Council faves Muslim boycott of school meals
 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...halal-row.html

I support the ban. Britain is generally considered a nation of animal lovers, I know I am, and should not put aside its ideals to appease the religious views of minority groups. We should never bow down to such pressure.

There are always other options for those that don’t want to either eat any meat or eat meat that hasn’t been slaughtered in a certain way. To expect the nation as a whole to accept such cruelty when it generally goes against their own beliefs is unacceptable. Animals have rights too.

I know there will be the usual cries about killing any animals for food is wrong but at least we try to do so in a humane way. We should not abandon that to satisfy the few. I also abhor any sports that cause suffering to animals and would personally ban them so that argument is not applicable here.

Halal slaughter should just not be allowed at all; at best, it should be in one of the specialised meat sections you see at the end of the aisles in supermarkets, it certainly should not be the mainstream.

There's always packed lunches for parents who don't want their children to eat normal meat.

i agree brillo,but so many people close their eyes to how their meat is supplied, it tastes nice so it's ok for animals to suffer,typical human trait, IF and it's a big IF, the humans could be trusted to kill them in the most humane way possible, meat eating wouldn't be such a problem for me, at least in the UK we TRY to keep the animals suffereing to a minimal,some cultures don't they are barbaric,but saying that we have all seen the footage of what goes on in some slaughterhouses it's disgusting, animals suffer at the hands of some humans,even when it says on the packaging they are from free roam farms etc,is all that really true.I'm betting if we had to kill our own meat we wouldn't be eating much. I support the ban too.

If we think halal (its called zabiha when it involves the slaughter of an animal for meat) is cruel, then we need to also look at Kosher slaughter. Zabiha slaughter does allow the stunning of some animals before slaughter. The*British Halal Food Authority*approves of low-voltage electrified water baths to stun poultry and electric tong stunning for sheep and goats http://halalfoodauthority.com/faqs

Kosher slaughter, on the other hand, allows no stunning for any animal so shouldn't you be fighting for the humane slaughter of Jewish meat too?

I would ban that too. In my opinion there should be no exceptions to the humane killing of any animal for any reason.

They're both on par and should be treated equally, but Kosher wasn't in school meals across Lankashire, nor is it sold as the default meat by several supermarkets.

if there is a demand
then poetry is not the command.
its going on and will breed
and biting bit is the hand that does feed.
rules and regulations
some will justify to there interpretations.
try our best to keep law break minimal
but in the uk the Islamic law does not govern our animal.

Both Kosher and Halal meat ends up on our supermarket shelves unlabeled because both Jews and Muslims don't eat certain parts of an animal and so those parts are re-distributed to everyone else.

Killing an animal is never friendly. Some say that Kosher and Halal slaughter is kinder, others say its crueler. Nobody has ever been able to prove that stunning an animal renders it unconscious. Scientists still question if the animal is just paralyzed and can, therefore, feel the pain.

"Animals have rights too"

But let's kill and eat them anyway, as long as it isn't Halal or Kosher...

Like I said I think they both should be banned, but the reason people single out Halal more is because it's more common.

People like meat and will always eat it,the least we can do is make sure they live what life they have as good as possible and that they are killed as pain free as possible,if there is such a thing,Can we be trusted to do that? personally I don't think so.

It was my understanding that the largest (pretty much, the only) halal supplier in the UK does stun its animals before draining their blood... making it really rather similar to any other meat product in your local shops... so I cant really see the logic in it? Banning the suppliers that do not stun its animals first seems a more logical conclusion to me.

So how they are killed is of no concern to you.

We don’t have any rules to stop us eating meat but we have some some rules about killing them in a humane way and therefore we should ensure these rules apply to all - no exceptions. Why would anyone want to cause an innocent animal unnecessary pain. Not on in my opinion.

How someone treats an innocent animal says a lot about them.

True, animals can tell that they're about to be slaughtered whether they are stunned or not. The whole stunning aspect only helps hypocrites with their conscience, the animal will still be scared and distressed either way.

I love animals and I also eat meat, I simply accept the fact that regardless of the method, the execution of animals for meat is never pleasant and one method isn't better than another.

There is some bad practice Halal, just as there is some bad practice in our slaughterhouses but real Halal should not include factory farming and cattle are not supposed to be slaughtered under the age of two years. One of the things about Halal is, the life of the animal prior to slaughter should be one of the great outdoors.

We have some barbaric practices when it comes to raising animals destined to the meat market and the majority of us are isolated from what goes on. Nobody want's to talk about slaughter practices around the dinner table. We'd rather not know.

