Denmark bans religious slaughter

[aliceBB]

Perhaps if they had bolt guns when the old testament was writen that would be prescribed as the preferred method? How is it possible for man to come up with a better idea than an all-powerful god?

I take your point, but I think the throat-slitting method was prescribed in the belief that it would minimise suffering - as opposed to hanging, to stoning the beast to death, for example, or stabbing it in the heart, or any other method which was technologically within the grasp of the Ancient Tribes. When they prescribed death (as a punishment) for humans, for example (adulterers, homosexuals, etc), they did not seem overly exercised by the question of how the condemned person was to be dispatched with minimal distress/pain - in fact, quite the reverse. IIRC the animal slaughter methods were held to reflect God's will that man should have dominion over the earth and its creatures (so it was OK to kill animals and birds for food), but that in the process, mercy should be shown and cruelty avoided.

 

I suppose the test of what you really think is how you would prefer to be despatched yourself. I'd take the bolt into the brain. Would anyone really opt to have their throat cut?

 

I would opt for neither, but for a nice life in a green field with the wind in the trees and a skylark singing

[Zamo]

I take your point, but I think the throat-slitting method was prescribed in the belief that it would minimise suffering - as opposed to hanging, to stoning the beast to death, for example, or stabbing it in the heart, or any other method which was technologically within the grasp of the Ancient Tribes. When they prescribed death (as a punishment) for humans, for example (adulterers, homosexuals, etc), they did not seem overly exercised by the question of how the condemned person was to be dispatched with minimal distress/pain - in fact, quite the reverse. IIRC the animal slaughter methods were held to reflect God's will that man should have dominion over the earth and its creatures (so it was OK to kill animals and birds for food), but that in the process, mercy should be shown and cruelty avoided.

 

But there are other technologies within our grasp now so shouldn't we be challenging the teaching of scriptures and people holding on to outdated beliefs? Isn't that what this is about?

 

I would opt for neither, but for a nice life in a green field with the wind in the trees and a skylark singing

 

That's an additional option found in eutopia but not here on planet earth.

[aliceBB]

But there are other technologies within our grasp now so shouldn't we be challenging the teaching of scriptures and people holding on to outdated beliefs? Isn't that what this is about?

Well, setting aside the fact that my explanation was in direct response to a question by BoyFriday and that I personally do not advocate any method of animal slaughter (since I am, as already explained, opposed to it in principle)...I am struggling to see how delivering a whacking great bolt through the skull in an attempt to stun pre-killing is technologically so much more sophisticated than slitting a beast's throat. Both are terrifying, painful and bloody, as far as I can see.

 

 

That's an additional option found in eutopia but not here on planet earth.

Utopia, I think you'll find, and More did intend that it could work on earth. Cows in India, for example, have a nice life, on the whole.

 

Note to self : must strive to make my irony more obvious

[patrick63]

Only vicious if the creature is not surprised first. If it is surprised then I see no purpose not to allow the relax of the slaughter to be Halal/Kosher.

[boyfriday]

But there are other technologies within our grasp now so shouldn't we be challenging the teaching of scriptures and people holding on to outdated beliefs? Isn't that what this is about?

 

The preferred method of halal pre-stunning is a light electric current administered so that it cannot kill the animal, but only renders it unconscious so if it isn't slaughtered it can be 'returned to pasture', I guess this method is more labour intensive than the captive bolt but probably appears more 'humane' than the captive bolt.

 

---------- Post added 18-02-2014 at 12:18 ----------

 

Do you agree or not that certain methods of slaughter are like to cause more pain and suffering and should therefore be banned? Is the slitting of an animals throat so they bleed to death a method of slaughter you are OK with or would another method be preferable (even if still far from your ideal)?

 

You are aware that all slaughtered livestock has it's throat slit and is 'bled to death'?

[aliceBB]

The preferred method of halal pre-stunning is a light electric current administered so that it cannot kill the animal, but only renders it unconscious so if it isn't slaughtered it can be 'returned to pasture', I guess this method is more labour intensive than the captive bolt but probably appears more 'humane' than the captive bolt.

 

I had a light electric current adminstered to me once (by a worn vacuum cleaner flex) and it was very painful.

[boyfriday]

I had a light electric current adminstered to me once (by a worn vacuum cleaner flex) and it was very painful.

 

I'm sure it was aliceBB!

 

But unlike some meat eaters, Im happy to concede that the killing of animals to fill my dinner plate is going to cause that animal unimaginable suffering-whichever slaughter or stunning method is used.

[WeX]

Yes, I know this, but as I and others have pointed out the pre-stunning of animals was rarely discussed until it could be used as a stick to beat Muslims with, particularly ironic given that 88% of halal meat is pre-stunned and Ive never heard complaints about Kosher meat.

 

Wrong, the links I have provided go to show that both non stunned halal and Kosher methods of slaughter are both being called to be banned. The call to ban both methods of slaughter have always gone hand in hand.

 

I have also pointed out how small the Jewish community is in the UK, numbering less than half of 1% of the population while Muslims number 4.5%. There is a greater number of Muslims whose Halal meat products are now permeating into the rest of the populations every day life. This by no means makes it bad, but what it does mean is people understand what Halal is and through this understanding are voicing their concerns and opposition. When people are told that Kosher is the same if not worse, their opinion is no different to Kosher as none stunned Halal, they want both banned.

