[de_monies]

(Original post by Lozzo)
I don't care that it said majority, the majority isn't all. They should either all comply with the law and make it so there is no suffering or be completely banned.

Wait, are you saying that ALL halal meat should be banned if a few don't comply?

[SaintSoldier]

(Original post by de_monies)
No, but you should look at the facts properly first. Scroll up

What, you meant the ones about stunning? They're irrelevant because in Islam you aren't allowed to stun the animal anyway.

[SaintSoldier]

(Original post by SnoochToTheBooch)
nor does criticising a religion. religion =/= race.

The OP used the word "racist," so I was refering to that.

Yeh I know it doesn't.

[de_monies]

(Original post by SaintSoldier)
What, you meant the ones about stunning? They're irrelevant because in Islam you aren't allowed to stun the animal anyway.

Well, if you read the article, 90% of halal meat in the UK is stunned so obviously Islam is OK with it. Secondly, I assume that you're a Sikh?

[SaintSoldier]

(Original post by de_monies)
Well, if you read the article, 90% of halal meat in the UK is stunned so obviously Islam is OK with it. Secondly, I assume that you're a Sikh?

When you're looking at a religion, don't look at what the followers are doing. Most of the time they will be doing stuff that is banned in their religion. Look at what their scripture tells them instead.

Halal meat slaughter houses are run by business men, not scholars, hence they don't have the authority to speak for Islam imo.

And yes I am (I could be incredibly sarcastic here, but allow it for today)

[de_monies]

(Original post by SaintSoldier)
When you're looking at a religion, don't look at what the followers are doing. Most of the time they will be doing stuff that is banned in their religion. Look at what their scripture tells them instead.

Halal meat slaughter houses are run by business men, not scholars, hence they don't have the authority to speak for Islam imo.

Halal meat slaughter houses are regulated, where they will have scholars who will advise them on what to do. There was massive resistance to stunning before the newscientist article. The meat companies were the ones saying that halal meat is harmful etc.. and they obviously had their biases.

Pretty much every single article before the newscientist one came out, were biased or were deemed to be biased

[SaintSoldier]

(Original post by de_monies)
Halal meat slaughter houses are regulated, where they will have scholars who will advise them on what to do. There was massive resistance to stunning before the newscientist article. The meat companies were the ones saying that halal meat is harmful etc.. and they obviously had their biases.

Pretty much every single article before the newscientist one came out, were biased or were deemed to be biased

It's funny how articles that don't work in your favour are "biased;" then when one article springs up that works for you, it's immediately factual and 100% accurate

With regards to regulation, I'm not an expert on the topic so I can't comment. However I would say that I highly doubt the level of regulation in the UK at least. It may be like development consultancy, where companies deliberately pay consultants who have a record for not finding any threats to biodiversity in an area of development, so they don't have to fund the measures needed to manintain biodiversity. Thus saving them money.

[de_monies]

(Original post by SaintSoldier)
It's funny how articles that don't work in your favour are "biased;" then when one article springs up that works for you, it's immediately factual and 100% accurate

Um, that's not what I said. Until the newscientist article came out, I didn't believe the other sources BECAUSE they were from MEAT companies who know full well that mechanical slaughtering is cheaper

Newscientist actually did some proper studies, and concluded that stunning is safer. Newscientist are a neutral source. At the time, Newscientist were against my point of view because of the fact that I didn't believe what the meat companies were telling us. But because I read it in Newscientist, I believed it

[de_monies]

(Original post by SaintSoldier)

With regards to regulation, I'm not an expert on the topic so I can't comment. However I would say that I highly doubt the level of regulation in the UK at least.

If you're going to say that, then provide proof. That is a libellous statement against the regulators otherwise

(Original post by SaintSoldier)
It may be like development consultancy, where companies deliberately pay consultants who have a record for not finding any threats to biodiversity in an area of development, so they don't have to fund the measures needed to manintain biodiversity. Thus saving them money.

AFAIK, the inspectors from the regulatory bodies come in themselves, so sort of like OFSTED for halal meat companies

Also, you'll notice that prior to the Newscientist article, most halal meat companies were operating in the "traditional" way,even though the mechanical way was cheaper. It's obvious that the regulatory bodies had some power here and placed religion above money

[lucaf]

making an exception for halal and shechita when it comes to stunning is completely unacceptable. animal cruelty is illegal, and you can't simply make an exception to that kind of law on religious grounds. why don't we just make an exception to murder laws so religions can stone gays like their holy books tell them to?

[James82]

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

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

Since when have Islam and Judaism been races?

[de_monies]

(Original post by James82)
Since when have Islam and Judaism been races?

Snagprophet is being sarcastic. He has himself made racist remarks in the past ie: actual racism, not based on religion which have then been removed by mods

Actually, he made a racist remark yesterday which was removed

[ch0c0h01ic]

(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

However there is a big difference between "majority" and "all". The vast majority of resistance to humane slaughter stems from religious groups and religious leaders, past and present. Times and people have changed but there is still a long way to go.

There is also the much wider issue of religious slaughter abroad where there hasn't been the same degree of public pressure for humane slaughter.

