Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Sharp rise in halal abattoirs slaughtering animals without stunning them first. watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    The massive amount of criticism for Kosher and Halal meat is, I would conjecture, coming from a standpoint of Islamophobic bigotry as opposed to genuine concern for the suffering of nonhuman animals.

    It's utterly hypocritical for meat-eaters to object to religious slaughter and yet still eat the flesh of sentient beings which have been kept in cramped conditions, transported under great amounts of stress and then slaughtered, and even secular slaughter methods go wrong in a large proportion of cases, meaning that they've felt the pain of being stunned not once, but twice, and if it goes wrong twice, they're usually slaughtered without any stunning whatsoever. Global warming is also causing nonhuman animals to become extinct, and the meat industry is one of the biggest contributors to global warming. Again, where's the concern for these nonhuman animals? And, how many of the anti-Halal/Kosher people go vegan if they've been on holiday in Turkey/Dubai/Egypt/Morocco and a number of other countries which have a majority Muslim population?

    It's simply worrying that slaughter of nonhuman animals is on the rise at all: all slaughter should be banned.
    When you're done spouting conjecture, you'll find that most right-wing commentators don't give a flying duck about the way meat is produced. The major opposition is from liberal groups, left-wing activists and organisations like the Council of Ex-Muslims (which I'm a member of) and the National Secular Society (which I'm also a member of).

    And stop using the word 'Islamophobia'. It's a made-up word that only serves silencing criticism of Islamic ideas and ideology. If you want to use a term for anti-Muslim hatred and bigotry, then call it that. Don't call it Islamophobia. By your definition, I'm an Islamophobe (despite being a former Muslim). I'm also a Christianophobe, Thatcherismophobe, faithophobe, capitalistophobe, Kemalismapobe, MRAophobe among many other things. Hatred against Muslims is very real, don't get me wrong. Call it muslimophobia, or anti-muslim bigotry. I stand with you in condemning that.

    And it is not hypocritical to only avoid non-stunned meat. One wants to limit their damage, no one can eliminate it altogether. I've been a vegetarian for about a year now, but before I became one I still cared about the welfare of the animals I ate.
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    The thing I don't understand about this condemnation is how narrowly-defined people's outrage is. People are insistent that animals should be stunned before they're killed - anything less is "barbaric" and "disgusting" - yet seemingly don't care at all that the animals are being killed, needlessly.

    It carries the absurdity of arguing the moral highground on whether blades should be allowed in a cockfight.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PopaPork)
    Unless, that is, you can prove that the BVA, RSPCA, HSA, FAWC and FVE all all simply being islamophobic rather than doing their Job, you'd be wrong.
    There's obviously going to be some criticism, but people who would normally not care about nonhuman animals at all do suddenly proclaim their disgust at religious slaughter. Hence, the massive amount of criticism.

    (Original post by amoo_h)
    When you're done spouting conjecture, you'll find that most right-wing commentators don't give a flying duck about the way meat is produced. The major opposition is from liberal groups, left-wing activists and organisations like the Council of Ex-Muslims (which I'm a member of) and the National Secular Society (which I'm also a member of).
    Indeed, but see above.

    (Original post by amoo_h)
    And stop using the word 'Islamophobia'. It's a made-up word that only serves silencing criticism of Islamic ideas and ideology. If you want to use a term for anti-Muslim hatred and bigotry, then call it that. Don't call it Islamophobia. By your definition, I'm an Islamophobe (despite being a former Muslim). I'm also a Christianophobe, Thatcherismophobe, faithophobe, capitalistophobe, Kemalismapobe, MRAophobe among many other things. Hatred against Muslims is very real, don't get me wrong. Call it muslimophobia, or anti-muslim bigotry. I stand with you in condemning that.
    Convincing point.

