[Closed] End Halal petition

Well if you are not killing to eat yourself

It's getting dark in here now. Self cannibalisation and murder 😯

Yes.... then you have to go to a sweatshop in Thailand and make your own trainers

Then off to China to make that television / mobile phone / bike part

edit, same joke, too late

Just my opinion, like

you drew that all by yourself?

so you know you're calling every Jew a hypocrite, even though they have the same slaughter mechanism?

oh, and probably most people on here of other religious denominations (and or atheists or agnostics)

you want to rethink your venn?

I notice that the BVA article does this, just calls it "slaughter without stunning".

But... halal slaughter usually involves stunning the animal first

So, what you actually want to ban is the blessing of the animal before it is slaughtered? Everything else can stay the same?

There's lots of violent criminals in jail that will never be rehabilitated and cause prison staff trouble.

But might it be a therapeutic treatment to employ them during the day slaughtering cattle in this manner, then they will be much calmer back in the prison as they have vented all their violent wants during the day ?

It could be like a production line just rolling the cattle up to them on a conveyor belt, then BANG - slit throat with sharp knife - cattle falls away onto another conveyer belt that takes it away whilst the next one is present to the crim. Maybe one every ten seconds this way - which would mean the crim wouldn't need any exercise time later in the day either.

Same can be said for circumcision but that's another thread.

Go on , you may as well do that one too, though i think we've had it before

So, what you actually want to ban is the blessing of the animal before it is slaughtered? Everything else can stay the same?

yes, and only white atheists can do the slaughter

though i think we've had it before

Well, if they can serve up horsemeat....

Racist animal lover's do appear to have some capslock issues.

Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Denmark, and Sweden impose stunning before slaughter. The EU says animals have to be stunned before slaughter but allows member states to allow exemptions for religious slaughter. such a shame believing in sky fairies has this amount of power.

END RELIGION - would solve this and many of the worlds other problems to boot!

Sorry, Mrmonkfinger, quite right, I offer myself up at the altar of semantics.

[img] [/img]

Just my (much more detailed) opinion, like.

Its easy.

Should religious people be able to ignore some laws (put in place, however imperfectly, to aid animal welfare) just because they are religious?

No.

Is "you clearly don't like religious people" a valid counterargument to this proposition?

Also no.

If you eat meat, then you condone, encourage and fund shitty and inhumane slaughter practices. Halal, kosher, "normal", it's really not very different, it's all shitty and inhumane. Talking about just the religious practices is either ignorant or displacement activity. Mostly the former I think, most people just don't want to know about how their food happens.

If you want to improve animal conditions, it only makes sense to focus on mainstream slaughter because it constitutes the majority- that's where the greatest good would come from. But that would require the public to be realistic and informed about animal welfare and most people won't do that.

(no I am not a vegatarian, I'm just honest about how my ham sandwich occurred)

Not a fan of any religion but this particular thing is bullshit. And yeah, no surprise that there's so much focus on halal not kosher, same way as hardly anyone who howls at the idea of sharia tribunals cares about the beth din.

opportunity for vegan [b]virtue signalling[/b].

Given the current derisive 'debate climate' - just the act of being a veggie/vegan is considered 'virtue-signalling'. No need for them to open their starving (snow)flakey gobs about any issue whatsoever. Especially abbatoirs/animal welfare, they couldn't possibly know anything useful about that so their opinions are void.

Its easy.

Should religious people be able to ignore some laws (put in place, however imperfectly, to aid animal welfare) just because they are religious?

No.

There we go...quite right and succinctly put...

...thats all i've said but somehow in this increasingly ludicrous world we live in its been interpreted as racist, islamaphobic etc etc...very strange.

What would happen if you started a religion that involved bludgeoning animals to death with hammers?

You'd probably be working in a slaughterhouse in 30's Chicago..

Its easy.

Should religious people be able to ignore some laws (put in place, however imperfectly, to aid animal welfare) just because they are religious?

No.

Is "you clearly don't like religious people" a valid counterargument to this proposition?

Also no.

What would happen if you started a religion that involved bludgeoning animals to death with hammers?

Not too many people follow the old Roman gods these days.

binners - Member

What would happen if you started a religion that involved bludgeoning animals to death with hammers?

eddiebaby - Member

You'd probably be working in a slaughterhouse in 30's Chicago..

I saw cows stunned and slaughtered like that growing up (1980s). Last year my neighbour slaughtered pigs which they stunned with hammers first. I've also seen Halal and non Halal slaughter in meat factories. The Halal slaughter I saw didn't involve any stunning, it was some years ago but the Irish Halal guidelines seem to be against the use of effective stunning.

