Banning halal/religious slaughter for meat campaign is silly + racist Watch

This discussion is closed.
Hopefulcici
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#81
Report 4 years ago
#81
(Original post by Carol R. Lawson)
SO agree with you How can it be fair to treat Halal/KOsher meat differently or distinguish between the same kind of meat sold in supermarkets just because of the way the animal is killed??
It's unacceptable IMO because it creates cultural divides in our multicultural society and is very anti-Muslim!

And I don't ''hate''animals despite all the hate-Halal responses to my post I'm only talking about the ways are meat is prepared + allowing ethnic cultures to continue with their own established + respected ways.

But sorry to have upset anyone + I admit animal rights are like WAY down my list of concerns in todays world we live in, but Halal + Kosher is legal + ritual slaughter is approved by the Government, so the ''antis'' I think should get over it + not campaign to ban it or be so anti accepted cultural food practises.
In where I live most people buy halal meat from local shops not major supermarkets. Maybe we have a middle point and all halal/kosher to remain in local shops/ Islamic butchers etc. Instead of in major supermarkets.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
HigherMinion
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#82
Report 4 years ago
#82
>I'm not Muslim just an ordinary British schoolgirl
>
ordinary British schoolgirl
>schoolgirl

Try not to turn us into the tolerant Sweden while you're growing up- you'll regret it when you stop being a schoolgirl.
0
donutaud15
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#83
Report 4 years ago
#83
(Original post by King Boo)
Oh please, get down off your sanctimonious self righteous high horse and stop trying to police peoples opinions because you view it as 'culturally insensitive'.

I find it darn well culturally insensitive that Halal meat is existent in this country full stop. I am a staunch advocate of animal rights, (and before anyone jumps in, that does not necessarily mean I have to be a vegetarian.) and I find it absolutely ludicrous that you would put the peoples beliefs (subjective) above that of the welfare and pain of an animal (objective). I personally find that more than culturally insensitive, I find that absolutely, darn right disgusting.

Theres a reason that a large proportion of vets and animal rights charities oppose halal slaughter, because its inhumane. The throat is slit, without stunning (as otherwise its not technically halal) whilst the animal is still conscious. Before the apologists jump in and argue that the animal dies instantly, it does not. The animal fully is aware of what is going on, and all this nonsense about them not seeing the blade is simply not enforced in halal abattoirs in this country. The main nerve in the neck is generally not slit instantly, so the spinal cord is not instantly severed. Therefore, for sheep - it can take about 5 - 7 seconds to lose consciousness, and 22 - 40 seconds for adult cattle. In this time, the animal would be in significant pain and distress. This is the reason in the west, the accepted norm is to stun the animal beforehand.

In before people arguing that Halal meat in this country is all stunned, no - its not. The FSA did a report a few years back and found that at most, 84% of halal meat was stunned before slaughter, leaving 16%. Now multiply that up to the halal abattoirs across the country and you have a terrible figure.


To think that you find me opposing halal slaughter culturally insensitive I find a load of banal nonsense. I have no issue with muslims, or jews, or anyone else - as religion is something they are entitled to practice under a free democracy. However, when your beliefs result in a more than necessarily painful death of an animal, I think its well and truly overstepped the mark of being classed as culturally insensitive to oppose it.
This says it all really

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Copperknickers
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#84
Report 4 years ago
#84
(Original post by DorianGrayism)
Right, but most people do not buy organic or free range meat or bother checking.
Quite a lot of people do.
0
King Boo
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#85
Report 4 years ago
#85
(Original post by tazarooni89)
And how long do you think it takes for live prey to be mauled to death by a carnivorous animal, for a large fish to bleed to death from the point at which it's pierced by a hook, or for a mouse to die as a result of blunt force? It's certainly much longer than a few seconds!


When fish are hooked on unmanned lines, many bleed to death in the water and some just stay there struggling for hours until they die. The ones that are caught in nets sometimes struggle so hard that they cut themselves against the net and bleed slowly that way. When they're brought to land from a great depth very quickly, the change in pressure can cause their eyes to pop out. If they're still alive when they're brought onto land, they can flap around suffocating and stressed for around 5-10 minutes. Sometimes, in order to subdue them, they're hit on the head with mallets (I've witnessed this personally), gutted while still fully conscious, or placed into ice containers to freeze to death.

And although mice are inconvenient vermin that do need to be caught, there are varieties of mouse-traps which are designed to capture them without injuring them. But they aren't the most popular type. The most common variety is the spring trap that breaks their backs or crushes their ribs, or makes them die of slow internal bleeding.