    (Original post by amoo_h)
    And it is not hypocritical to only avoid non-stunned meat. One wants to limit their damage, no one can eliminate it altogether. I've been a vegetarian for about a year now, but before I became one I still cared about the welfare of the animals I ate.
    I understand the argument from a spectrum, but there's little difference between Halal/Kosher meat and normal meat. Practically, there's a significant difference between lacto-vegetarianism and total vegetarianism, as avoiding dairy products is hard. There's a significant difference between total vegetarianism and veganism, as it's hard to avoid animal products in every aspect of life. But Halal/Kosher and regular meat? Not much of a difference. And, as I stated, do most of these people go vegan when they're in countries in which most of the meat is Halal? Do they even make an attempt to check whether the meat they're eating in a certain restaurant is Halal or not, for instance in a Bangladeshi restaurant? I think not, and even if it were, they'd still eat there, in the general case.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ImNotMe)
    Should Britain be about british? :P lol, just kidding.

    I'm just curious, what should Britain be about in your point of view, and who gets to decide what Britain is about?
    Sure you're just curious. Best to stay on topic though rather than turning it into a thread on the definition of Britishness.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Marco1)
    Sure you're just curious. Best to stay on topic though rather than turning it into a thread on the definition of Britishness.
    It's a little bit related? nevermind.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Harvey Dent)
    But guys, it's a beautiful religion of peace and it's perfect.
    Well it actually is beautiful and perfect!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by radicalboujie)
    Funny thing the mcdonalds you eat buy battery farmed chicken, yeah the ones where they're treated like ****??
    But nah halal meat it is

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    You seem to be saying no one is allowed to comment on alarming statistics published about the rise of unstunned, Halal and Kosher slaughter? If you have nothing to contribute better to be silent.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    It is amazing how many people turn into PETA activists when the word "halal" is used.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:


    There is no "humane" way of taking away life.

    Either you condemn all forms of animal slaughter or you sit down and be quiet. You really have no leg to stand on otherwise as the so called "humane alternatives" to halal and kosher aren't all that pleasant either.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    This belongs back in the dark ages, as does religion in general. Society has moved on.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miser)
    The thing I don't understand about this condemnation is how narrowly-defined people's outrage is. People are insistent that animals should be stunned before they're killed - anything less is "barbaric" and "disgusting" - yet seemingly don't care at all that the animals are being killed, needlessly.

    It carries the absurdity of arguing the moral highground on whether blades should be allowed in a cockfight.
    I appreciate your noble and genuine concern for slaughtered animals which is cool but I think the thread is wider still. There is the cruelty of method factor, the worrying fact that this form of religious ritual killing is increasing dramatically in the UK, the dubious grounds used by those who support it, the lack of choice where only halal meat is served often unbeknown to customers. Does anyone think a Christian would want to eat meat slaughtered with Islamic prayers said over it as it dies? It's a no brainer. It's not fair, just or humane. It's also Britain. The Church of England is Christian not Islamic. The Halal method is a horrible, barbaric bloody drawn out method of killing. The only reason justifying it is that an ancient text prescribes the method. Not good enough anymore I'm afraid. This is the West, not Nation Islam. I don't like Kosher slaughter either but I am not confronted with situations where Kosher meat is the only meat on offer. In contrast I am confronted with Halal only e.g. even in the restaurant of the NHS general hospital where I work. There is an approved State method of animal slaughter devised to give minimum discomfort to the animal when killed. Halal and Kosher are nothing like it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Even if there is a god, halal didn't come from it.

    Halal is the safest way to prepare meat in the medieval desert. The law makers knew there was no point explaining this to dumb arabs, so just decided to write it into the religion, as "because god says so" would mean they'd be less likely to cut corners.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jarred)
    I've been called islamophobic before for speaking out against halal meat, which I find quite insulting and narrow-minded. I think it's perfectly reasonable to provide a critique of certain parts of Islam and not be islamophobic doing it, one can disagree with something whilst still being respectful at the same time, which I work very hard to be. I don't like the idea of eating halal (or kosher) because I believe the practise is unnecessarily inhumane, and also as an atheist I don't particularly like the idea of my meal being slaughtered in the name of a god I don't believe in, but I don't have any issues with others choosing to believe differently from me. The problem I have right now is that whilst most halal meat is believed to be stunned before death, there's no way of telling as a consumer when you're in the supermarket how it died.

