So Why Should They Have Excemptions For Their Beliefs?

[youngmafbog]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3866340/Animals-dying-agony-halal-meat-Muslim-ignorance-pre-slaughter-stunning-causing-needless-pain-say-experts.html

[Mamyalynne]

The arguments about Halal slaughter methods have gone on for years and will continue to do so.

[-Talbot-]

andy-hughes
To me, whether you eat monkey brains using the customary method (not outlined for the sensitive on here) - or you eat a bacon sandwich from a pig which was not stunned correctly - to protest that one is worse than the other is invalid.




I think most ABers would think you are talking nonsense there.
Back to work ... I haven't got the time or patience to take part in the next 4 pages of you proving your point.

[Ellipsis]

> Animals must also be stunned before slaughter under EU regulations.
> However Britain allows an exemption for those who oppose because of religious beliefs ...

In that case, Britain should not allow that exemption. If the law dictates stunning before slaughter, it presumably does so on humaneness grounds - and religious beliefs should not trump those. Otherwise why bother with the law at all?

Is it that this gives British halal meat a competitive advantage in Europe - are we the only EU provider of unstunned halal meat?

[andy-hughes]

Talbot - //''I am not calling you a liar, I am saying that what you said was not true.''

bizarre! //

No it's not.

It appears on the face of it, that the two statements mean the same thing - they do not.

If you believe what you say to be true, you are not a liar, because that means knowingly saying something that is untrue.

But that does not mean that what you are saying is true.

Example - if you say to me that the earth is flat, and believe it to be true, then you are not a liar, but what you are saying is not true.

I did not call you a liar, I would not do so, it is offensive, and inappropriate - but I do believe that your statement was incorrect.

I hope that clears up any misunderstanding.

Oh, and I would not call you a liar assuming that I enjoy some 'protection' not afforded to others - I assure you I do not.

I am not abusing that privilege - it does not exist.

Thanks for your attention.

Onwards ...

[andy-hughes]

Talbot - // To me, whether you eat monkey brains using the customary method (not outlined for the sensitive on here) - or you eat a bacon sandwich from a pig which was not stunned correctly - to protest that one is worse than the other is invalid.

I think most ABers would think you are talking nonsense there. //

We shall see what they think won't we?

//Back to work ... I haven't got the time or patience to take part in the next 4 pages of you proving your point. //

Four pages? You flatter yourself, I can make my point n four words - let's agree to differ.

[Ellipsis]

Yes divebuddy!

[ummmm]

In four words???

Try it Andy!!

[hc4361]

This is why I object so strongly to Halal and Kosher meat being sold without being labelled as such.

The UK law exempts stunning on religious grounds and is intended for meat that is to be eaten by Muslims and Jews, not end up on supermarket shelves for general consumption without being labelled.

Just as Jews and Muslims have the right to know what they are eating and make a choice, so do I.

[New Judge]

“The UK law exempts stunning on religious grounds and is intended for meat that is to be eaten by Muslims and Jews, not end up on supermarket shelves for general consumption…”

Unfortunately that’s not quite the case, hc. Halal meat is supplied as the standard fare to many caterers. In particular I am thinking of school meal providers, especially in areas with a high concentration of Muslims:

http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/10334813.Halal_meat_served_in_three_quarters_of_council_supported_schools/

There are plenty of reports of similar practices in schools across the country. Unfortunately the children in those establishments do not have the benefit of the choice you suggest should be on offer and children are in the weakest position of all to complain.

As well as that, many supermarket chains have been found to sell Halal meat that is not labelled as such (again, plenty of reports are available). Once again, the choice you say is essential (a sentiment with which I entirely agree) is not properly available. It seems that Muslims and Jews must not be offended by being served meat that is not Halal or Kosher whilst those who do not share their foibles can be offended by being served meat that is. That’s the way this country seems to deal with minority interests.

I think the argument is simple. Firstly we must accept that, unless we are all to become vegetarians, animals are going to die to provide us with meat. Ways have been devised which reduces considerably the suffering that animals go through when being slaughtered (though I don’t think anybody suggests it is eliminated entirely). Laws are in place to ensure, as far as possible, those methods are followed. But then we have religious groups whose doctrine tells them that animals must be slaughtered in a less humane manner to satisfy some religious requirement. Instead of saying “Sorry, that’s the law in the UK and you must abide by it” the UK authorities say “Oh well that’s OK. No need for you to comply with the law that every other abattoir in the country must. We’ll provide an exception for you because of your religious beliefs”.

Now it is either acceptable to slaughter animals in the less humane way or it is not. If it is not (and Parliament seems to have decreed that it is not) then everybody must comply with the approved method. Making exceptions on unessential religious grounds simply fuels division and rancour.

[fiction-factory]

Fair enough, But what is the mechanism for changing it, NJ. I doubt the law makers read AB.
Maybe this is one of the few issues where Jews and Muslims may share a common view

[donny48]

I worked for a period in a slaughter-house as an engineer. The firm allowed some hallal killing and i have seen old hands of slaughter men getting very upset over what could be seen and heard.

[ladybirder]

I suppose lobbying your MP would be one way. Or probably better, as lots of people feel very strongly about it, would be to start a petition on change.org. Of course, many people don't realise, even today, they are eating Halal meat and there are others who just don't care.

[hc4361]

I know about Halal being served in schools and other local authority establishments; also about it being sold in supermarkets. All New Zealand lamb is Halal.

But the law does state that it is an exception: "However, the UK Government “recognises and respects the needs of religious communities, so has always maintained the limited exemption, which is to be used only for meat produced for Jewish and Muslim communities.”
3HC Deb 4 November 2014 c168WH

[Old_Geezer]

If you eat meat an animal will.most likely die (probably one that'd never have been born except it was destined to be food, and hopefully given a decent life whilst here) but clearly need not suffer. To state that if one does not reject certain lifeforms as food means one has lost any moral high ground is as big a load of nonsense as anyone can expect to come across. There is no loss of morality to accept animals as food. Life feeds on life. There is, however, a perversion of natural food chain to object to it on moral grounds though, and seems to me to indicate how soft folk can become brought up divorced from the realities of life and nature.

[Old_Geezer]

The need of the religious communities is to have a "spring clean" and throw out outmoded and indefensible weird demands. Not have exception status so they can carry on questionable practices.

[hc4361]

New Judge, further info here:

"The exemption for religious slaughter in Schedule 12 of The Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995 (SI 731) 1995 makes clear that it relates to a method of slaughter for people of that religion, not for everybody:
Slaughter by a religious method
2. In this Schedule references to slaughter by a religious method are references to slaughter without the infliction of unnecessary suffering—
(a)by the Jewish method for the food of Jews by a Jew who holds a licence in
accordance with Schedule 1 (which relates to the licensing of slaughtermen) and who is duly licensed—
(i) in England and Wales by the Rabbinical Commission referred to in Part IV
of this Schedule; or
(ii) in Scotland by the Chief Rabbi; or
(b)by the Muslim method for the food of Muslims by a Muslim who holds a licence in accordance with Schedule 1.


Standard Note: SN/SC/1314 House of Commons Library

[dunnitall]

If we all had to kill our own meat choice....would we do so??? Don't think I could, would be veggie all the way...(shuffles off with head hung low....

[New Judge]

“But what is the mechanism for changing it, NJ.”

There is no mechanism for changing it, hc. As I said, the UK deals with the foibles of minorities by providing exemptions from the laws with which the majority have to comply.

[Jackdaw33]

The classic example of NJ's point goes back to the sixties when Sikhs were exempted from wearing motor cycle helmets.