To absolutely loathe the increase in smear campaigns against businesses because of the halal meat debate?

’ most male chicks in the UK are not macerated.
While
maceration(shredding) is a permitted method of killing male chicks in the UK egg industry, the majority are actually killed using inert gas (argon) or CO2 gas mixtures.
UK Centre for Animal Law (A-LAW) +3
Here are the key details regarding male chick culling in the UK:

Scale of Culling: Around 45 million male chicks are killed annually in the UK because they cannot lay eggs and are not suitable for meat production.

Primary Method: The predominant method used in the UK is gas killing, with all four main laying hen hatcheries reported to use argon/CO2 mixtures.

Maceration Status: While not the main method, maceration of live chicks under 72 hours old is legally permitted under the Welfare at Time of Killing (England) Regulations 2015.

Industry Shift: There is increasing pressure to ban this practice, as some European countries have already done, in favour of in-ovo sexing technology, which determines the sex of the embryo before it develops. ‘

See the vegetarian society petition

1. hatchanddispatch.vegsoc.org

Bullshit. From the RSPCA.

Yes, male chicks are still culled in the UK, with roughly 29 to 45 million killed annually within their first day of life

While legal, this often involves "maceration" (grinding)

So many lies on this thread from people trying to justify their hypocrisy.

And what are you on about "halal abattoirs call for the killing of people"? You sound unstable.

Your previous post literally said ‘It's only acceptable halal when they cut their throats and then 'embed' the meat with prayers, and these prayers are not exactly loving or nice... they call for the killing of other people. And you eat that energy. The entire practice is gross and barbaric’.

And now you’re pretending you didn’t say it and calling me unstable for suggesting you said it?

Talk about narcissistic gaslighting.

And all the people thanking you for your posts are in on the hypocrisy and gaslighting.

But why use narcissistic gaslight tactics in your argument when reality is that you don't care at all about any suffering of animals? You ridiculed people who opposed this cruelty. If they oppose halal cruelty, they're certainly not going to support kosher, or chickens crushed to death either.

Nothing is 'copy and paste' from GPT @nomas. And what are you on about "halal abattoirs call for the killing of people"? You sound unstable.

This seems your way of deflecting from the fact that they don't actually stun the animals at all, and deliberately make them go through enoromous suffering to make sure they bleed to death. Halal meat is then quietly sold to non-muslims without their knowledge. This is unacceptable.
And take into consideration people of other faiths. For a strict Buddhist or other, for example, being sold meat with Islamic prayers made over it, and be lied about it with no knowledge this is what they consume, would be a grave and irreversible act in their belief system.

..and these techniques are rarely used now in the Uk and scientist are working on in-Ivo sexing so they eggs will be destroyed rather than the days old chicks. Farming is an industry that is continually improving its welfare practices. The videos you will find on YouTube by Animal activists are quite often out of date.

Agreed.

"The issue is with people claiming to avoid halal because of animal welfare reasons when they are quite happy to eat other mass produced meat without any concerns about animal welfare. This is clearly disingenuous, and it's therefore reasonable to question people's motivations."

This is clearly a ridiculous argument. A variation on Reductio ad Hitlerum, with racists swopped for Adolf. But...but... bad people like it, so it must also be bad by association.

All other slaughterhouses, bar halal and kosher, are required to prestun. This legal requirement was introduced back in 1933, based on robust evidence that this is better (less worse) for animal welfare than not stunning. The RSPCA and the British Veterinary Association agrees.

Are there some people who object to halal/kosher slaughter primarily because they dislike muslims and/or jews? Yes.

Are there people who object to trans women using women-only spaces who are right-wing misogynists, such as Donald Trump? Yes.

It doesn't mean that the religious exemption from stunning for only halal/kosher slaughter is any less unjustified or any less barbaric.

Nor does it mean we should allow trans women in women's sports, women's prisons, women's changing rooms etc.

These two policy positions are fair, robust and morally right, regardless of how many vile people might support them. That's how scientific truth and evidence works.

We should:

• Remove the religious exemption for both halal and kosher, compulsory prestunning for ALL slaughter
• Add mandatory labels for all methods of slaughter for meat/poultry, whether sold raw, or used in prepared food products

It’s not the meat that’s cruel

It’s not the animals

It’s humans

The quote you choose doesn't really help your argument, she's basically implying that if you are ok with eating mass produced meat but would refuse halal meat given the choice that they are bring disingenuous about their reasons ie racist bigots. Which obviously isn't the case. People can and do draw the line at halal slaughter because it is less humane than regular UK standards! Even if all the animals come from the same farms.