    If it were up to me, we'd simply have compulsory labelling for all meats, which describe the exact slaughter method used (ie: whether it's stunned, whether it was halal, kosher, etc.) This means those who care about it for moral reasons can buy the meats they want, those who don't care can just carry on doing what they normally do, and we even make it easier for people who follow religions with special slaughter requirements to find the exact meat for them! No bans or anything authoritarian like that, just good old fashioned consumer empowerment. For once, everybody wins. It would merely be an extension of how supermarkets already frequently label the conditions the animal was raised in (free range et al). It's a simple fix that requires easy, cheap and unobtrusive regulation. Religious leaders have even come out in support of such a system, so I really don't know why we aren't considering it.
    I enjoyed reading your well-informed articulate post. Labelling would solve the problem of knowing what we eat in supermarkets but aren't there other concerns of an ethical nature? If it's unnecessarily cruel then why sanction it. Because religious leaders condone labelling it doesn't mean the slaughter method is satisfactory. It's not simply about whether we have to eat it or not. We have our own government endorsed British method of abattoir slaughter which ensures stunned methods and minimum discomfort before death. Not a pretty topic but there you go.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    The massive amount of criticism for Kosher and Halal meat is, I would conjecture, coming from a standpoint of Islamophobic bigotry as opposed to genuine concern for the suffering of nonhuman animals.
    That's a very odd and presumptuous thing to assume. I disagree entirely.

    (Original post by viddy9)
    It's utterly hypocritical for meat-eaters to object to religious slaughter and yet still eat the flesh of sentient beings which have been kept in cramped conditions, transported under great amounts of stress and then slaughtered, and even secular slaughter methods go wrong in a large proportion of cases, meaning that they've felt the pain of being stunned not once, but twice, and if it goes wrong twice, they're usually slaughtered without any stunning whatsoever. Global warming is also causing nonhuman animals to become extinct, and the meat industry is one of the biggest contributors to global warming. Again, where's the concern for these nonhuman animals? And, how many of the anti-Halal/Kosher people go vegan if they've been on holiday in Turkey/Dubai/Egypt/Morocco and a number of other countries which have a majority Muslim population?
    No, it's not hypocritical. It's a valid and important topic under scrutiny. One can always find a comparison to try and discredit or devalue an argument. It doesn't really affect the credibility of a particular topical debate because you are only conflating the primary topic with a much more general one.

    (Original post by viddy9)
    It's simply worrying that slaughter of nonhuman animals is on the rise at all: all slaughter should be banned.
    Is animal slaughter on the rise? The article concentrates on the rise of 'non-stunned' animal slaughter.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Goodness me, death is painful regardless of how an animal dies. The Islamic method ensures that as much blood (which contains pathogens and all sorts of impurities) is drained from the animal and this helps meat to stay fresh for longer when stored. Annoys me how some people, especially those animal welfare supporters, criticize the Islamic method of slaughter. I ain't against animal welfare but it just annoys me how they cant see the true nature of this method. The Islamic method is the most peaceful way to put an animal to death. A question to those people who criticize this method: Is there a method that will kill an animal more quickly and peacefully? Any answers? I don't think so.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JohnCrichton89)
    To be fair, as far as I am aware, Kosher killing allows the butcher to cut from the back of the neck severing the spinal cord killing the animal quickly. Whilst not ideal, it's still not comparable with Islamic Halal, were the cut is made from the front-to-back and the spinal cord is left intact so the animal can bleed to death.