Most chickens seen in our supermarkets were raised in sheds that resemble small chemical plants and have never seen the light of day until their journey to the slaughterhouse.

Even though we no longer produce our own veal, we happily buy it in from abroad. The practice of veal raising is incredibly cruel.

We still transport large numbers of animals for slaughter abroad to countries where welfare rules are less strict or non-existent.

Suckling pigs are a specialty for dinner parties but suckling pigs are killed with blunt force trauma (usually by slamming them onto a floor) which rarely works immediately with one strike.

I dunno know about that, I'd say an animal that is stunned before slaughter is definitely a better method to an animal which isn't stunned first. Its thought to limit or stop the pain that it feels.

I'd say any slaughter house that doesn't do this at the least, shouldn't be running in this country (fortunately, the large majority, halal or otherwise, does do this), and I'd say we need to look for an alternative in the meantime which stops or limits their distress and discomfort too. Lets have a chat about it over a kebab.

Yeah, this is all true, and all great points, making the story in the OP completely bizarre.

So long as we are willing to buy cheap meat, we are willingly taking part in animal suffering.

In my view there should be no circumstances where the humane treatment of animals has to give way to fad, whim or archaic religious rules written at a time when there were no humane alternatives.

Comparing this group to that group is irrelevant, it should always be about the welfare of the animals. We don't live in 2 BC. Ritual slaughter should not be allowed in this country under any circumstances.

There are other practices that also should not happen and slaughter houses need more strict regulations BUT that does not excuse or validate ritual slaughter.

In fact bring on lab grown meat.

Completely agree.

I agree,but even if people paid more,I am not confident animals would be treated in the kindest way possible,no one is monitoring them really,just randomly undercover people will go in and report on the scum that get their kicks (literally) by scaring and torturing these animals, infact I ask myself can an animal lover ever work in an abattoir ? As for halal, I wont even go there.

I agree with Dezzy, the whole "stunning" narrative is to appease the conscience of people who can't quite get their heads around the fact that they find animals cute and adorable but also want to cut them up and eat them.

If you have a problem with animal exploitation and suffering... don't eat meat. If you want to eat meat... accept the fact that animals suffer and are killed to supply you with that meat.

I'm not saying it doesn't matter how they LIVE... I fully advocate good living conditions for animals pre-slaughter, and good living conditions for the slave animals (cows, chickens) who provide us with other animal products whilst alive... but that last little bit where they're rounded up for the meat grinder? Yeah... that part is going to suck for Mr Cow, and it doesn't really matter how that last 2 or 3 minutes goes down.

Yeah I agree with this tbh

I know animals suffer so I can have a bacon sandwich or whatnot. No matter how they are killed, they are still just...used...for my meal. Its not a nice thought to contemplate so I also see why people use the 'they were stunned' argument...but as far as I know, theres not actually proof that stunning stops the pain or anything?

I dont think it has anything to do with a conscience tbh. I'd eat a kebab with or without the lamb being stunned, but I know it would feel less pain if it did get stunned, so why not give it that courtesy moments before its death? Wouldnt make sense not to do this really, when its a regularly practiced option.

We don't actually know it causes less pain when stunned though.

I would prefer the animal to go through as little pain as possible, of course. But if I am going to eat meat, it seems a little hypocritical to complain about how the animal is killed. I care more about how the animal lives before it is killed (using eggs as an example, though chickens aren't killed for eggs...I will only buy free range)

Though that said, I don't research where my meat comes from either tbh. I just assume that farmers keep them in decent conditions :S

If we had to go into a killing room to buy our meat, most of us would become vegetarian.

I don't know about halal or kosha slaughter because until its been proven that stunning doesn't just paralyze the animal, then it could turn out that slitting a throat with a sharp knife is kinder and quicker.

Having run a livery yard, I've stood with horses killed with a bolt to the head and with horses that were euthanized with lethal injection. Lethal injection looks much less violent to the horse owner but having witnessed both, I would say a bolt was quicker and kinder.

Yeah I've read this, there have been human "lethal injection survivors" (basically where they got it wrong and the person didn't die) who describe having been able to physically feel their heart and breathing slowing and experiencing serious internal feelings of panic / anxiety, while externally there were no signs of distress.

