Halal and Kosher meat

Sorry I have not posted for a while.

Thanks for info Nightowl.

As I said on my original post on another thread. On April 24th 2012 a conservative M.P 'LOST' a motion in Parliament to get 'ALL' meat produce labelled as to whether or not it was halal produced.

I fear having watched the motion debate on that day and the reaction by some M.P'S who even tried to make it a racist point of view I have no faith that the petition will go anywhere, sadly.

Not exempt from humane slaughter but exempt from halal treatment. Obviously!

mollie65 About 80% of New Zealand meat is halal – Eastern Asia is a huge market for the country. However, slaughterhouses must conform to the laws about humane slaughter, i.e. the animals are stunned first. Presumably, pork is exempt.

Thanks Nightowl, signed and shared

I remember the original post about this and am appalled that nothing has been done to resolve the imposition of a religious/social beliefs of a minority on the wider population. For the record I am a vegetarian (but eat fish) so this does not affect me. If non-halal /non-kosher meat was fed to minorities (no labelling to tell them what they were eating) there would be outcry.
I understand that all New Zealand lamb imported is also halal - not sure where I read that.
as a minimum - meat should be labelled so that the buyers can make up their own minds (just as free range, organic, local is so labelled)
if halal/ kosher meat is required - specialist abattoirs should cater for the minority whose religion requires this.
more meat-eaters should try and buy meat from trusted sources

Try the British Humanist Association - they have been running various campaigns and would be interested in your views.

Thanks Nightowl signed and also shared.

Can anyone tell me where I can protest against non-faith school children being fed Halal meat please?

"....must be bled before death" - saints preserve us; what nonsense!

I used to live near a slaughter house. Mainly pigs. The animals were held in pens to calm down and rest from the lorries then guided in gently and unhurriedly and didn't see the one in front being despatched. I once remarked to a slaughter man how good this was, particularly as the slaughterhouse was next door to the school. (The only squeals were generally from the pigs arguing with each other.). Apparently the main reason for their kindly treatment wasn't just to be nice although this made their job more pleasant, but because stress in the animals resulted in a burst of adrenalin which would taint the meat and make it tough!

In the days when DH worked as a driver for an abattoir it was not unknown for pigs to be dispatched with a club hammer when the bolt gun wasn't working.

If Nick Clegg is worried about religious freedom is he going to allow polygamy and female genital mutilation and all the other things that most of us think are just wrong.

I have BTW written a long e-mail to Nick Glegg, as he is agains the ban on the basis of religious freedom- hope he takes this up as a way forwards- and the basis for a good and lawful compromise.

It's not going to be easy- but it will be a lot easier to explain, witht the support of the agencies mentioned (Islamic Foundation and Halal food authority and also forward thinking Imams (and yes, there are some))- that electrical stunning is acceptable and good, and NOT against the word of the Koran-

than go for a ban which will cause huge trouble.

The giraffe was petted and fed and then shot from behind. No stress.

What happens in abattoirs will be different perforce. The fact that not all UK abattoirs are as humane as they should be is something else that the regulators of the law (vets? vetters of abattoirs?) should be tackling as well as other practices that do not comply with the current humane laws.

I see where you are coming from with your argument, jura, but I would have thought that if a compromise such as you are suggesting were available it would have been agreed already rather than certain groups being allowed a getout clause on religious grounds. I get the impression from what I've heard that those who insist on halal are not willing to compromise in order to work within same law as everyone else.

Fairly recent thing- it used to be with a stun and bolt gun on the forehead until not that long ago- and this is specificaééy forbidden by the Koran.

Surely that's how the animals are stunned - electrically? There is no knocking on the head involved! (I mean, of course, the non-halal way)

ThatBags, sorry my post was possibly not very clear.

Currently, halal slaughter most of the time is done without stunning. That is because in more traditional times, the only way to stun was with a blow to the head- which is specifically haram, or forbidden, according to the Koran (see my previous link re. Abraham meat producers)- so no stunning is the traditional way.

