UK and Europe-wide ban next please!

Originally Posted by j52c

I have been brought up with animals all my life, when I was living at home my father used to keep pigs, fowls, geese, turkey etc.

Each Christmas we used to send a pig to the local slaughterhouse, the slaughterman would keep half and bring the other half back to our house. My father would then cure the bacon and ham on a stone floor we had layed in the pantry. I never liked the part of the slaughter of the pig, even though they were stunned before the actual slaughter, because they were like pets to me, but, we have to eat. However, anyone that tells me the animal does not suffer when it is killed by just having it's throat cut is living in cloud cuckoo land.

In my opinion during any slaughter the animal will suffer whether it be by Halal,kosher ,electric stun before bleeding or captive bolt stun .In both the latter methods there is potential for the animal to still be conscious while the bleeding occurs ,the animals are certainly still alive so there is potential for just as as much suffering if not more as Halal or Kosher meat

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by danielf

Yes, the claim is that it's about animal welfare. But the reality is that it's a tiny portion that would be slaughtered without being stunned first. It seems to me that a better balance could be struck between animal welfare and the right to religious expression.

It was a tiny proposing of fox's that were killed by hunting as opposed to other means but no balance was struck between animal welfare and the right to a traditional way of life.

Originally Posted by Pierre

It was a tiny proposing of fox's that were killed by hunting as opposed to other means but no balance was struck between animal welfare and the right to a traditional way of life.

Ridiculous comparison the 2 have nothing to do with each other whatsoever.
There has been a movement to ban Halal/Kosher slaughter in many countries for most of the last century .

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by martyh

Ridiculous comparison the 2 have nothing to do with each other whatsoever.

I know they don't, however parallels can be drawn on the post I commented on

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Pierre

It was a tiny proposing of fox's that were killed by hunting as opposed to other means but no balance was struck between animal welfare and the right to a traditional way of life.

I can see where you're coming from, but there's a difference between a religious requirement regarding the sourcing of food and cultural traditions in getting rid of pests.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by danielf

I can see where you're coming from, but there's a difference between a religious requirement regarding the sourcing of food and cultural traditions in getting rid of pests.

Link

Married father-of-two Mr Hashman, of Shaftesbury, Dorset, successfully argued that his views on fox hunting should be placed on the same legal footing as religious beliefs. It was accepted that his concern about the environment, animal rights, veganism and, in particular, his opposition to fox hunting, amount to a philosophical belief under the Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations 2003.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by danielf

I can see where you're coming from, but there's a difference between a religious requirement regarding the sourcing of food and cultural traditions in getting rid of pests.

I would disagree. Religious 'requirements' are nothing more than a cultural tradition just with extra vehemency and neither has any place influencing policies on animal welfare in modern society.

That's more indicative probably of my own distaste at religious beliefs being recognised in law in any way beyond the right to freely practice them.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

I would disagree. Religious 'requirements' are nothing more than a cultural tradition just with extra vehemency and neither has any place influencing policies on animal welfare in modern society.

I have to disagree, not surprisingly - but not in the way you think

I feel the reason the majority of a lot of "anti-halal" people feel that way is due to it being connected with Islam. There are some who are so anti-anything-not-white-and-British that they'll suddenly champion the cause of 'humane animal treatment' just because "this is England (Britain) and we are a Christian country!!".

So in those circumstances you could say someone's (supposed, purely to be anti-halal as in other religious debate they lose all and any support for Christianity by saying things like 'religion should be banned') religion is playing a part in shaping government policy if more consideration is given to halal etc requirements.

[Ignitionnet]

I would suggest you aren't disagreeing with anything I said there - when I said religion has no place influencing I did mean just that - I didn't mention whether I was for or against a potential ban on halal meat, merely that religious beliefs have no business influencing policy on animal welfare, be they pro- of anti-halal, Muslim, Christian, Sikh, Hindu or Scientologist.

It should be purely about the welfare of the animal, assessed as scientifically and appropriately as possible with as much evidence as it's possible to collect.

The animal's welfare should never come secondary to either the amount of people holding a belief in a particular version of an imaginary friend nor how vehemently that belief is held.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

when I said religion has no place influencing I did mean just that

I'm hoping that comes up in another (relevant) thread as I have a few ideas of where maybe yourself (and certainly a great deal of other atheists/anti-religionists/whatever) would be in favour of religion having an influence in society. But that would be wayyyy off topic so I'll save it for another day

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

I would disagree. Religious 'requirements' are nothing more than a cultural tradition just with extra vehemency and neither has any place influencing policies on animal welfare in modern society.

That's more indicative probably of my own distaste at religious beliefs being recognised in law in any way beyond the right to freely practice them.

Trust me. I'm no fan of religious beliefs. However, things being as they are, coupled with the fact that Halal and Kosher meat makes up a tiny proportion of the animals passing through abattoirs, I think an exemption could have been made.

---------- Post added at 11:02 ---------- Previous post was at 11:02 ----------

Originally Posted by nomadking

Link

Not sure what employment law has to with anything?

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Russ

I'm hoping that comes up in another (relevant) thread as I have a few ideas of where maybe yourself (and certainly a great deal of other atheists/anti-religionists/whatever) would be in favour of religion having an influence in society. But that would be wayyyy off topic so I'll save it for another day

An influence in the roots of moral codes, which is actually quite a false influence as those codes would exist with or without religion as they simply make sense in a civilised society, and an influence in legislation are very, very, very different things.

[Russ]

I wasn't referring to moral codes. Patience, our day shall come

[Taf]

Originally Posted by danielf

Trust me. I'm no fan of religious beliefs. However, things being as they are, coupled with the fact that Halal and Kosher meat makes up a tiny proportion of the animals passing through abattoirs, I think an exemption could have been made.

Any backwards move in legislation for welfare, animal or human, is surely a bad thing? And after speaking with several independant butchers, the "tiny proportion" is getting bigger each day, with chickens, for instance, almost almost all being killed "the halal way" as it's cheaper.

My wife's home town in France used to have about 11 local butchers, with only one of them halal. Now they are ALL halal butchers despite the local population not having anyway near a muslim majority. The original butchers went out of business as meat prices rocketted, but it seems halal butchers have an easy form of credit to move in and buy up the busineses. And all the local restaurants and fast food outlets now serve ONLY halal meats (I wonder how they get halal ham and peperoni for their pizzas ). And now the 2 local supermarkets have halal sections, well distanced from the pork section of course. ASDA here does too, but only in muslim-heavy areas.

[nomadking]

If any law/rule can be overridden on grounds of belief, then there is no valid reason for it to apply to everybody else. It would be too easy for people to declare a belief in something illegal or do the legal exceptions only apply to certain groups.