I think if I had the choice I'd rather have a bolt through the head first. Or just shoot me through the head when I'm not expecting it.

The point is that large sections of the meat industry are despicable and treat animals horrifically from birth to death, yet a good number of people seem to look the other way and ignore countless acts of barbarism involved in putting meat on their table.

Many of those people busy looking the other way then start getting a bit uppity and worried about animal welfare as soon as they realize that some of them there Muslims and Jews are joining in with the animal cruelty, only they're clearly labelling it, so it can be hated without having to actually look at the wider problems with mass meat consumption or thinking about how the animal you're eating lived and died.

Go on , you may as well do that one too, though i think we've had it before

shouldn't be hard I'd imagine

> I notice that the BVA article does this, just calls it "slaughter without stunning".
But... halal slaughter usually involves stunning the animal first

So, what you actually want to ban is the blessing of the animal before it is slaughtered? Everything else can stay the same?

I'd guess there are people out there who...

- want to ban slaughter without stunning
- want to ban slaughter by throat cutting with or without stunning
- who want to ban blessing of animals before slaughter

And I'm sure there are hundreds of other permutations that people want to ban.

Personally, I'm none of the above, I'd just like to ban slaughter of animals.

The point is that large sections of the meat industry are despicable and treat animals horrifically from birth to death, yet a good number of people seem to look the other way and ignore countless acts of barbarism involved in putting meat on their table.

Many of those people busy looking the other way then start getting a bit uppity and worried about animal welfare as soon as they realize that some of them there Muslims and Jews are joining in with the animal cruelty, only they're clearly labelling it, so it can be hated without having to actually look at the wider problems with mass meat consumption or thinking about how the animal you're eating lived and died.

No.

In simple terms i dont object to slaughter houses and eating meat, i approve of stunning and the bolt through the head approach...my better half had her horse put down that way, it was quick...pretty much instant...what i object to is the slitting of the neck on religious grounds, it is never as fast as obliterating an animal's brain, there is suffering, choking, gasping etc...and the obvious pain until its lost enough blood for the brain to stop functioning...its not a difficult concept, there should be an approved method of execution irrespective of religious interference.

If you eat meat, then you condone, encourage and fund shitty and inhumane slaughter practices. Halal, kosher, "normal", it's really not very different, it's all shitty and inhumane. Talking about just the religious practices is either ignorant or displacement activity. Mostly the former I think, most people just don't want to know about how their food happens.

If you want to improve animal conditions, it only makes sense to focus on mainstream slaughter because it constitutes the majority- that's where the greatest good would come from. But that would require the public to be realistic and informed about animal welfare and most people won't do that.

In all seriousness this sums it up nicely

I'd just like to ban slaughter of animals

what would you do with all the animals left over if it was banned?

funkmasterp - Member

If you eat meat, then you condone, encourage and fund shitty and inhumane slaughter practices. Halal, kosher, "normal", it's really not very different, it's all shitty and inhumane. Talking about just the religious practices is either ignorant or displacement activity. Mostly the former I think, most people just don't want to know about how their food happens.

If you want to improve animal conditions, it only makes sense to focus on mainstream slaughter because it constitutes the majority- that's where the greatest good would come from. But that would require the public to be realistic and informed about animal welfare and most people won't do that.

In all seriousness this sums it up nicely

No it doesn't.

No it doesn't.

Oh it's a pantomime off you want is it son?

He's behind you!

ransos

What laws are being broken? And is your aunt called Sally?

I'm not sure I've said anything controversial?

The laws are there to try to ensure animal welfare.
There are religious exceptions (exemptions?) to those laws.

I don't think there should be.

Why is that a problem?

I think that we should decide using the best evidence most humane way to carry out slaughter and implement it regardless of personal beliefs.

I don't understand the aunt sally reference, unless you think I'm explaining it simply, which is good because I was trying to, thank you.

Please feel free to let me know why I'm wrong.

Please feel free to let me know why I'm wrong.

Certainly.

[b]Should religious people be able to ignore some laws[/b] (put in place, however imperfectly, to aid animal welfare) just because they are religious?

They're not.

funkmasterp - Member

No it doesn't.

Oh it's a pantomime off you want is it son?

Don't call me son lad 😉

The post you highlighted as summing it all up nicely makes a lot of incorrect assumptions / sweeping generalisations. I'm not sure if I can be bothered to dissect it all but if you really want me to?

I think the closer you work with nature, the more respect you have for just how well we look after the animals on our care in general. Death is usually brutal protracted and gory. We've spruced it up pretty well.