There's no doubt that both of these are more cruel than a few seconds of pain.
I just said to you in my last post that i argue against the fish trade as well - don't try and change the subject because you can't back up your own post. I guess that you've never lived in a house ransacked with mice, because I have - and I know full well that they are very very difficult to get rid of and they are a massive nuisance. Im all for humane traps, but sometimes - they just dont work. The mice won't go in them, so unfortunately its the lesser of two evils. And prey being eaten by a live animal, I'm sorry thats a pathetic argument. Thats nature, not humans. You can't go around policing animals eating each other. Thats a ridiculous argument that honestly has made you're entire argument look silly.

It is not a few seconds of pain. Its the being strung up before hand, the fear of having your throat slit when you see a knife coming towards you, its the knife you feel being sliced across your throat. 5 - 7 seconds for a sheep, and 22 - 40 for cattle. I wonder how you'd cope with being tortured for 40 seconds, but do remember its only a few.

Please dont change you're argument in future. This is talking about halal, we can go on and on about other animal rights abuses, but this is discussing halal.
0
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#86
Report 4 years ago
#86
(Original post by King Boo)
I just said to you in my last post that i argue against the fish trade as well - don't try and change the subject because you can't back up your own post.
You might argue against the fish trade, but my argument isn't directed at you personally. It's directed at society in general, which seems to voice more opposition towards halal slaughter than other instances of even crueler treatment of animals.

I guess that you've never lived in a house ransacked with mice, because I have - and I know full well that they are very very difficult to get rid of and they are a massive nuisance. Im all for humane traps, but sometimes - they just dont work. The mice won't go in them, so unfortunately its the lesser of two evils.
I disagree - I have in fact lived in a house with a vermin problem, and have personally used humane traps to catch mice, finding them perfectly effective.

And prey being eaten by a live animal, I'm sorry thats a pathetic argument. Thats nature, not humans. You can't go around policing animals eating each other. Thats a ridiculous argument that honestly has made you're entire argument look silly.
I'm referring to live prey being fed to animals, not just animals eating each other in the wild.

It is not a few seconds of pain. Its the being strung up before hand, the fear of having your throat slit when you see a knife coming towards you, its the knife you feel being sliced across your throat. 5 - 7 seconds for a sheep, and 22 - 40 for cattle. I wonder how you'd cope with being tortured for 40 seconds, but do remember its only a few.
Whatever it may be, it's less cruel than the things that I've already mentioned.

Please dont change you're argument in future. This is talking about halal, we can go on and on about other animal rights abuses, but this is discussing halal.
But other instances of animal cruelty are entirely relevant. Remember, this discussion is not about whether halal meat is cruel or not, it is about what people's true motivations are for opposing it. The OP suggested racism or prejudice may be involved, and we're discussing whether or not that may be the case.

If you're against animal cruelty, great. However in practice, large portions of society are against animal cruelty, but only when Muslims do it. Animal rights violations are happening all over the place without them batting an eyelid, but as soon as the issue of halal meat is raised, they turn into PETA. It demonstrates that their issue runs deeper than pure concern for animal welfare.
0
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#87
Report 4 years ago
#87
(Original post by awkwardshortguy)
And yet you would not hesitate to call the Easter Bunny fictitious. If I am 99.99999999% certain that God is fictitious but not 100%, I am going to call him fictitious anyway.
A lack of evidence is not even enough to be 99.99% certain that something is fictitious. There are billions of things that do exist but that we have no evidence of.

I would certainly not say I'm 99.99% sure that the Easter bunny is ficticious. Like I said, the universe is extremely large. There's no telling what sort of creatures may exist far far away. All I can say right now is that I have no reason to positively affirm the existence of such a thing.

And I doubt there are any Muslims who have the gall to say they have scientific proof of God, which is the only real proof.
Why? Have you asked them all?

What I can agree with is that to remove the influence of religious doctrine on law in a democratic society, the assumptions of atheists need to be more universally agreed upon - the country needs more atheists - which is what I trying to say in my first post.
However, the assumptions of atheists are not universally agreed upon, which means it would not be appropriate, in a democratic society, to attempt to remove religious influence just by using atheistic assumptions in law-making.
0
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#88
Report 4 years ago
#88
(Original post by slopeatope)
wait bro are you sayin your not bias?
The arguments I have provided are not. They don't rely on any prior assumptions that would not be pretty much universally agreed upon.
0
awkwardshortguy
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#89
Report 4 years ago
#89
(Original post by tazarooni89)
A lack of evidence is not even enough to be 99.99% certain that something is fictitious. There are billions of things that do exist but that we have no evidence of.
Of course not, there are other things like the fact there are so many supposed deities worshiped around the world that is fanciful to believe that there is one that happens to be right and the rest are mythical, as opposed to all of them period, there is the problem of evil which is never satisfactorily explained, there are so many instances of factually wrong information that people wash over as 'metaphor' or 'simplification' that it is too convenient, there are the countless contradictions in holy writing that people seem to just ignore, God never confirms his presence unequivocally and no-one can give a reason that doesn't sound suspiciously convenient and there is the fact that God is a suspiciously convenient solution to the existential crisis brought upon by the human condition. Need I say more?


(Original post by tazarooni89)
Why? Have you asked them all?
Seriously? Do you not think that if there was scientific proof of God it would be all over the news?

(Original post by tazarooni89)
However, the assumptions of atheists are not universally agreed upon, which means it would not be appropriate, in a democratic society, to attempt to remove religious influence just by using atheistic assumptions in law-making.
Is that not what I said?
0
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#90
Report 4 years ago
#90
(Original post by awkwardshortguy)
Of course not, there are other things like the fact there are so many supposed deities worshiped around the world that is fanciful to believe that there is one that happens to be right and the rest are mythical, as opposed to all of them period, there is the problem of evil which is never satisfactorily explained, there are so many instances of factually wrong information that people wash over as 'metaphor' or 'simplification' that it is too convenient, there are the countless contradictions in holy writing that people seem to just ignore, God never confirms his presence unequivocally and no-one can give a reason that doesn't sound suspiciously convenient and there is the fact that God is a suspiciously convenient solution to the existential crisis brought upon by the human condition. Need I say more?
None of this actually makes the existence of a God (of some sort) any less likely than it would have otherwise been. It could be the sort that has never been imagined by any man made religion before, for example.

Seriously? Do you not think that if there was scientific proof of God it would be all over the news?
Not necessarily. It depends how many people were aware of it or recognised it as valid, whether or not people were resistant to the total overhaul it would cause to their life and way of thinking etc.

Is that not what I said?
Not exactly. You said that we need more atheists so that atheistic assumptions become more agreed upon and laws become based on them. I'm saying that there's no established reason why atheistic assumptions ought to be the ones that laws are based upon.
0
King Boo
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#91
Report 4 years ago
#91
(Original post by tazarooni89)
You might argue against the fish trade, but my argument isn't directed at you personally. It's directed at society in general, which seems to voice more opposition towards halal slaughter than other instances of even crueler treatment of animals.



I disagree - I have in fact lived in a house with a vermin problem, and have personally used humane traps to catch mice, finding them perfectly effective.



I'm referring to live prey being fed to animals, not just animals eating each other in the wild.



Whatever it may be, it's less cruel than the things that I've already mentioned.



But other instances of animal cruelty are entirely relevant. Remember, this discussion is not about whether halal meat is cruel or not, it is about what people's true motivations are for opposing it. The OP suggested racism or prejudice may be involved, and we're discussing whether or not that may be the case.

If you're against animal cruelty, great. However in practice, large portions of society are against animal cruelty, but only when Muslims do it. Animal rights violations are happening all over the place without them batting an eyelid, but as soon as the issue of halal meat is raised, they turn into PETA. It demonstrates that their issue runs deeper than pure concern for animal welfare.
I agree with you in the sense that many people turn into PETA over animal welfare in regards to halal meat, and that arguably some people inherently dislike it because its muslim. My motivations for it being banned are entirely based on an animal welfare POV. What I do dislike though is the instant assumption that people have issues with islam for opposing it. My dislike of the practice isn't based on ignorance or discrimination or prejudice, and I'd imagine most people (who actually know about halal) feel the same. Mind you, I won't deny that some people who are less informed about it probably dislike it simply because the daily mail says its muslim and therefore bad. My issue is the OP comes across as incredibly condescending and assumes everyones issues with it have roots in a hatred of islam which isn't the case.
0
Carol R. Lawson
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#92
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#92
Thank you very much to everyone who has been nice enough to give me so many positive reps for my thread xxx

Although there obviously seems to be a lot of anti-Muslim + anti-Islamic feeling on here in response to my OP NOT to ban any Halal/Kosher/religious slaughtering for meat in the uk, some ppl seem like SO desperate to ban it they start debating other ethnic/religious or cultural practises allowed in other countries to justify banning Halal!!!

I said before, I'm only supporting protecting what's ALREADY been accepted in the uk for years now by our Government (rights of religious slaughter methods for meat that we eat) and not debating any other religious practise (e.g. anything anti-humanitarian) that has NOT been legally or democratically accepted here.

Halal methods are accepted + legal ways of ending an animals life to provide our food + is here to stay!!!

