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

Scroll to see replies

I don't really understand their reasons for objecting to the religious killings, but sure whatever

do you mean apart from the cruelty of the slaughter method

the inequality that allowing the two groups from being exempted from the law that everyone else has to follow creates (and the resentment)

but sure whatever

Reply 21

Marco1

Original post by JohnCrichton89

Give me a petition that goes against cruelty to animals and I'll sign it, with enough money in my pocket I'll source my meat, hell if everyone just went vegetarian and banned meat I'd play along.

But when dealing with problems like this, we have to criticise the worst the most. Lumping them all in together gives these groups a united vote, its much easier to divide and conquer.

Take on the worst first, get Halal gone. Then go after Kosher, then ....... don't go after all religious demographics at once. You'd only get them block voting.

I see what you're saying. It makes practical sense. I guess I'm thinking in more philosophical general terms

Reply 22

ImNotMe

Original post by Marco1

...Britain seems to be sliding all too easily into a dystopian alternate reality, becoming increasingly disconnected from itself.

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?

Reply 23

lucaf

Most halal meat is already pre-stunned, I don't understand why we don't just lift the religious exemption to the stunning laws.

Reply 24

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.

Reply 25

joey11223

Original post by Jarred

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.

Aye I agree, would save a lot of Muslim customers asking you if X meat is halal if you work in retail. My motto being if it doesn't say it is, it ain't. Don't take the risk bro imagine eternal Jahannam for one sinful sirloin? Lol religion. Though when guy asks where the vegetarian food cabinet is, THEN asks you if these are halal, when we're looking at vegetable burgers, veggie fingers, Quorn etc. One simply has to facepalm, "yes sir, these carrots were slit just below the leaves with the appropriate prayer being chanted...or played on an endless loop, or just the prayer carved into the blade".

But seriously for all I know some non-labelled stuff is halal, most frozen chicken comes from Thailand, Malaysia etc, significant Muslim populations so some huge poultry complexes could be Halal if they also supply local produce. I mean it's probably not, but I think there was an article not too long ago about New Zealand Lamb (so...most lamb) being Halal, or a % of it at least.

Reply 26

indigobluesss

Original post by PopaPork

It's not really cruel when you think about how these same animals would be treated out in the wild.

Unless the equality is also adopted in the same light to lions and other natural predators then why not? Afterall, humans are basically animals :biggrin:

Reply 27

Iqbal007

Original post by lucaf

Most halal meat is already pre-stunned, I don't understand why we don't just lift the religious exemption to the stunning laws.

You also got to consider a few other things, while a large amount of halal is pre-stunned, a significant amount of that ends up being unlabelled and sold openly everywhere, it's simply down to abattoirs trying to make as much money as they can while being able to get into the halal market. When you look specifically into the Muslim population and their consumption of stunned halal vs non-stunned halal meat, you would definitely find a different story where the consumption of non-stunned meat is far higher.

Lets not forget Kosher, they have no difference of views on their matter......they believe that stunning is outright wrong and would not be acceptable. In order for their meats to be Kosher, it cannot be stunned.

Reply 28

JohnCrichton89

Original post by Marco1

I see what you're saying. It makes practical sense. I guess I'm thinking in more philosophical general terms

Well sure, it's wrong....... but it's not me you have to convince. It's not even the theists you gotta convince. You have to speak to, and convince, the moral relativists that have become professional apologists for Islam.

Essentially the left wing demographic, and, your position will be met with all sorts of abuse and slander. The corruption of the liberal ideals with political bias for mass immigration has turned the once humanist belief into a religion on to itself.

You would have more luck convincing Muslims/Jews to just stop doing it before that lot would come around to the idea that doing this sort of thing isn't in the best interests of any society.

Reply 29

TurboCretin

Original post by radicalboujie

It's hilarious because I actually thought u were the types to ACTUALLY care about animal rights "that little bit of cruelty at the end" made me laugh tbf.
Also if ur sooo disgusted by the treatment of animals become a vegan. Simple.
Saying kosher and halal meat is cruel is as ridiculous while at the same time u used to ignore their treatment whilst they were alive. Fam islam and Judaism won't leave get wid the winning team

Posted from TSR Mobile

Protesting against halal slaughter doesn't rule out that people care about how the animals lived prior to that.

What the other poster is saying is not that he doesn't care about how the animal has been treated in life. What he is saying is that your argument doesn't make sense, because the decision is not between (i) amazing life and halal slaughter and (ii) horrible life and humane slaughter. It is between (i) horrible life and halal slaughter and (ii) horrible life and humane slaughter. Ruling out inhumane slaughter would not be a complete solution to the problem, but it is a necessary part of it.

Hope this helps.

Reply 30

TurboCretin

Original post by R Dragon

The difference is that we don't control how animals treat each other.

Reply 31

PopaPork

Original post by R Dragon

Bit of a low bar there though

we are better then that and while we are expected to be better than them I don't see it as an issue in making everyone equal before the law.

Reply 32

e aí rapaz

Killing animals for your own pleasure is inhumane no matter what method you use, so meh.

/unoriginal point

Reply 33

lucaf

Original post by Iqbal007

good point, but doesn't make the practice more acceptable

also that emphasises the need for at least better labeling; if they are being killed by the halal method and not being marketed as such the producers don't even have justification for using the religious exemption.

Reply 34

PopaPork

Here is the e-petition for people to sign

https://submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/64331

Reply 35

Iqbal007

Original post by lucaf

I understand the need for labelling, in fact it would benefit Muslims, etc and increase sales for supermarkets which are often lost out to specialised butchers.

However, I do see the other side.......the problem is that these abattoirs actually mix all the different meats together halal, non-halal, etc which is going to the mainstream market. It becomes cross contaminated, hence no longer halal........but after they enter these large factories for processing, packaging, etc they actually no longer have the ability to tell which one is which. And no company is going to bother to spend more money on separate convey belts and machines so they can label, which isn't required by law. If it does become law, then either Abattoirs will significantly cut back on halal slaughters or it could result in a rise in price for meats to cover the extra costs.

Reply 36

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.

Reply 37

CloudedSilver

I'm not a fan of halal meat personally as I don't agree with the method of slaughter - I'm not vegetarian or anything, but I like any meat I eat to have been killed humanely. I can understand and respect that it is part of some religions to eat halal or kosher meat and I can understand why people in those religions like to have Halal options, but personally I'd prefer to have the choice of whether I want to eat halal meat or not. There should be options for both halal and non-halal in all restaurants, so that people have the choice.

I think that halal is such a rigid and important part of some religious beliefs that there's very little chance of halal meat being banned, and although I think that it's inhumane personally, I can see why people want to eat it and respect their religions. It's a tricky subject, and I find it very hard to approach as I have a lot of Muslim friends so can understand why they eat halal, but I do feel that from what I know about it (there may be other facts in favour of halal that I don't know, so I'm open minded there) I don't see it as fair. Fine, there are less humane slaughters in the wild, but humans have the capacity to treat animals with respect and make an informed choice between killing them humanely or letting them suffer, unlike wild animals who are governed solely by the need to survive. Personally I choose to eat non-halal meat as I see it as the most humane option, just as I would only eat free-range eggs or try to avoid animal-tested products as much as possible. For me it's not in any way an attack on the religions themselves; people are welcome to believe what they want and I respect that, but I think there should be more of a choice because halal isn't for everyone.

Reply 38

PopaPork

Original post by viddy9

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.

Reply 39

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.