 

Incidentally, it might probably be the RSPSCA's view that no animals were slaughtered at all.

 

This has nothing to do with the discussion and the RSPCA has made no such claim either. You appear to be trying to undermine the source here, which is not going to work. The RSPCA are not the only organisation that is associated with the well-being of animals though, the Royal Collage of Veterinary Surgeons are also of the same opinion, The Farm Animal Welfare Council said the same before they where merged with another quango.

 

The fact remains that there is no organisation associated or directly concerned with animal welfare that are happy for animals not to be pre-stunned. The only organisations that will argue for its continuation are religious groups. We need to trust the experts and stop pandering to religious zealots!

[boyfriday]

Wrong, the links I have provided go to show that both non stunned halal and Kosher methods of slaughter are both being called to be banned. The call to ban both methods of slaughter have always gone hand in hand.

You're missing my point, the issue of pre-stunning only became a populus one when it was observed it was something Muslims would prefer not to do. The weight of objection wasn't as prolific before this time ie-I can't recall the popular media making an issue of Kosher slaughter which has been going on in this country for centuries.

I have also pointed out how small the Jewish community is in the UK, numbering less than half of 1% of the population while Muslims number 4.5%.

That's a good point, but from your own post you acknowledge only 10% of halal meat isn't prestunned, whereas 100% of kosher meat isnt, so you can't use this argument without acknowledging that.

There is a greater number of Muslims whose Halal meat products are now permeating into the rest of the populations every day life. This by no means makes it bad, but what it does mean is people understand what Halal is and through this understanding are voicing their concerns and opposition. When people are told that Kosher is the same if not worse, their opinion is no different to Kosher as none stunned Halal, they want both banned.

Come off it Wex, 'people' dont even have an appreciation of how their conventionally slaughtered meat arrives to their plate, and only know about halal because of what they read in the Daily Mail!

 

This has nothing to do with the discussion and the RSPCA has made no such claim either. You appear to be trying to undermine the source here, which is not going to work. The RSPCA are not the only organisation that is associated with the well-being of animals though, the Royal Collage of Veterinary Surgeons are also of the same opinion, The Farm Animal Welfare Council said the same before they where merged with another quango.

 

The fact remains that there is no organisation associated or directly concerned with animal welfare that are happy for animals not to be pre-stunned. The only organisations that will argue for its continuation are religious groups. We need to trust the experts and stop pandering to religious zealots!

 

Have a look at the research. This was conducted by German scientists and is inconclusive regarding the merits of captive bolt stunning compared to no stunning at all, based on measuring output from pain receptors on the brain of ruminants during the slaughter process, in fact if you read it all it makes an argument for not stunning.

 

http://www.mustaqim.co.uk/halalstudy.htm

 

As I keep saying, I strongly believe the whole stunning issue is a red herring, intended to salve our consciences. Halal and Kosher slaughter methods involve treating the beast with respect and acknowledging the anxiety they feel before slaughter, conventional slaughter methods make no such accommodation.

 

So whether you believe one is more cruel than another is a moot point, the fact is if you eat meat you're participating in that cruelty, are you happy to do so? I am.

[WeX]

You're missing my point, the issue of pre-stunning only became a populus one when it was observed it was something Muslims would prefer not to do. The weight of objection wasn't as prolific before this time ie-I can't recall the popular media making an issue of Kosher slaughter which has been going on in this country for centuries.

That's a good point, but from your own post you acknowledge only 10% of halal meat isn't prestunned, whereas 100% of kosher meat isnt, so you can't use this argument without acknowledging that.

Come off it Wex, 'people' dont even have an appreciation of how their conventionally slaughtered meat arrives to their plate, and only know about halal because of what they read in the Daily Mail!

 

 

 

Have a look at the research. This was conducted by German scientists and is inconclusive regarding the merits of captive bolt stunning compared to no stunning at all, based on measuring output from pain receptors on the brain of ruminants during the slaughter process, in fact if you read it all it makes an argument for not stunning.

 

http://www.mustaqim.co.uk/halalstudy.htm

 

As I keep saying, I strongly believe the whole stunning issue is a red herring, intended to salve our consciences. Halal and Kosher slaughter methods involve treating the beast with respect and acknowledging the anxiety they feel before slaughter, conventional slaughter methods make no such accommodation.

 

So whether you believe one is more cruel than another is a moot point, the fact is if you eat meat you're participating in that cruelty, are you happy to do so? I am.

 

You are wrong and your argument is born out of a wish to defend rather than a wish to protect.

 

We have a law in the UK that requires meat slaughtered to be pre-stunned. Its there for a reason under advise of British experts. Two religious groups are exempt while the rest of us are forced to adhere to the law or be prosecuted. This is unacceptable. No one should be able to ignore certain laws just on the basis they disagree on religious grounds!

 

You have no evidence that conventional slaughter does not respect the animal or that it does not acknowledging the anxiety of the animal. I can safely say that any employee working in these industries would disagree with your statement. Tell me, have you ever worked in a slaughter house? My father did for sometime and I have been inside slaughter houses in the past. I have also been in slaughter houses that cater for the Halal and Kosher markets. They are no different to conventional slaughter houses. So please stop with your armchair expertise and give up on your wish to defend the indefensible, its idiotic!