My gut feeling with the practice of stunning, is that it is simply to make the moment of death "more palatable" for the humans who are going to be doing the eating. They don't thrash and flop around and let out a death rattle so it all LOOKS kinder and more peaceful... the truth in all probability, is that they're still feeling all of the same things, they've just had their body's ability to react removed. Not only that but it actually draws out the process; stun - killing blow - death takes at least twice as long as just killing blow - death (which is seconds, if done properly). Stunning is for us... not for the animals. Sanitizing death for a comfortable existence. I stand by what I originally said; anyone who can't get their head around the realities of animal slaughter, and can't comfortably ignore it without the "white lies" about it, shouldn't be eating meat at all.

Yup. Agree with all of this.

Also have actually seen a video of a lethal injection survivor before and its not pretty at all. Read a few accounts of it too...sometimes it takes hours to die.

Stunning most likely does just stop the thrashing, I do think they still feel it but are unable to react. Only way they wouldn't actually feel it (IMO) is to actually anesthetize the animals first, which would be too costly to consider.

Yeah, I place more value on living conditions too, death is death and will be similarly traumatic for the animal regardless of method so it's better to focus on giving the animals good living conditions.

Surely we should all go halal if we care more about their living conditions :think:

So if we are not sure we don’t bother stunning them and allow a method that we know won’t reduce the pain they feel. That doesn’t make much sense to me. Tying to minimise their suffering can never be a bad thing. Not trying and suggesting primitive religious superstition has more value is backwards thinking in my opinion.

Like what's been said, stunning an animal is not an anaesthetic. Cutting an animal's throat will cause it pain regardless of if you stunned it or not first. The act of stunning is not an act of kindness but more likely an act of health and safety to prevent the animal from lashing out.

Being hit with a tazer or a stun gun wouldn't prevent you from feeling any pain that would follow, why do you think that would be the case for an animal?

I was reading a report from an abattoir vet yesterday. She visited a halal slaughterhouse because she wanted to see how the animals reacted. She reported back that the sheep that had its throat cut reacted more to her waving a hand in front of its face than the knife that cut its throat. She was amazed by the lack of reaction and reported back that the sheep didn't seem to be aware its life was in danger.

I would have thought it rather silly for a vet, or anyone really to expect a sheep to be afraid of a knife. It might never have seen one before and certainly would never have used one so why would it be aware it's life was in danger? What a bizarre thing for a 'vet' to suggest and I'd have to question the credentials and intelligence of anyone writing such an article. That doesn't mean it would be any less unpleasant or distressing to be stabbed in the neck with a knife and left to bleed to death.

Not being an expert I can't claim to know for sure the thoughts and opinions of a sheep (aside from the obvious that the sheep is unlikely to have come across many knives in the grass) nor effects of tasers or stunning but would have thought and hoped this rendered the poor animal unconscious rather than just paralysed so that there wasn't an awareness at point of death. That is certainly what the word stun seems to suggest to me. It definitely sounds much kinder than bleeding to death for the sake of an archaic ritual which makes no real difference to the actual meat ingested.

And I can't see anyone has produced any evidence to suggest an animal slaughtered in religious ceremony is kept during it's life any more kindly than any other farm animal.

Doesn't stunning an animal render it unconcious? Anyone who has had an operation knows you feel no pain so why would it be different for an animal? hanging upside down while slowly bleeding to death is more acceptable because they have lived in a field? no can't get my head around argument, being killed is not a great option but if I were to choose how I would die I know the choice I would make

That's not what I said. The sheep does not see the knife but as its throat was cut, it didn't react. It did however, react to the vets hand in front of its face.

:clap1:

We aren't stunned like cattle when we have an operation. Stunning causes permanent damage to the brain and we know it causes paralysis. What we don't know much about is the conscious state of the animal.

When we have an operation we are anesthetized which means we are put into a medically induced coma with intravenous medicine and gas. Even then, we have cases of anesthesia awareness where the patient is aware of what's going on, feels the pain but is paralyzed and can't react. Its uncommon but it happens.

I love the rosy picture painted of the clean clinical process painted by the advocates of stunning used in our 'traditional' abattoirs. Ignore the exposes into how they ignore even basic animal welfare standards, the fact they can see, hear, smell the fear as they are literally herded towards the stun/bolt.
Ask yourselves if it is so effective why are there guidelines on the best practice for signs of consciousnesses?

At the moment there are differing rules for different animals, horses can't be killed in sight of another horse, pigs can be gassed I'm assuming this is due to them being classed as more sentient?... that looks about to change though and they will soon be as inhumanely disposed of as everything else.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a8023826.html

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/red-meat...illing-animals
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...-a8025656.html

People having operations are anaestatized. Stunning is not anaestetic.

The comparable thing would be being tazered. After which people still do feel pain.

Edit. I see DR explained this much better than me. Should read all new replies before adding my own :laugh: