egafd.com

Given some people are confused, and I see it can sometimes be lost in lengthy threads (and I'm bored), I thought I'd make my thoughts clear on Halal. If you don't want to read on, I'm about 80% against it for the following reasons.


1. It is cruel. We live in 2014 and there are more humane ways of killing another living thing than slashing it's throat, muscles and arteries while keeping the spinal column intact, just so the animal can keep it's heart beating while a prayer is said.

2. Even with stunning first (which a lot of Halal abattoirs do, but not all), the mindset of killing another animal in such a gory, bloody fashion is unhealthy when there are cleaner, neater ways. And 'taste' and 'decency' is, I think, a bigger issue than it seems at first glance. There's a reason most countries that still have the death penalty don't hang people, or decapitate them any more. Even if inmates on death row were sedated first, there'd be outrage if the prisoners were hung upside down and had their throats slashed to kill them. Even if they felt no pain and had little awareness of what was happening, the bloody, gory, violence makes it worse and we'd question anybody's mentality who wanted such a form of capital punishment. And so I question the mentality of anyone who prefers to kill animals in such a way. It's ok to say "killing is killing so what does it matter if they don't feel it?" but the method prefered does tell a lot about the executioner's mindset and it is a more savage form of violent symbolism. It's not healthy.

And if you still think the symbolism isn't important, ask yourself this: If you have a son who gets a job in an abattoir on leaving school, but tells you he'd rather work in a Halal abattoir because he prefers slashing throats rather than shooting bolts, would that mindset disturb you? You would surely question his thought process and preference for such a more bloody way of doing his job, regardless of whether the animal is stunned first. Again, the symbolism and mentality matters.

3. It reinforces mistrust, fear and hatred of the 'other'. And here, Kosher abattoirs are worse. I think I'm right in that meat cannot be Kosher unless a Jew is the one slaughtering the animal. That is pretty close to racism in my book. Imagine white people saying they'd only eat meat slaughtered by other white people and refused to eat anything killed by a black man. It's not pure racism of course (though being a 'Jew' can be a race thing) but it's the idea that only a Jew can kill an animal the right way. Halal is a little different in the slaughterer doesn't have to be a Muslim but a Muslim has to be present.

4. This isn't so much a problem with Halal or Kosher, but the discriminatory laws. By law, abattoirs are required to kill animals in what is considered a humane way. This doesn't apply to religious abattoirs. Halal and Kosher abattoirs may stun first, but they are not forced to like non-Halal/Kosher abattoirs. This is obviously discriminatory. We should all be equal under law.

5. It infringes on other religions and people's personal ethics if they haven't been clearly informed which meat is Halal or not. For instance, Sikhs can only eat meat where the animal has been killed quickly, without suffering and without religious ritual, called 'Jhatka'. Therefore, all Halal and Kosher is out. It's more a labelling issue, but given lots of people on here seem to give the impression "why should anyone care if the animal doesn't suffer?" then I thought it sensible to at least bring it up. Some people DO care and it is not up to you to decide whether they should or shouldn't.

But it's not just Sikhs. Some Christians hold true to the passage on permitted foods "that ye abstain from meats offered to idols,". Now, the little prayer said for meat to be Halal is called a 'Shahadah' and it translates, "In the name of Allah, who is the greatest.". Now, some Christians do not see 'Allah' as just another name for 'God', which many people have tried to pass off as true to keep the two religions close. Given 'Allah' never had a son (according to Mohammed and the Koran) and 'God' did have a son (according to Jesus and the 2nd Testament), some Christians do not believe Allah and God are the same and thus see 'Allah' as an idol. This then means that Halal meat is meat offered to an idol and isn't permitted. Again, it's not anyone's place to force Muslims to accept 'God' as their Allah and Christians to accept 'Allah' as their God. Halal and Kosher can affect more religions than just Muslims and Jews.

And then there are, of course, most of the people who don't really adhere to any religion but don't want to be forced into eating meat they might disapprove of due to the form of slaughter.

These are my main issues with it. One can be solved quite easily, with better labelling but the rest do bother me. I said I'm only 80% against it because I don't feel so strongly that I'd avoid Halal at all costs. If I want a Subway, or curry, and only Halal is on the menu, I'd probably take it if that's all there was on offer (as long as the animal was stunned first). I'd prefer non-Halal but it's not a deal breaker. I'm not up in arms about it. But, unlike some, I'm not up in arms that some people ARE up in arms about it. I think we should care how animals are slaughtered and shouldn't turn a blind eye just because the killing is done by some people racists often pick on. Being a sometimes oppressed minority doesn't mean everything you do is fandabbydozy. If it's bad, let's say it's bad and stop making excuses for it.

Again.....it's 2014 not 814 for fuck's sake. Do we really need all the slashy slashy stuff?

I mentioned on another thread how someone once said to me that the slaying of animals for the preparation of Kosher meat was just as barbaric as slaying animals in the hahal way. No one says anything about that. Maybe people have more of a hang-up about Muslims than they do about Jews - I don't mean on here, I mean in society in general.

Sorry Sam but Islam gets more protection than President Obama.

Much of this is confused.

1. It is cruel. We live in 2014 and there are more humane ways of killing another living thing than slashing it's throat, muscles and arteries while keeping the spinal column intact, just so the animal can keep it's heart beating while a prayer is said.

Have you any evidence whatsoever that the Halal method of killing which includes stunning first (the overwhelming approach used for Halal) is any crueller whatsoever than the standard non-Halal abattoir procedure?

Have you any specific evidence whatsoever that in those standard abattoirs dealing with cattle slaughter, where the sticking knife is inserted just above the breastbone at 45? pointed toward the head. Ensure that the carotid arteries and jugular veins are severed in one movement is any less cruel than the halal method which involves cutting the throat?

If so, do you have more scientific, medical and animal welfare knowledge than the people the RSPCA call on?

2. Even with stunning first (which a lot of Halal abattoirs do, but not all), the mindset of killing another animal in such a gory, bloody fashion is unhealthy when there are cleaner, neater ways.

Have you any evidence whatsoever which shows that standard abattoirs are any less gory and bloody than those abattoirs practising Halal methods? After all, cattle getting "stuck" as they are hung upside down is pretty gory, is it not? Or chickens getting their necks mechanically cut off is a not particularly pleasing sight.

"And 'taste' and 'decency' is, I think, a bigger issue than it seems at first glance. There's a reason most countries that still have the death penalty don't hang people, or decapitate them any more. Even if inmates on death row were sedated first, there'd be outrage if the prisoners were hung upside down and had their throats slashed to kill them. "

But what you are describing is what happens in the vast majority of non-halal abattoirs throughout the world.

"And so I question the mentality of anyone who prefers to kill animals in such a way. It's ok to say "killing is killing so what does it matter if they don't feel it?" but the method prefered does tell a lot about the executioner's mindset and it is a more savage form of violent symbolism. It's not healthy."

You clearly haven't grasped the process of "sticking" used in many non-halal abattoirs worldwide.

"And if you still think the symbolism isn't important, ask yourself this: If you have a son who gets a job in an abattoir on leaving school, but tells you he'd rather work in a Halal abattoir because he prefers slashing throats rather than shooting bolts, would that mindset disturb you? You would surely question his thought process and preference for such a more bloody way of doing his job, regardless of whether the animal is stunned first. Again, the symbolism and mentality matters."

This is nonsense. First it is worth pointing out that a number of UK supermarkets have demanded that CCTV should be installed in their suppliers' abattoirs because of the numerous examples of animal cruelty that have been secretly filmed in UK abattoirs.

As for using a bolt gun and the slashing of throats. Again you are very confused. The bolt gun is used for stunning, the slashing process is used in all abattoirs to drain the blood. Other than the halal process in which stunning is not used initially the procedure is largely the same. As for the use of bolt guns being "less unhealthy", you clearly have not watched "No Country for Old Men". Bloody terrifying!

3. It reinforces mistrust, fear and hatred of the 'other'. And here, Kosher abattoirs are worse. I think I'm right in that meat cannot be Kosher unless a Jew is the one slaughtering the animal. That is pretty close to racism in my book. Imagine white people saying they'd only eat meat slaughtered by other white people and refused to eat anything killed by a black man. It's not pure racism of course (though being a 'Jew' can be a race thing) but it's the idea that only a Jew can kill an animal the right way. Halal is a little different in the slaughterer doesn't have to be a Muslim but a Muslim has to be present.

What are you objecting to here? This has got nothing to do with animal welfare. You are just attacking groups because of their differing religious beliefs.

4. This isn't so much a problem with Halal or Kosher, but the discriminatory laws. By law, abattoirs are required to kill animals in what is considered a humane way. This doesn't apply to religious abattoirs. Halal and Kosher abattoirs may stun first, but they are not forced to like non-Halal/Kosher abattoirs. This is obviously discriminatory. We should all be equal under law.

There have been studies done which suggest the ECG readings of animals killed without stunning in the halal method are not necessarily any more painful than the approaches used in standard abattoirs, if done correctly. Personally I am against the use of halal killing without stunning because I want the process to be as safe as possible in terms of animal welfare. Having a two step process seems to me the best way of ensuring that there are less cockups arising from unskilled operatives.

5. It infringes on other religions and people's personal ethics if they haven't been clearly informed which meat is Halal or not. For instance, Sikhs can only eat meat where the animal has been killed quickly, without suffering and without religious ritual, called 'Jhatka'. Therefore, all Halal and Kosher is out. It's more a labelling issue, but given lots of people on here seem to give the impression "why should anyone care if the animal doesn't suffer?" then I thought it sensible to at least bring it up. Some people DO care and it is not up to you to decide whether they should or shouldn't.

This is correct. How the animal was killed should be on the packaging. Mind for those like Peter who eats ready made meals, having the correct labelling of what meat you are eating would need to be a starter for 10!

"These are my main issues with it. One can be solved quite easily, with
Again.....it's 2014 not 814 for fuck's sake. Do we really need all the slashy slashy stuff?"

Best to close down all abattoirs then, given all of them involve the "slashy, slashy stuff".

The TRUE Halal way is cruel but most of us don't eat that meat.

Sam the best thing to do is go to an Halal abattoir and a non Halal abattoir and did how the happy animals are killed and bled.

The main problem with the Anti Halal lot is that they are really Anti Muslim and also make up stuff which is plain silly. If people are genuinely interested in the welfare of the animals they would say so but they don't. They see this as a stick to beat the Muslims over the head with. I'm sure they'll find more sticks to beat Muslims over the head with in the future as well. (Cos we're better than those barbaric scum. Innit.)

Anyone for a curry take take away from my local Pakistani curry house? Anyone?

[quote]The main problem with the Anti Halal lot is that they are really Anti Muslim and also make up stuff which is plain silly.[/quote]

I agree. And in defending Muslims against the bigots they end up defending positions that are undefendable, downplay what's happening and deflect attention on to something else. For instance, the article on Boko Haram that never once mentioned 'Islam' at all.......even though Boko Haram are an Islamist group.

You surely saw this in David's reply to me in the Boko Haram thread. 100s of girls enslaved and boys murdered just for getting an education and he wants to get me involved in a debate on Iraq, Afghanistan and pensioners. The facts were uncomfortable and so he needed to deflect attention away from Boko Haram. He even asked me 'what I'd do'. Implying if I don't have answers I shouldn't even mention these horrendous crimes were taking place. For shame.

Even in this very thread he has to put up straw men and ask me for evidence stunning before the Halal method was any more cruel, when I'd already said I'd eat Halal if it was stunned first. He seems more interested in defending the practice of Halal than defending the rights of African girls and boys to get an education. Why? Because in the case of Halal, he can paint Muslims as the victims of closet racists. In the case of Boko Haram, the Muslims are the oppressors so he keeps quiet. That's not balance. It's cherry picking and politics. And he also knows that since I won't reply to him, he can twist my words and put up as many straw men as he likes. Make of that tactic what you will.......I call it dishonest and opportunistic. The measure of the man.

Even you yourself fell victim to this, insisting no Muslims would be radicalised by educating young girls, failing to understand what Boko Haram means and either not knowing, or forgetting the statements they've been coming out with this past 18 months or so. They are an Islamic group specifically formed to stop children getting an education. And the Taliban have, for years, blown up schools where girls were being tutored.

Me.....I can defend minorities against racists whilst simultaneously criticising those same people for the bad things they do. Anyone can do it if they have their own inner set of principles and stick by them.

Stop whining about me via third parties whilst totally bottling out in replying to my posts questioning your arguments. You are making yourself appear child-like.

If you can't reply to my posts because you are worried about having your arguments dismantled, just say so. If you feel that no-one on here should question your views and therefore you have no need to reply to me just say so.

But for heaven's sake stop whining!!!! You are making yourself look like a complete divi.

e.g.

" The facts were uncomfortable and so he needed to deflect attention away from Boko Haram. He even asked me 'what I'd do'. Implying if I don't have answers I shouldn't even mention these horrendous crimes were taking place. For shame.

Heaven forbid I must apologise deeply Sam. You mean to say you post saying Boko Haram must be stopped and I ask you "what you'd do" to stop them?

I apologise for my horrific behaviour. It's unforgivable.

I can't think of another forum that would give me such endless amusement as this one. Un fucking believable

"Even in this very thread he has to put up straw men and ask me for evidence stunning before the Halal method was any more cruel, when I'd already said I'd eat Halal if it was stunned first."

So who stated the following Samuel,

"It is cruel. We live in 2014 and there are more humane ways of killing another living thing than slashing it's throat, muscles and arteries while keeping the spinal column intact, just so the animal can keep it's heart beating while a prayer is said."

"Even with stunning first (which a lot of Halal abattoirs do, but not all), the mindset of killing another animal in such a gory, bloody fashion is unhealthy when there are cleaner, neater ways"

Whether you would eat it or not is irrelevant. What I am pointing out is that you seem to feel that the halal method is innately more cruel, inhumane, unhealthy, not as clean, irrespective of whether stunning is used or not.

I apologise once again for my unacceptable behaviour in asking you for what evidence you have for taking that view. No wonder you went off to cockneygeezer to complain about me.

This forum appears to be getting more and more like being behind a virtual bike shed in school grounds.

On one hand people are afraid to criticise muslim's and the government are reluctant to introduce laws to stop practices that if done by others would be stopped, but at the same time it is open-season against muslims on an almost daily basis in the media. The Sun, the Daily Mail, and the Express love their regular muslim-bashing!

Mostly irrevelvant surely the main point is the religious aspect that it appears to be acceptable that non Muslims have to accept food that has been blessed in the name of a deity other than their own.

No other religion is presented with a choice in this matter as they were unaware of the situation and therefore impossible to make a informed choice.