[Snagprophet]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17966327

I simply cannot believe these bigots. Why are people so racist?

[Darth Stewie]

UK legislation allows halal (Muslim) or shechita (Jewish) "non-stun" slaughter as long as it does not cause "unnecessary suffering".

According to this article it quite clearly does cause unnecessary suffering, i don't give two stuffs about Islamic or Jewish law if their methods cause unnecessary suffering to the animal they should be banned. Religions should change to accommodate the laws introduced and upheld by our representative democracy not the other way around and as we can see by the article a large proportion of the organizations that provide halal and kosher meat do stun the animals beforehand, the ones that don't should be made to.

[Nightstar-27]

Oh yeah she's so racist with her concern over the suffering of some animals that go through ritual slaughter. *sarcasm*. I mean she didn't even criticise the ritual itself just that a percentage of the animals are not stunned before killing. What a racist cow *sarcasm*. She said so many nasty things about Muslims and Jews too. *sarcasm*. Did I mention I'm being sarcastic and think you're a fool for thinking she's being racist.

[SaintSoldier]

Pointing out a wrong doesn't make you racist.

[+ polarity -]

(Original post by Nightstar-27)
Oh yeah she's so racist with her concern over the suffering of some animals that go through ritual slaughter. *sarcasm*. I mean she didn't even criticise the ritual itself just that a percentage of the animals are not stunned before killing. What a racist cow *sarcasm*. She said so many nasty things about Muslims and Jews too. *sarcasm*. Did I mention I'm being sarcastic and think you're a fool for thinking she's being racist.

it doesn't work if you're pointing out the sarcasm

[RyanT]

From the article:

Ritual slaughter is lawful in the UK and the EU to satisfy the dietary requirements of Jews and Muslims.

It's not a dietry requirement, it's a religious choice. More lies from the BBC.

The good professor is correct to say that it does cause suffering, but wrong to say that it should be kept to a minimum. It should be outright banned.

[Nightstar-27]

(Original post by + polarity -)
it doesn't work if you're pointing out the sarcasm

I doubt the intelligence of some people on TSR to pick it up.

[ChampEon]

(Original post by Nightstar-27)
Oh yeah she's so racist with her concern over the suffering of some animals that go through ritual slaughter. *sarcasm*. I mean she didn't even criticise the ritual itself just that a percentage of the animals are not stunned before killing. What a racist cow *sarcasm*. She said so many nasty things about Muslims and Jews too. *sarcasm*. Did I mention I'm being sarcastic and think you're a fool for thinking she's being racist.

The OP is being sarcastic. Can't you tell?

[+ polarity -]

(Original post by Nightstar-27)
I doubt the intelligence of some people on TSR to pick it up.

lol

[swaggiee]

Isnt one of the requirements of halal that the animal shouldnt feel any pain...if anything the Vet is only pointing out how muslims and jewish should do their job properly?

[de_monies]

(Original post by Snagprophet)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17966327

I simply cannot believe these bigots. Why are people so racist?

I'll assume you're being sarcastic, considering your previous posts

(Original post by Darth Stewie)
According to this article it quite clearly does cause unnecessary suffering, i don't give two stuffs about Islamic or Jewish law if their methods cause unnecessary suffering to the animal they should be banned. Religions should change to accommodate the laws introduced and upheld by our representative democracy not the other way around.

Ah, another person selectively reading the news. In that article it says

"They also show that the majority of animals destined for the halal trade in both the red and white meat sectors are stunned before slaughter."

This has been confirmed by the RSPCA as well:
http://www.rspca.org.uk/servlet/Sate...&ssbinary=true

(Original post by SaintSoldier)
Pointing out a wrong doesn't make you racist.

No, but you should look at the facts properly first. Scroll up

EDIT: I'd like a reply please from the neggers

[Lozzo]

I agree it should be banned, and the Prof is right to speak out about it. I don't see why our laws should be overruled by their religions.

[de_monies]

(Original post by RyanT)
=
The good professor is correct to say that it does cause suffering, but wrong to say that it should be kept to a minimum. It should be outright banned.

