Suffragette1 Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 (edited) Presumably there must be a degree of publicity that the food is Halal, otherwise the local Muslims would never know that it is "safe" for them to eat there. Also, we wouldn't be in a position to discuss it. Am I right in thinking that in areas in the UK with a high Jewish population that they have had Kosher restaurants for years. If I understand correctly there are at least 2 (for all I know, maybe more) different Jewish organisations which certify food as Kosher. Keen adherents will only eat food approved by "their" organisation. Are there different Muslim certifiers also, or is it just one Halal system? I don't know if Muslims will eat Kosher and Jews eat Halal. I suspect, like most issues, it will vary from person to person, on just how strict they are in their observances. I very much doubt it as in keeping with kosher requirements, doesn't meat have to be stored separately from dairy products? Also shellfish and their derivatives are forbidden under kosher, so I would be surprised if halal was suitable, although that would depend upon how strict the follower was. I read someonewhere that kosher food is more in keeping with halal but not vice versa. Seikhs are forbidden from eating any ritually slaughtered meat, incidentally. Edited November 7, 2011 by Suffragette1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 The title of this and the BBC article is slightly misleading because halal/kosher/unstunned slaughter would still be permitted under the new law, but only if they can demonstrate it doesn't cause more suffering for the animals compared to stunned slaughter. The law in one move seems to have put the advocates for unstunned religious slaughter into checkmate. Isn't is strange how the advocates of unstunned religious slaughter always claim it's better for the animal, that they're dead as soon as the cut is made, etc. but now they're forced to show evidence they cry foul, and call it a de facto ban? This is wrong, as are earlier posts to same effect. Shechita (kosher-killing of animals) is provably painless. By the sharpness of the knife, the animal loses consciousness- and ability to feel pain- instantaneously. No other methods achieve that desideratum. Similar: sharpness of edge of photocopier paper often cuts one's finger without one even realising it. A Shochet's knife is far sharper than even that. So the Dutch are demonstrably intent upon their rule just to target Jews and Moslems. No, I cannot say whether Moslem killing of animals is equally painless. I do know that: a. Moslems are not permitted to eat Shechita-killed animals, as its requirements are much stricter than their own; whereas b. Jews are not permitted to eat Moslem-killed animals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buck Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Honestly, there isn't a real humane way of slaughtering animals, and to be perfectly honest, I don't see why people make such a big deal out of killing them. It's nature. What about poor Zebras in the wild who die slowly by being ripped apart by a Tiger? If you don't want to eat meat, fine, but don't slag off people who do. I'm a pescetarian anyway. I believe there are many zebras on the Serengati, also many lions and hyenas, but very few tigers, if in fact there are any. Then again I am not a zoollogist, and neither are you I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 (edited) This is wrong, as are earlier posts to same effect. Shechita (kosher-killing of animals) is provably painless. By the sharpness of the knife, the animal loses consciousness- and ability to feel pain- instantaneously. No other methods achieve that desideratum. Similar: sharpness of edge of photocopier paper often cuts one's finger without one even realising it. A Shochet's knife is far sharper than even that. So the Dutch are demonstrably intent upon their rule just to target Jews and Moslems. No, I cannot say whether Moslem killing of animals is equally painless. I do know that: a. Moslems are not permitted to eat Shechita-killed animals, as its requirements are much stricter than their own; whereas b. Jews are not permitted to eat Moslem-killed animals. My bold. Then it is not banned under the proposed law. Not only that, but it should become the established secular method of slaughter. The fact that Jews and Muslims are themselves calling this a "ban" seems to indicate that they don't believe their own propaganda. Checkmate. Edited November 7, 2011 by quisquose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 I believe there are many zebras on the Serengati, also many lions and hyenas, but very few tigers, if in fact there are any. Then again I am not a zoollogist, and neither are you I think.Maybe some tigers had hired a coach and gone on a game hunting holiday in the Serengeti? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy Jnr Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Because they killed animals, and it was completely natural. We have become unnatural. That was the point i was trying to put across, that our mass killing is far removed from nature as suggested by the post it was aimed at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Sidney Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 I demand feminist slaughered meat. That is the brutal slaying of all male animals, more humane methods to female ones, whilst Valerie Solanas's SCUM manifesto is read aloud. This is scary... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bullerboY Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Coo! isn't there a lot experts on this topic but then again there is a lot on every topic and all the same user names keep appearing,they must have all gone to clever schools cos i'm blowed how they store all this information in such a tiny space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffragette1 Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 This is scary... Cocks and bulls had better watch out.:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy Jnr Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Some reading on slaughter: http://www.makeupyourownmind.co.uk/reports/jane-eyres--visit-to-an-abattoir.html http://www.cookingfairy.co.uk/2011/05/what-really-happens-in-an-abattoir/ http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/jul/08/into-the-abattoir-meat-eating http://www.viva.org.uk/campaigns/slaughter/index.htm - some facts and figures that, if accurate, make for interesting reading re "is Halal cruel?" question. http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Practical/FactoryFarm/Slaughter/Visit2Slaughterhouse.htm No doubt readers will form own ideas on which are reliable and which are propaganda either way on the cruelty aspect. It's difficult to comment on something you haven't witnessed first hand. Noticeably with the examples you've given is the different ways the experience is described. The anti's go for storyline and explicits whereas the lets say pro abbatoire section describe the process without frills but would appear to be well connected with the industry. The anti's would do well to adopt a less colourful approach to putting their point across but then it would I suppose lose it's potency of argument. I'll remain undecided and hope that whatever method is adopted that it is humane and relatively stress free for the animal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts