treating women badly is not specific to any culture or any religion, it's banned, and the law is the same for everybody. No need to make Muslim specific laws.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:



What you miss is that the humanist model you defend actually means that we don't discriminate against specific religion or beliefs. That's why we have to make rules for everybody and not only for certain communities.


You really have no clue, I know lots of girls from Muslim families and they do what they want. They might get told off by the grandpa for not wearing the Hijab all the time, which is the same thing as my grandmother telling me off for not bothering with church on Sunday.

Then you'll always have a minority of ultra conservative families.
The fact that some countries or some people have medieval practices has more to do with backwardness and intolerance, which you seem to champion, than with Islam.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Are apples better than screwdrivers?

In reply to RomTheBear:


No, in islam it's part of the system, in many muslim countries it's enshrined in the law. I inked above to what the sultan of Brunei is up to, he is bringing back sharia, stoning, cutting off hands etc - I don't think he is a Sikh or a Mormon.

In reply to RomTheBear:

>No need to make Muslim specific laws.

Same slaughter rules for all then. We've reached an agreement.

In reply to RomTheBear:


You were unlucky with your grandmother, mine never mentioned going to church, anymore than my parents. I suppose coming from a family of religious people you find this sort of thing normal. But even so going to church and symbolically accepting the sign of inferiority are a wee bit different.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Well exactly, then all you need is a law to ban non-stunned slaughtering, which means probably a ban on hunting too. No need to ban halal meat specifically.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:



I find screwdrivers a bit chewy.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Well you see I don't think that the majority of women wearing the Hijab in this country see it a sign of inferiority nor are forced to wear it, at least not the ones I know.

In reply to RomTheBear:


What is halal slaughter rom? Stunned or unstunned?

Excellent whataboutery, btw.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


So what ? We bomb innocent people around the word and think we are less barbaric. I don't think so. If you think that our western society has the moral high ground, you are deluded, bigotry, backwardness and cruelty is everywhere and cross-religion, there isn't any need to target Islam in particular.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

The vast majority of Halal meat is stunned, in the case of Pizza express that everybody was so outraged about, all of it was stunned.

In reply to RomTheBear:


So what is your issue with labeling meat as stunned or unstunned?

In reply to RomTheBear: Oh, and excellent evasion as to what halal is.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

I have no issue with it, as I said before several times, I am all for a label explaining more of the animal welfare on the package, including stunned or not stunned, and information about farming conditions

Apparently most of the people in the meat industry are saying that they woudl prefer a label like this rather than simply "halal" or "non halal".

What I have an issue with is forcing to label "non-halal", or "Halal", as this has nothing to do with animal welfare. If some vendors want to put it there it's fine, but I see no reason to force them to do so.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Not evasion, just truth, which apparently you have some problem to process.

If anything when it comes to chicken Halal is better, because the chicken is stunned and cut with a knife. With the industrial method they go through an automatic neck cutter after going through an electrified bath, a process not 100% efficient, causing many chicken to be plucked alive.

Really pretending that the Halal furore is about animal welfare is a bit rich.

In reply to RomTheBear:




So is halal slaughtered meat stunned or unstunned?

In reply to Sir Chasm:

90% stunned, 10% not. In this country anyhoo.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


Well, that doesn't really answer the question does it?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Sorry, maybe that wasn't called for, even if it seems likely to me. There is so much you say that I disagree with, and that doesn't make any sense, I can't even be bothered to start. I'm not trying to point score, just being honest about why I won't be continuing to do the proverbial head bashing exercise.

In reply to Jim Hamilton:

Do you work for Pizza Express? Otherwise, how would you know?

In reply to Sir Chasm:

The Halal Food Authority (Yes there is one !) says that they always accepted stunning. Indeed, the vast majority of the Halal meat is stunned.

In fact Kosher is never pre-stunned when Halal almost always is. Surprisingly Halal is always the one picked on.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


It kind of does.