Habitat destruction and over population are our two biggest crimes against animals as a whole- so anyone not immediately committing suicide and leaving themselves for the Kites is a hypocrite- especially you vegans eating out of season stuff grown in a poly tunnel and imported from Brazil 😆

ransos

From the RSPCA website

In the UK, Jewish and Muslim communities are exempt from legal requirements to stun animals before slaughter. Shechita (Jewish) and Halal (Muslim) slaughter methods involve cutting the animal’s throat with a very sharp knife, often without pre-stunning. There are different interpretations of the religious laws on slaughter within both communities.

Based on that I don't think its controversial that there is a legal requirment for stunning and that they can ignore it?

I didn't suggest that this was currently illegal (theres an exemption), I just think the exemption should be removed and that it [b]should[/b] be illegal.

(Edit: OR as you might put it "They are")

I offer myself up at the altar of semantics.

Consider your sacrifice accepted and your venn complete.

what would you do with all the animals left over if it was banned?

Eat them alive!

Based on that I don't think its controversial that there is a legal requirment for stunning and that they can ignore it?

They are not ignoring the law.

I didn't suggest that this was currently illegal (theres an exemption), I just think the exemption should be removed and that it should be illegal.

In your previous quote, you said they were ignoring the law. Now you're saying that they're complying with the law, but the law is wrong. Which is it?

If you're saying that all un-stunned slaughter should be illegal, that sounds like a reasonable proposition that's worth exploring. But that's a very different thing from a desire to ban halal.

what would you do with all the animals left over if it was banned?

Watch them starve as the previously carnivorous humans instead consumed all the vegetable matter that now needs to be grown to sustain the population.?

ransos
Sorry to disappoint but there's no contradiction in anything that I've said.

The law is that stunning is required.

You can ignore that law if you have an exemption.

You seem to think that I've been describing religious slaughter as illegal, but have probably realised your error after rereading my posts searching for evidence to confirm your assumptions.

Slaughter without stunning it is immoral and it should be illegal for everyone, no matter the strength or source of their opinions.

Obscuring that fact with fluff about race, religion and prejudice is self defeating and dishonest.

The discussion over whether the law could be improved or enforced better is also a red herring. The law could be improved and enforced better, but thats separate discussion from whether religious people should be allowed to ignore it.

To repeat myself:

Should religious people be able to ignore some laws (put in place, however imperfectly, to aid animal welfare) just because they are religious?

No.

The law is that stunning is required.

You can ignore that law if you have an exemption.

Having an exemption is not ignoring the law. Your continually repeating otherwise isn't going to change that fact.

You seem to think that I've been describing religious slaughter as illegal, but have probably realised your error after rereading my posts searching for evidence to confirm your assumptions.

Slaughter without stunning it is immoral and it should be illegal for everyone, no matter the strength or source of their opinions.

Obscuring that fact with fluff about race, religion and prejudice is self defeating and dishonest.

The discussion over whether the law could be improved or enforced better is also a red herring. The law could be improved and enforced better, but thats separate discussion from whether religious people should be allowed to ignore it.

The post you highlighted as summing it all up nicely makes a lot of incorrect assumptions / sweeping generalisations. I'm not sure if I can be bothered to dissect it all but if you really want me to?

Will there be graphs? If yes, then please go ahead.

Watch them starve as the previously carnivorous humans instead consumed all the vegetable matter that now needs to be grown to sustain the population.?

I think the humane thing to do would be to drive them all to extinction so they can no longer suffer. No animals, no more quandaries about eating them!

Run everybody! The Daily Mail has hacked the forumz!

Run everybody! The Daily Mail has hacked the forumz!

The mods beat you to it!

God bless you mods (as long as it doesn't involve animal sacrifice)

Slaughter [s]without stunning it[/s] is immoral and it should be illegal for everyone, no matter the strength or source of their opinions.

or not ... I'm atheist and eat meat but surely the bigger question is really about if slaughtering animals is moral or not... how they die is splitting hairs...

There's a whole load of bollox about the stunning because the animals all know they are going to slaughter... (perhaps with the exception of Kobi beef and peoples pet livestock) but from an animals stress point of view saving a second with a stun vs slitting their throats when they have been waiting to die for an hour is just the last second or two...

true that if we were transporting humans across the country to kill/slaughter them in an industrial setting by
1) stunning them with a bolt gun in lines one after the other then killing them or
2) slitting their throats to let them bleed to death

I very much doubt the debate would be about the cruelty of 2 compared to 1