You clearly misunderstood then.

Yes who exactly has said what they buy to meet the accusation, perhaps the pp can clarify.

I'm not looking to misrepresent what you said.

I'm reflecting the overall impression I have got of your stance across many, many posts - too numerous to list here.

Again - unclear here.

Which people are you calling hypocrites?

Bearing in mind you have no idea whatsoever who is who, or who does what, when you're posting on an anonymous forum, it would help others to understand who you are talking about, and what evidence you are drawing from.

You've cherry picked one post here! Nice try, but the bulk of this poster's posts have been giving a rather different impression.

And there are LOTS of them! I've rarely seen a poster post quite so prolifically across a thread, and often quite vehemently in reply to posts that have pointed out that many people avoid Halal because of welfare reasons.

This gives a certain impression. If that's not the sense the poster wants to convey, then perhaps clearer communication would be in order.

If you feel comfortable with the halal process then buy it.

Others will choose what they like, just step back and leave people to choose. So many accusations- bigotry, intolerance, now hypocrisy and whatever else on this thread.

Of course people can buy what they want to buy, has anyone disputed that?

But when people come onto a thread and say that British society and its treatment of animalsis civilised and the uncivilised part is the barbaric halal slaughter of animals by Muslims, and they turn a blind eye to things like grinding down live male chicks to die, which apparently isn’t barbaric, then those people will rightly be called hypocrites

Fortunately no one has to inform you of what they buy.

People can avoid halal when it’s finally labelled, as everyone says they want it to be.

Thank you @nomas. It's reassuring to see that some posters can actually read.

I don't know why some people are so keen to misrepresent what I've said. Easier to argue against stuff that they've made up, I suppose.

@BunfightBetty

This is why I asked for an example, because of your misrepresentation.

You said that @MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack assumed that anyone who objects to eating Halal must be an Islamophobe.

But here is what she actually said:

That isn't what people are saying. People can choose to eat, or avoid eating, whatever they like. I don't eat halal meat because I'm vegetarian. That doesn't make me a bigot.
The issue is with people claiming to avoid halal because of animal welfare reasons when they are quite happy to eat other mass produced meat without any concerns about animal welfare. This is clearly disingenuous, and it's therefore reasonable to question people's motivations.

It’s those people who are the hypocrites. And we see through them all.

There are lots. I’m not going to list every one, and I’m sure you’re capable of reading back, but as a few examples, look back at the first few pages of the thread and read the posts of MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack (there are other posters too, but she has posted a huge amount of times on this thread).

Lots of posts stating as if fact ideas along the lines of ‘if they were really bothered about animals welfare, they’d be campaigning against other types of cruelty as well’.

The implication is that anyone raising an issue with Halal slaughter methods must be racist. Your own post from today about the maceration of live chicks does the same thing - assumes that nobody who cares about Halal slaughter methods would be caring from a place of concern for welfare, rather than racism. That simply isn’t true. There are people concerned for racism’s reasons, yes. AND there are people who are concerned as part of a wider concern for welfare. Dismissing the idea the second group exist and insisting you know better, to the contrary, isn’t helpful.

Many apologies. I misread your post as opposing labelling.

Definitely, labelling on slaughter methods is needed. The switch to producing/buying of free range eggs has been a huge success in the UK. This would have been impossible without clear mandatory labels on all egg boxes.

About 75% of UK eggs are now free range. Up from just 32% in 2004.
https://www.egginfo.co.uk/egg-facts-and-figures/industry-information/data

We should similarly allow people to show their support for more humane animal slaughter methods.

@KitWyn was this for another post?

I agree most people can distinguish between methods and choose accordingly.

The more clarity the better so consumers can decide.

Can you point to an example?

No one is talking about them,

Actually, if you read the full thread, some people have been lumping them together, assuming that anyone who objects to eating Halal must be an Islamophobe. Nuance has often been in short supply - as I saw when I posted earlier in the thread.

In addition to that, some people avoid Halal and Kosher meat as part of a wider attempt to eat more ethically. Those people are not racist and shouldn't be lumped into the same category.

No one is talking about them, if you read the OP title, it's about 'the increase in smear campaigns against businesses because of the halal meat debate'.

You're setting up a straw man for your own amusement.