    Basically if you've been unlucky enough to see a beheading video, that's Halal.
    Also UK Jewry and forcing the rest of us to eat Kosher and demanding non-Kosher be taken off the shelves.......
    Wouldn't cutting the spinal chord first hurt, as it detects pain and hence would feel it?
    i don't know but what i do know is that the blood flow is basically the blood emptying from the brain, this means that with precision and speed, the animal experiences an immediate loss of consciousness, and doing it this way around means the animal has no sense of the pain and since there's no delay between when it's stunned and then dies, the animal can't regain consciousness so as to feel the pain again in any way

    also in british slaughterhouses, they use things ilke gassing and electrocution and it paralyses the animal but this merely stops the animal from displaying outward expressions of pain, we can't tell if it's feeling pain inside or not

    As a muslim i'm perfectly fine with there being non-halal and halal meat in this country, the biggest thing i ask for though is to make it routine to label on a packet if something is halal or not
    because while we go by the vegetarian sign, this doesn't always apply as there might be alcohol in something
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Raymat)
    Goodness me, death is painful regardless of how an animal dies. The Islamic method ensures that as much blood (which contains pathogens and all sorts of impurities) is drained from the animal and this helps meat to stay fresh for longer when stored. Annoys me how some people, especially those animal welfare supporters, criticize the Islamic method of slaughter. I ain't against animal welfare but it just annoys me how they cant see the true nature of this method. The Islamic method is the most peaceful way to put an animal to death. A question to those people who criticize this method: Is there a method that will kill an animal more quickly and peacefully? Any answers? I don't think so.
    Your problem is that ruminants, and in particular cattle, have a large alternative blood supply to the brain through the vertebral arteries and this is obviously not severed during the throat cut. For this reason some animals can remain conscious as they bleed to death due to their brain remaining adequately perfused and in a cow this can be take minutes.

    Your argument about blood doesn't make much sense either. All slaughtered animals have their throat cut when they are alive and the blood is allowed to drain, its just that stunned animals don't know much about it (or they shouldn't do but mis-stunning is unfortunately far too common).

    Personally I don't eat meat and other animal products and I have plenty of critical things to stay about 'standard' farming and slaughter. That said I think slaughter without stunning is particularly barbaric and banning it completely would be moving in the right direction, religious traditions should not prioritised over animal welfare in this country.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DoTheEducations)
    also in british slaughterhouses, they use things ilke gassing and electrocution and it paralyses the animal but this merely stops the animal from displaying outward expressions of pain, we can't tell if it's feeling pain inside or not
    We tend not to use gassing widely in this country but it may start to come in for poultry and pigs. The main methods used are electric currents or a captive bolts.

    Believe it or not some scientists have dedicated to their lives to studying stunning at slaughter and showing it renders the animal unconscious and therefore unable to feel pain. They do this by measuring brain activity, pain responses etc. It's pretty certain that correctly stunned animals don't feel pain but unfortunately many do end up inadequately stunned in an abattoir situation.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonymοοse)


    There is no "humane" way of taking away life.

    Either you condemn all forms of animal slaughter or you sit down and be quiet. You really have no leg to stand on otherwise as the so called "humane alternatives" to halal and kosher aren't all that pleasant either.
    Truth

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by moonfacebear)
    Your problem is that ruminants, and in particular cattle, have a large alternative blood supply to the brain through the vertebral arteries and this is obviously not severed during the throat cut. For this reason some animals can remain conscious as they bleed to death due to their brain remaining adequately perfused and in a cow this can be take minutes.

    Your argument about blood doesn't make much sense either. All slaughtered animals have their throat cut when they are alive and the blood is allowed to drain, its just that stunned animals don't know much about it (or they shouldn't do but mis-stunning is unfortunately far too common).

    Personally I don't eat meat and other animal products and I have plenty of critical things to stay about 'standard' farming and slaughter. That said I think slaughter without stunning is particularly barbaric and banning it completely would be moving in the right direction, religious traditions should not prioritised over animal welfare in this country.
    Isn't blood in the brain free from pathogens? I Believe my reasons do make sense and most people would agree with me. Jews have the same type of slaughter and they are not a stupid bunch. There are reasons why Muslims and Jews slaughter this way.

    As a Muslim I don't see a problem with stunning but the reason why some Muslims get hysterical about it is the fact that stunning can affect nervous activity in the brain which can also affect heart activity, hence the heart doesn't beat in the normal way it should do. This can affect how much blood is drained during slaughter.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 14, 2015
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.