But, and it is a big and important but- animals can now be stunned electrically, with tongues appied to the head- it renders the animal unconscious for long enough for the throat to be slit the halal way- without suffering. Now, most traditional Muslims do NOT accept this as the proper islamic way - despite the approval of the method by the Islamic Foundation and the Halal food authorities.

So, instead of calling for an outright ban- which will cause huge friction and problems, and will be seen (in many instances) as racist and anti-islam (and hypocritical as the standards in UK slaughter houses are definitely not perfect at all)- why not push forwards the fact that there is a good and humane option, which does NOT contradict the Koran. And push for this to be accepted. It would be much more likely to succeed- and at the end of the day, isn't it what we want (or is it just another excuse for causing trouble with the Islamic community- which I suspect is, for some).

Does that help?

www.petstreet.co.uk/discussion/401359.~Welfare%20Issue_s%20with%20Halal%20Slaughter!~___(contains%20graphic%20slaughter%20details)_

Emotive language Tricia? Or simple fact?

An extract from the report:

"The plight of dairy cows who are subject to religious slaughter has been highlighted by Professor John Webster, Britain’s leading expert on dairy cattle and Professor of Animal Husbandry at the University of Bristol. He has written that:“What is totally unacceptable is the distressing fact, for the cow, that she is conscious of choking to death in her own blood” (Webster, 1987)."

I would suggest that it is a lot easier to kill a chicken swiftly by slitting its (very small) throat, than it is a lamb or a cow. The above report suggests that severing the carotid arteries of cattle does not result in rapid loss of consciousness, because of their anatomy. It goes on to say that calves have been witnessed making coordinated attempts to rise for 171 seconds after having their throats cut. 171 seconds is an awfully long time.

Vets are well qualified in animal anatomy. I think the probability that the Chief Vet knows what he's talking about is very high.

ps the emotive language "choke on its own blood" etc doesn't help.

Jinglebellsrocks - I can only describe what happens to chickens - no experience of slaughter of other animals.
A trained and experienced person can dispatch the chicken with minimum upset to the creature, no choking on blood, I've seen it many times.
I wonder if the Chief Vet has actually witnessed kosher slaughter.

If animals are stunned in a humane way before being killed, then the law is being obeyed and there is no question of compromise. One presumes there is argument about this issue because some halal and kosher methods are not humane.

Just found this petition online for Nonnie and all others who may wish to sign.

epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/52133

I didn't know that Halal meat is sold in supermarkets without being labelled as such. If someone can point me to a pressure group about this I would appreciate it.

Also I am very much against all children being fed Halal meat in anything other than a faith school. If parents of children at a normal school don't like what is served in the school then it is their prerogative to provide suitable packed lunches rather than impose this meat on other people's children. I'm appalled.

Yes, I can understand that at the time these things were written it made a lot of sense but not now surely for any educated person?

Totalla agree about the labelling- we all should be able to know what we are buying and make the choice. Absolutely.

Your point about the law is not as clear as all that, really. The Law states that stunning must be done previous to the kill. Some forms of stunning are totally un-acceptable according to the Koran, but electrical stunning is not.

So why not compromise- not on the Law, but on the way to apply it- in order to find a solution that will be acceptable, and show willing and better understanding. What is wrong with compromising- if the compromise agrees with the law of the country. A refusal to compromise, WITHIN the law, is not helpful and will, not surprisingly, be seen as just being controversial in a way that coud be interpreted as racist and unfair.

I would never compromise, on, say, genital mutilation or enforced marriage - but in this case, a good and lawful compromise IS AVAILABLE, so why not push for that option, rather than a ban and insist on forms of stunning which are not acceptable according to the Islamic faith. If there was no solution which could satisfy all- it would be a different kettle of fish. But there is - a good solution- legal and also acceptable to the Koran.

That's not what the chief vet said on the Today programme triciaF. He spoke of the animal choking on its own blood.