In reply to RomTheBear:


The HMC don't accept stunning. So no, you haven't decided what constitutes halal. But do carry on floundering.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Ho so you are an expert in Halal meat now ?
Anyway the meat sold by pizza express was 100% stunned halal so really the complain is not about animal welfare.

TBH mate your arguments are getting more and more ridiculous.

In reply to RomTheBear:




TBH (if you were) you should accept that what constitutes halal isn't agreed on.

In reply to stroppygob:
If its mostly accepted that the majority of halal meat is produced via a stunned process then there is no issue with it. Even the Halal Foods Authority supports prestunning.

Shechita is much more worthy of discussion. Especially the slaughter of cattle (15-20000 per year in the UK). Cows have very large vertebral arteries - therefore a single cut severing both carotids/internal jugulars/trachea/vagii does not cause instantaneous unconciousness as claimed. They have to be heavily restrained for exanguination. I dont want to eat meat slaughtered by this method and would like it banned on welfare grounds. I would also like to know if the rump im eating was killed in this way.

However the vast majority of meat sold in the UK is not kosher so its a small problem with powerful supporters that it will not be easy to legislate against.

This is an animal welfare issue on a population scale and should be considered seperate from any religious context. A stun/non stun label would be the best answer (but is in no way perfect)

In reply to RomTheBear:


And yet being muslims they would be familiar with islamic doctrine and therefore of the meaning behind it, even if the water is muddied by those who wear it as an act of defiance against Western cultural domination, an act of sexual martyrdom. The debates are ongoing but here's one you might like on the French version of wikipedia, in fact it turn out your Grandmother is to blame as the wearing of a head scarf was an early christian doctrine ordered by St Paul then taken up by islam:

"Ce voile islamique est d'origine chrétienne, puisque six siècles avant l'apparition de l'Islam, St Paul demandait dans le chapître 11 de l'Epître aux Corinthiens que les femmes se couvrent la tête pour marquer leur infériorité aux hommes. Pour cette raison, dans les campagnes de France, jusqu'au milieu du XXeme siècle, les femmes se couvraient les cheveux ('fichu', 'mouchoir de tête')."

(The Islamic veil is of Christian origin, as six centuries before the advent of Islam, St Paul asked in chapter 11 of the Corinthians that women cover their heads to show their inferiority to men. For this reason, in the countryside of France, until the mid-twentieth century, women covered their hair).

The difference being christiany has mostly rejected the idea that women are inferior to men but islam not only hasn't, in the main, it has reinforced it over the last decades.

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab

The English language version is a bit different, neither are conclusive, giving views for and against, it's wikipedia after all.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Once again you miss the point that although Western culture has certainly done, and is doing even today, numerous bad things - look at Ukraine - these things do not correspond to it's basic ideals, tolerance, non-violence, equality and especially in regard to this discussion, the separation of religion and political power, whereas many religions, islam being the the most flagrant, actually hold these archaic practices as their ideal. There are still a few progressive muslims, who question them, find interpretations of the Koran to refute the wearing of a scarf as an obligation, for example, but they are a tiny minority and are swamped in the mass of brutal conservatism.

So of course we should do what we can to protest against the crimes of capitalism and imperialism etc. but that doesn't mean others responsible can be let off the hook... just this week numerous murders, bombs, the kidnapping of hundreds of young girls in Nigeria and many other horrors have been committed in the name of islam, and on a less intensive but more extensive way, the oppression of women and the teaching that they are inferior to men.... Can you give a convincing reason why they should not be criticized too?

In reply to RomTheBear:


Only "lightly stunned" though.


But people were outraged because the weren't told that it was halal meat, that was their problem in this case.

In reply to RomTheBear:


And?

In reply to RomTheBear:

[ROM style debate] Well imaginary people who I have made up things about, think things which justify my point, by being about things which we aren't discussing. So I'm right, because my imaginary people who haven't posted here, think things which I disagree with. In any case, British working people cannot be right about anything, only foreign people are right. So there. [/Rom Style Debate]

In reply to stroppygob:

A good article by an imam.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2623879/We-Muslims-appalled-sale-...