Funny how you say that because the only real difference between halal and non halal meat is a prayer. Unless of course you want to ban stunning animals. Again, you're just another person selectively reading from the article what you wish to read

[de_monies]

(Original post by Lozzo)
I agree it should be banned, and the Prof is right to speak out about it. I don't see why our laws should be overruled by their religions.

Did you read the article properly. Halal meat, for the vast majority DOES comply with the law and isn't "over ruling" the law

[Id and Ego seek]

The captive bolt gun icon looks like a gun dildo

[RyanT]

(Original post by de_monies)
Funny how you say that because the only real difference between halal and non halal meat is a prayer. Unless of course you want to ban stunning animals.

No, the difference is that the animal is not stunned in halal slaughter.

The prayer is irrelevant, we're talking about a material difference to animal welfare.

We don't want to ban stunning animals, we want to ban not stunning animals.

Elementary, boy.

(Original post by de_monies)
Again, you're just another person selectively reading from the article what you wish to read

You don't even know what Halal slaughter is, so

[de_monies]

(Original post by RyanT)
No, the difference is that the animal is not stunned in halal slaughter.

Are you seriously blind, or just oblivious to the facts?

"They also show that the majority of animals destined for the halal trade in both the red and white meat sectors are stunned before slaughter."

http://www.rspca.org.uk/servlet/Sate...&ssbinary=true

(Original post by RyanT)
We don't want to ban stunning animals, we want to ban not stunning animals.

You said that you wish to ban halal meat, which the RSPCA has confirmed that 90% of which is stunned. By banning halal meat, you are in fact then asking to ban stunning

(Original post by RyanT)
Elementary, boy.

Yes. Something which you lack

(Original post by RyanT)
You don't even know what Halal slaughter is, so

Um, I'm Muslim. I obviously know what Halal meat is

[yomomalomo]

(Original post by de_monies)
Did you read the article properly. Halal meat, for the vast majority DOES comply with the law and isn't "over ruling" the law

I thought the article was simply criticizing those who don't comply with the law, which would be a few Muslims and Jews who haven't decided to take up stunning (though many have).

I think if they just instated a few requirements (i.e stunning followed by decapitation or as near to it as possible) then everyone would be OK.

[de_monies]

(Original post by yomomalomo)
I thought the article was simply criticizing those who don't comply with the law, which would be a few Muslims and Jews who haven't decided to take up stunning (though many have).

Yes and no. Annoyingly, the BBC have gone for a sensationalist headline and annoyingly, it seems that people here only read what they wish to read. If you scroll up, I've had to argue with pretty much every single person who's replied where I've showed that at least halal meat complies with the law and that most halal meat is stunned

So, public opinion, at least on TSR is still skewed

[RyanT]

(Original post by de_monies)
You said that you wish to ban halal meat, which the RSPCA has confirmed that 90% of which is stunned. By banning halal meat, you are in fact then asking to ban stunning

No, stunning is expected to be the normal practice before killing an animal, for humane reasons.

Yes, some meat marketed as halal has been stunned beforehand.

The article is about the proportion that hasn't.

A mixture of religious extremists who put their sky fairy before animal welfare and ruthless corporations are driving non-stun slaughter. The only reason the corporations are able to do it is because of a provision for Halal slaugther in legislation.

We should remove this halal provision for not stunning animals before they are slaughtered (ritual slaughter) from the statue books. Not only do muslim rules have no place in the English legal space, this jewish-islamic practice itself is abhorrent.

(Original post by de_monies)
Um, I'm Muslim. I obviously know what Halal meat is

Clearly not. This is the method used, note the absence of stunning.

Ḏabīḥah (ذَبِيْحَة) is the prescribed method of slaughtering all animals excluding fish and most sea-life per Islamic law. This method of slaughtering animals consists of using a well sharpened knife to make a swift, deep incision that cuts the front of the throat, the carotid artery, wind pipe and jugular veins but leaves the spinal cord intact.[2] The animal is then hung upside-down and left to exsanguinate.

The head of an animal that is slaughtered using halal methods is aligned with the Qiblah. In addition to the direction, permitted animals should be slaughtered in the name of Allah (God).

You've got your own religion completely back to front. Not surprising given the quality of your contributions to TSR but nonetheless amusing.