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/74830 (just as a reminder ) The pro-Halal anti-ban petition is now ALL THE WAY UP to 134,691 ppl signing, which to me is def. democratic acceptance!!!
0
frankieboy
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#93
Report 4 years ago
#93
(Original post by DeadGirlsDance)
PLEASE stop using pink font in every post you make :indiff:
Haha - you tell 'em.

although in my opinion it's more of a lilac.
0
frankieboy
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#94
Report 4 years ago
#94
(Original post by Copperknickers)
Halal and kosher slaughter are ridiculous Mediaeval practices, but if they matter so much then by all means keep them. Just as long as you stun the animals first so you are in keeping with secular morals. Anything which effects non-religious people should be kept secular, but especially in this case, since it also effects animals.

I'm sorry but animals are more important than anyone's religious beliefs, on the basis that they actually exist and have the capacity to suffer, unlike God or Yahweh or Allah or Quetzalcoatl or the Walrus goddess of the Hudson Bay eskimos, or whoever else you think is telling you to torture animals (there is a medical name for that phenomenon when it occurs to one person rather than a billion).
Most Halal meat in the UK is stunned first.
0
samba
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#95
Report 4 years ago
#95
Factory farming is cool, but 15 secs of pain before death is evil and should be banned. Go figure.

If people actually gave a **** they'd likely buy halal/kosher/non halal meat from Latin American sources as opposed to local ones.

And yea, both the Koran and Torah demands humane treatment of animals prior to slaughter. Neither Kosher or Halal produced in Europe comes close to those requirements, so why bother making it kosher/halal in the first place?

The slaughter issue is miniscule, but obviously the lobbyists prefer people focus on it as it's not $$$
0
samba
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#96
Report 4 years ago
#96
(Original post by King Boo)
I agree with you in the sense that many people turn into PETA over animal welfare in regards to halal meat, and that arguably some people inherently dislike it because its muslim. My motivations for it being banned are entirely based on an animal welfare POV. What I do dislike though is the instant assumption that people have issues with islam for opposing it. My dislike of the practice isn't based on ignorance or discrimination or prejudice, and I'd imagine most people (who actually know about halal) feel the same. Mind you, I won't deny that some people who are less informed about it probably dislike it simply because the daily mail says its muslim and therefore bad. My issue is the OP comes across as incredibly condescending and assumes everyones issues with it have roots in a hatred of islam which isn't the case.
Do you buy factory farmed meat?
0
Wfarz
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#97
Report 4 years ago
#97
(Original post by frankieboy)
What I tend to find is people who are opposed to it paint this picture of it not as a swift clean cut to the throat with a perfectly sharp knife where the animal has no knowledge of what's giong on, but rather paint it as leatherface from the texas chainsaw massacre standing there with a blunt knife hacking away at the animal's throat while the animal screams in pain.

Those people are wrong. Halal is the former. If it ain't the former, it ain't Halal.

Also, it is hilarious that these people who have been eating meat slaughtered in rather a barbaric ''conventional'' way which often goes tits up for years are suddenly concerned about ''cruelty to animals''. If you're that concerned then stop eating meat you idiots.
THANK YOU!! Finally someone said it!

What people need to realise that if an animal is killed in such an inhumane distressfull way, it is NOT halal. The way many so called 'halal' slaughter houses in the uk slaughter animals is actually NOT halal at all. They treat the animals increadably cruelly as they want to take short cuts to save money. Sorry for the cliché but don't take everything you see and hear on the news and in the paper word for word. This is not halal people.
0
Wfarz
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#98
Report 4 years ago
#98
(Original post by suedonim)
people are generally more aware of animal cruelty now than they were 20 years ago, it's called progress. I don't want halal meat forced on me so when it starts to become widespread I object.
No one is forcing anything on anyone. Silly argument. Thats like a religious person who doesn't agree with homosexuality saying that beacuse same sex marriage is legal it's being forced upon them. People all have different views and people will never agree with eachothers views about whether PROPER religious slaughter is very crule, but ultimately nothing is being forced upon anyone here. (Note - many if not most so called "religious" slaughter houses within the uk and the world dont actually live up to halal/kosher standards)
The vast majoity of halal/kosher meat is labelled so you know what you're getting, and I agree that all of it should be labelled. Halal and kosher meat is available so that religious people can eat it, that is all. No forcing being done.
Don't want to eat it, don't choose halal or kosher meat. Simple as that really.
0
Wfarz
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#99
Report 4 years ago
#99
The reality is that all mass produced meat these days is incredibly cruel, regardless of religious slaughter. Caged chickens being the prime example. For the meat to be halal, chickens shouldn't be farmed this way.
0
Viridiana
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#100
Report 4 years ago
#100
Lol, it's so disgusting to justify cruelty by "religion". Maybe you get slaughtered like that first to set example, cause you know my religion says halal human meat cutlets are the things.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

what's your favourite season?

Summer (12)
30%
Spring (6)
15%
Autumn/Fall (10)
25%
Winter (8)
20%
I love them all equally (4)
10%

Watched Threads

View All