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Exactly the same stunning method is used for chicken, which is an electrified bath.


But why ? Shouldn't the problem be stunned/non stunned rather than Halal/non-halal ?

In reply to Sir Chasm:

No, but stunned/non stunned it's clear what it is. That's why we should label on that rather than halal/non halal.

In reply to stroppygob:

As usual personal attacks and no argument whatsoever. Actually you had none all along. I feel a bit sorry for you.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:


Most (all?) media commentators don't seem to agree with your reason why Pizza Express use halal chicken.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I'm am not sure what the point of all of this is. Every person should be free to wear whatever they want, be it a Hijab or a pointy hat or a baseball cap or a bikini.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Exactly but at present many muslim girls are not, that is the problem.

PS. Read the Daily Mail imam linked above, learn a little.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Then all you have to do is enforce existing laws regarding domestic abuse, these things do not exclusively concern Muslim people.


Wow I am going to learn something reading the DM ? Really ?

In reply to stroppygob:

BTW I'm a "British working person" myself so I am not sure what is your point.

In reply to Jim Hamilton:

I don't pretend to know, it was just a suggestion.

In reply to RomTheBear:


But here's Lord Ahmed calling for them to be banned (ideally via trading standards and some lawful notion of what can constitute halal):

youtube.com/watch?v=vOu9u39gXWY&

If you listen carefully you can hear the interviewer prompting him about muslim only slaughterers but he doesn't respond on that point.

There's much confusion about that point but the vast majority of people would say that the slaughterer has to be muslim because a prayer to Allah that is said by a non-muslim is insincere. However muslims can eat meat that has been slaughtered by jews and christians, so perhaps that point doesn't actually matter (it isn't Halal Meat in itself but it is halal, permitted, if a prayer is said when it's eaten).

OTOH if muslims can eat the meat of jews and christians just by saying a prayer before partaking, why is halal meat ever served at all?

We could outlaw halal meat and they could just continue eating the infidel meat (or would Sainsbury's etc have to only employ jews and christians?).

It's a bit of a mess driven by religious bigotry and the development of islamic politics (in the hadiths) and identity politics.


Of course, because it represents the difference in the functioning of the identity politics. Jews want to eat their jew only meat whilst subsidising it by selling off the un-used bits to the non-chosen. It is in their financial interest to keep that as low key as possible. Shechita UK (the guys in the OP) successfully opposed any labelling at the Council of Europe in 2010, that's why their new found interest in labelling is so duplicitous. Jews have an interest in keeping their heads down in the public square.

By contrast, I've argued with muslims who are convinced that all meat production should be halal, as christians don't generally object, just as muslims have demanded halal products in public spaces. There is a polar opposite in the manner in which the two communities approach the subject.

Historically, and politically, jews have lived a minority groups, whereas muslims have lived as mainly majority groups, in hideously conservative societies where Islam has been able to dominate the public square.

It's muslim culture rather than Islamic religion perhaps. These guys (quran only muslims) think halal slaughter is unislamic:

Somehow they have made slaughtering the only lawful method of killing an animal for its meat. Needless to say, there is no such restriction in the Quran. As a result of this un-quranic requirement, they insist that to make food halal the name of God must be uttered on it before slaughtering it. The following arguments all show that this imposed restriction is false and that it is not part of God's law in the Quran

http://www.quran-islam.org/articles/halal_meat_(P1156).html

In reply to RomTheBear:


LOL!!

I've asked you several times now, to argue from logic, not from your; "I've imagined that people somewhere think this, so I am right", perspective. You have singularly failed to do so. (Happy to quote you doing this.)

I've asked you, again several times, to stop making up things which you think people believe, and to stop arguing against things people have not said, you continue to do so. (Happy to quote you doing this.)


So why do you think you deserve serious replies?

In reply to stroppygob:


You ask many things, but you don't bring much do you. Are you done ?