(Original post by de_monies)
Um, that's not what I said. Until the newscientist article came out, I didn't believe the other sources BECAUSE they were from MEAT companies who know full well that mechanical slaughtering is cheaper

Newscientist actually did some proper studies, and concluded that stunning is safer. Newscientist are a neutral source. At the time, Newscientist were against my point of view because of the fact that I didn't believe what the meat companies were telling us. But because I read it in Newscientist, I believed it

Actually there has been a large amount of evidence against religious slaughter for an extended period of time. The "bias" that you talk about doesn't exist in the way that you think it does. The studies that you allude to did not originate from commercial abattoirs but teams of animal welfare and meat science researchers. If you study the literature there are perhaps one or two papers which support religious slaughter and up until now that has been the only supporting "evidence".

NewScientist itself conducts few (if any) studies of it's own, rather it simply reports on them.

(Original post by de_monies)
Wait, are you saying that ALL halal meat should be banned if a few don't comply?

Non humane slaughter should be banned, hopefully that does not need to encompass religious slaughter but that depends on uptake.

(Original post by Iqbal007)
Well it depends, some groups don't expect the stunning because it has issues and doubts. The other issue is how animals are brought up, in Islam animals must be brought up without any suffering and it could mix up the supply chain with animals coming from caged places, etc.
Another thing is that there are even reports on how stunning is also though cause some suffering...........if people want a real understanding, they should stop looking at the opinions of one man and go out and carry multiple scientific tests before coming to a proper conclusion.

Sure poorly performed stunning can be a welfare problem, however correctly performed it surpasses religious slaughter by a big margin. I suggest that you take your own advice and look up the scientific studies behind stunning because there is a great deal more evidence supporting its use than not.

[Voleva]

goodmthe speak out against religious cruelty towards animals.

[Mr_Powell]

.... It sounds a bit hypocritical for Muslims to be so fussy about the way that animals are slaughtered but they are more than happy to put a bomb down their trousers and needlessly slaughter thousands of innocent humans. Talk about double standards.

[Scienceisgood]

Far be it from me to criticise but, I will NOT eat halal meat and now because 25% of all meat sold in the UK is halal, I have now switched to an entirely vegetarian diet because of the way the animals are cruelly slaughtered in the name of a outdated belief system.

The only leader I believe in is ghandi...
(BTW, not indian, white british)

[TheGrinningSkull]

(Original post by RyanT)
Like I said, medieval slaughter practices are not acceptable in England. Immigrants should have to adopt to European standards if they want to live here. I realise that it's not all about stunning, however I do think that the other parts of ritual slaughter should also be outlawed.





I never said that stunning was outlawed by muslim rules, simply that an interpretation of them was that no stunning was used and that this interpretation was allowing meat companies to kill animals without stunning them, under the pretence of halal meat.


1. All animals should be stunned first
2. No exceptions made for any religion on (1)
3. The other aspects of Halal butchery should be outlawed too

Uhm, clearly you still want to ban halal meat just because it's "halal" even though the vast majority are stunned.

Sounding like a troll to me.

[Scienceisgood]

People.

"In short, Abraham Natural Produce would rather all animals were slaughtered without stunning ."
Taken from a halal meat website.

Now tell me that food is stunned before being killed.

[Iqbal007]

(Original post by ch0c0h01ic)
However there is a big difference between "majority" and "all". The vast majority of resistance to humane slaughter stems from religious groups and religious leaders, past and present. Times and people have changed but there is still a long way to go.

There is also the much wider issue of religious slaughter abroad where there hasn't been the same degree of public pressure for humane slaughter.



Actually there has been a large amount of evidence against religious slaughter for an extended period of time. The "bias" that you talk about doesn't exist in the way that you think it does. The studies that you allude to did not originate from commercial abattoirs but teams of animal welfare and meat science researchers. If you study the literature there are perhaps one or two papers which support religious slaughter (all of which were written by Jewish or Muslim scientists funnily enough) and up until now that has been the only supporting "evidence".

NewScientist itself conducts few (if any) studies of it's own, rather it simply reports on them.



Non humane slaughter should be banned, hopefully that does not need to encompass religious slaughter but that depends on uptake.



Sure poorly performed stunning can be a welfare problem, however correctly performed it surpasses religious slaughter by a big margin. I suggest that you take your own advice and look up the scientific studies behind stunning because there is a great deal more evidence supporting its use than not.

Regardless there is some form of biasness everywhere. I also do not see how other people care so much about how one follows their faith, it dictates how they should live and isolates them which is totally wrong.

It's the same with religious slaughter.......as long as it's done correctly, the animal is dies 'humanely'. The reason behind the evidence, is that more people are concerned with proving it's right rather than looking on the other spectrum as well.

Also Islamicly the animal is looked after humanely throughout it's life in comparison to non-halal meat where animals come from a mixture of backgrounds which in many cases live in inhumane conditions and treated badly, which people choose to ignore but are more concerned about it dying humanely.

[Scienceisgood]

The thing is, in this case, one person has to be proven "wrong" because I became vegetarian due to the inhumane conditions animals live and die in and people say I am criticising them because of MY beliefs, what makes their's so much more superior to mine?
Am I hurting anyone by respecting animals to such an extent as to chose not to eat them?