To be horrified at the abuse towards Green Party candidate who said he wanted to ban halal (non stunned) slaughter?

[FreshFreesias]

To be horrified at the backlash against Green Party candidate who said he wanted to ban halal (non stunned) slaughter?

Jonathan Bartley of the Green Party, was asked in an interview what he thought about halal slaughtering methods (where animals are often not stunned so are fully conscious when slaughtered). Quite reasonably, considering the party is meant to be pro animal welfare and that he is Vegan, he said personally he’d like to ban it.
There was a big outcry and calls for him to resign for Islamophobia. However he was asked about halal not kosher (which also requires animals not to be stunned prior to slaughter) and no doubt he would have decried any slaughter that requires animals to be slaughtered without stunning, whether it was kosher or halal.

This is a bit like campaigning against bull-fighting and being accused of racism against Spanish people.

Worst of all, when he was criticised, he back-tracked and explained that the Green Party supported kosher and halal slaughtering methods, so a bit of a 360 degree turnaround. Other Green Party apparatchiks then came aboard to grovel and apologise on his behalf.

I remember when the Green Party supported animal welfare and to find them going against recommendations from Compassion in World Farming and the RSPCA, who insist that stunning animals before slaughter takes away some of the pain from this unconscionable process, is very depressing.

Slaughterhouses are already so poorly regulated that to deny animals some relief by rendering them unconscious before they are killed is surely a terrible abomination. I do wish to respect all religions but I am disappointed that animal welfare is being so disrespected.

Annex D - I crunched through the halal figures, calculating the percentage for stunned vs non stunned for each category

@Aridane, I see now where you got your numbers, thanks.

Weirdly you completely cherry picked and missed out the groups for calves (45% unstunned) and broiler chickens (43% unstunned, the rest "stunned" by water bath).

In fact, when you actually look at ALL the animals and don't just cherry pick individual groups and if you use this to calculate an overall percentage for halal slaughter you get a grand total of...42% non stunned vs 58% stunned.

Which is the exact figure that you triumphantly claimed the RSPCA was lying about.

My late husband work for many years as a butcher in a large supermarket and one day he came home quite disturbed after going for a training day. Firstly let me say he was not a man to be scared or upset easily but when he came home that evening I asked him why he seemed quite bothered. He explained that he'd been to a slaughterhouse and seen the many ways in which cattle (in this case) are killed for consumption he said he felt physically sick when he saw a cow killed in the kosher way ( these were the days before halal slaughter was done in large slaughter houses) so it was kosher that was different from the 'norm' he said the cow was put into a restraining/holding cage and it rotated upside down ( obviously the cow panicked) then after a prayer/religious reading the animals throat was cut while it was in a terrified, conscious state a dit's hooves were thrashing against the bars of the cage... he said it seemed to last forever and it was a sight he never wanted to ever see again.
I once read that for halal meat that is now widely used in hospitals, prisons and care homes ( many times without the person knowing) that during the slaughter process the animal has to be fully conscious when having its throat slit so that it passes hearing the words of the Quran is this ow not the case then?

Sorry meant to say hearing the words of the Quran read out by a holy man.

It really isn’t difficult.

Halal is the same as standard british slaughter, stun then slit throat. Or with chickens stun then behead.

Kosher does not use any stunning.

How can you be anti something you clearly know nothing about?!

TBH @SimonJT, most people probably do not know the ins and outs of the different slaughter practices.

There are a lot of halal butchers that have large signs boasting "unstunned" meat for sale, however. So that probably skews perception, because kosher meat is a much smaller market segment (due to demographics) and I've never noticed signs advertising "unstunned" kosher meat.

All of which makes sense, in light of your explanation, but the average vegetarian on the street just sees the "guaranteed 100% unstunned" signs outside certain halal butchers and just know that is something they definitely against.

Well that went as predicted...

You should see the really awful islamophobic comments in the dating a muslim man thread.

If the comment had the word muslim replaced with jew, woman or black person they would be instantly deleted when reported. But no, as it’s aimed at muslims it’s acceptable.

This is why Boris won't be interviewed by Andrew Neil - researchers dig up the most controversial subjects they can. I didn't see this but why haven't others asked about their views on stunning animals at slaughter houses. Any would struggle to say non-stunned slaughter was a great idea.
The islamophobe backlash was just the response of those not wanting greens to do well in their constituency or those who are anti their GR Act views.
All this publicising of stuff just causes a feeding frenzy - thankfully a large swathe of the population has stopped watching these programmes and/or isn't on twitter

It is completely barbaric, though something slot if animal rights activists have turned a blind eye to, as they fear not being political correct.

Well done to this green party candidate.:)

Switzerland has outlawed shechita without prior stunning in 1893.
it's nowadays commonly understood as being rooted in antisemitism but it's still on the books afaik. Imo probably due to concerns about the morality of the slaughter method.

A concern I personally have a hard time understanding when many clearly just as outrageous / cruel methods are still perfectly legal in the mass farming and slaughter industry.

What I would need to support a ban:

1. Scientific research comparing slaughter methods.
2. The ban of all practices in animal agriculture that cause unnecessary /avoidable distress to the animal.

Or else I'd have to wonder why a religious practice was chosen to be the focus.

Many others have covered key points that I won’t repeat. Adding 2 points I think haven’t been covered/ corrected:

• on animals being afraid in the halal/ kosher process. Animals aren’t allowed to see the knife or see other animals dying. If the animal feels fear - i.e if you see the animal afraid, then you are not allowed to kill it and to kill that animal would not be halal/ kosher compliant. Yes, I’m sure that people get this wrong like people breach HSE and ethical requirements in standard slaughter processes, but we’re talking about what the rules are and whether in principle it is vastly different.

Several people have said that religion shouldn’t outstrip welfare. I don’t think it does. The reason that people in the UK are permitted different slaughter methods (and why halal/ kosher meat can be imported into the EU) is that there is not clear scientific view that it is inhumane or anti welfare. Whatever system is used it needs to meet certain requirements.

Islamophobia is a serious issue. If you don’t want to contribute to it, people should be cautious about what they say. Like a senior person in a political party, so as not to further stigmatise an already stigmatised portion of the population.

Speaking as a vegetarian Muslim here. Not vegetarian because I think it’s wrong to eat animals, but for environmental reasons and because that’s what I think my religion encourages me to do- think about the broader world and things like that. Halal is one concept around meat but all food and drink needs to be ‘clean’ and appropriate and my call is that stuff that isn’t good for the planet isn’t halal. It’s a personal choice.

@CravingCheese - agreed, think you have hit the nail on the head.

I think there’s a lot of misunderstanding here. Personally I think the law should change so that all animals are stunned pre slaughter. The Halal rules on no stunning come from the fact that the Qur’an states that animals should not be eaten if already unconscious (at the time it was written this was about food safety and not eating sick/dead animals).
A lot of what makes meat Halal is the textual readings. But obviously communities will differ. For context 100% of the sheep meat from New Zealand is stunned pre slaughter. 100% is also Halal. This is what we need to aim for. And hopefully improve animal welfare without compromising religious beliefs.
I have been in a slaughterhouse and for me feel I can eat meat having done so. I appreciate they will vary. But animals were calm throughout (this was beef,sheep,pigs). If stunning is done correctly then they are unconscious before the time of death (Bristol university have done a lot of research to confirm this). And then are bled before regaining consciousness.
I won’t get into birds but water baths can be nice or terrible depending on setup.
Bleeding isn’t really relevant to the debate as animals are bled anyway.
I’m all for us eating less meat and being sustainable. But we need to focus on improving animal welfare during production and slaughter. Temple Grandin also has done so much research into reducing stress at slaughterhouses.
It shouldn’t be a religious argument in my eyes-needs to be about animal welfare and stunning or not stunning.

YANBU but it’s not surprising really is It. It’s an abhorrent practice.

Wholewheel
Please explain why stunned halal slaughter is more abhorrent than stunned non halal.

YANBU, but I was torn between voting Lib Dem or Green - and Green have got my vote now!

OP as a vegetarian would you not say many aspects of the meat/dairy/egg industry are worse than non-stunned slaughter? I'd say killing all male chickens at the point of hatching (without stunning) and removing calves from their mothers at birth is far more cruel.

And I'm a hypocrite because I still eat eggs and dairy.

@Waitrosecheapestvodka
I agree, most parts of the meat industry don't stand up to any scrutiny and yes, dairy is my weakness.

I get my eggs now from Farmaround, who deliver them in a veg bag from chickens that have been rescued from farms and were about to be slaughtered. They are not so productive after a few years but are still good layers.

When I had outside space I rescued battery chickens who were surprisingly easy to care for and provided an egg a day on average.

@Sssneks - you need to do the basic maths and add all the animals slaughtered and then apply the percentages of stunned vs non stunned.

And for calves - well, ahem, only 87 were killed. You know, de minimis.

Please also refer to the passage from the RSPCA quoted above where the RSPCA quoted 80% - yes, 80% - as being the figure for stunned halal slaughter.

Lies, damned lies and RSPC stastics

@Aridane
Sssneks has said in an earlier post that she is a vegan and finds all the research she has been doing extremely distressing and that she was going to bow out of the thread. Yet you continue to harangue her, demanding facts and figures in your strange quest to justify a slaughter methods that the RSPCA and most animal charities want to reform. Besides, the point of the thread if you read the OP is to question the Green Party's attitude to animal welfare and if it was reasonable to throw their spokesman under a bus for stating his position in what was probably a very slanted interview.

She has made her points concisely from a position of compassion.

Sadly you seem to be devoid of compassion for both humans and animals.

@Aridane

you need to do the basic maths and add all the animals slaughtered and then apply the percentages of stunned vs non stunned.

Yes, and as I've already pointed out, when you do this for ALL animals and not just goats, sheep and cattle, the figure is 42% non stunned vs 58% stunned, which is the exact figure you claimed the report didn't show.

You've cherry picked categories where the stunned percentage is high to misrepresent the data. Yes calves are a small amount but chickens are the largest group and you've deliberately omitted them to skew the data.

It's one thing to support inhumane animal slaughter, @Aridane but at least own it. Deliberately misrepresenting data to 'prove' your point is a really low tactic.

You were relying on the fact that you hoped that nobody could be bothered to go through the report in detail and run the sums.

I did. You're a liar.

He is right.

IMO, no Green Party anybody deserves abuse. Why? Simply. Excuse they speak sense.

Simply because...