Saturday, 17 October 2009

A Impending Ban Of Halal And Kosher?


Oh boy! If we have laws that decide a farmer can be fined for keeping a cow in the dark ...

A farmer has been fined £150 for failing to 'meet the psychological needs' of a cow because his barn was too dark.

... how are the touchy-feelies going to react to this revelation?

A study proving Jewish and Islamic methods of slaughtering animals are painful has led to renewed calls for a ban in Britain

UK law requires that all livestock be stunned prior to slaughter – with the exception of those animals intended for consumption by members of certain religions. Islamic halal and Jewish kashrut law require that animals are slaughtered by having their throat cut – a relatively slow means of death.

Practitioners of ritual slaughter say the animal must be alive to facilitate the draining of blood – and that throat slitting is humane.

But the new research suggests otherwise.

Adam Rutherford, an editor of Nature, wrote on the Guardian website: "It suggests that the anachronism of slaughter without stunning has no place in the modern world and should be outlawed. This special indulgence to religious practices should be replaced with the evidence-based approaches to which the rest of us are subject."

Some European countries, such as Sweden, require all animals to be stunned before slaughter with no exception for religions. But such a ban in Britain would be hugely controversial – and would draw inevitable comparisons with the ban on kashrut enacted by Nazi Germany in 1933**.

This is Victimhood Poker on a grand scale. On one side we have the meat is murder/animal welfare brigade, on the other, the massed ranks of Islam and Judaism.

Could be a cracker, especially if the EU and PETA get involved too. A gold-plated, lefty, righteous, tag-team classic bout.

On which side, for example, is vegan seal-hugger Kerry McCarthy, with her significant Islamic electorate, going to come down? My guess would be that her animal-loving nature will find itself quickly suppressed in the face of the potential local backlash.

This could develop over time. I mean, it's not like the plaintiffs lack power, influence, or financial backing, is it?

Looking forward to the fireworks and awkward self-absorbant in-fighting already.

** I don't know why that should bother them, it's not like they haven't copied certain 1930s Germany legislation already.




5 comments:

Pavlov's Cat said...

Anachronism of slaughter without stunning? Surely it's slaughter WITH stunning that's the anachronism. I don't think farmers and butchers through the ages are quite that compassionate towards their future meals and revenue streams.

Mark Wadsworth said...

Indeedy, us VP afficionados have been waiting for these hands to be played, which has been in the offing for some time now.

See also Islamists vs wimmin; Jamaicans vs gays; the right of Inuit to slaughter seals etc. Up to now, Jewish people have managed not to be drawn into this, but it'll be fun when the Anti-Salt Brigade say e.g. that gefillte fish have to be banned.

Jim said...

The Islam card trumps all other cards in victimhood poker.........

Mark my words, no ban on halal meat will happen. If it was just Jewish religious sensibilities, they'd be screwed. As it is, they can ride on the halal coat tails. How ironic!

banned said...

I agree with Jim, the vegans will be told to shut up and sit down, there aren't enough of them for Labour to risk upsetting the Muslims that they imported.

Just like they bottled out of taking on the fisherfolk as a follow-up to the hunting ban.

JuliaM said...

"Just like they bottled out of taking on the fisherfolk as a follow-up to the hunting ban."

I wouldn't assume that desire is dead. Just sleeping...