To expect my daughter to have access to non halal meat

[Bushmillsbabe]

My daughters school now has only halal meat available for their school lunches.

I personally do not wish my child to have halal meat, I think its more cruel than other slaughter methods, however this thread is not intended to debate which is worse/better.

She is dairy and gluten intolerant, and her safe options tended to be things like roast chicken, the vegetarian options usually contain dairy. The pork sausages contain gluten so she would have the chicken sausages, she also eats burgers and meatballs but these are now also halal.

So if I don't give her halal meat, she is left with jacket potato with beans every day, which she does eat, but doesn't want to have every day.

I fully respect that Muslim parents wish their child to have halal meat, but am I wrong in thinking my dietary preferences for my daughter should also be respected and she should have access to non halal meat?

Are you "good" with non-halal slaughtering of animals?

I fail to see the fuss about Halal meat, how do you think 'other' meat is killed? Tickled to death?

I agree OP. Main hot dinner roption should be non-halal. Then anyone wanting to eat halal had the potato or veg option.

I think religious faddy eating requirements shouldn't have an impact on everyone else. It's imposing. And completely different to allergies. The jacket potato and vegetarian option will always be halal so Muslims already have 2 choices minimum!

Well, exactly.

A billion chickens are slaughtered in the UK every year. Anyone who is OK with that has no business being picky over the exact method of slaughter.

I say that as a meat eater. It would be very hypocritical of me to object to halal or kosher meat.

Tldr

No it is not. If there are a decent proportion of Muslim children then it is probably more practical just to make all the meat halal.

In the case of religious slaughter, by definition it’s certain the animal had not been stunned.

No it isn't. Some halal meat is stunned.

The halal/non-halal binary is completely illogical from an ethical perspective.

Well done OP, you've done exactly what you wanted here.

Meat is meat is meat is meat.. no matter how it's killed. If you truly cared about how the animal dies you would not be eating meat in the first place. It's a subtle (possible unconscious?) prejudice that comes across.

You are behaving in a very bizzare way. Asking questions, engaging in conversation, but then complaining when you receive an answer. Very rude.

Perhaps social media isn't for you. It tends to mostly involve engaging with people.

Well, the difference is that non-religious slaughter legally requires stunning while religious slaughter is exempt from this requirement.

Simple logic dictates that the probability of an animal being stunned is greater in the former cohort.

And this matters to me, even if it doesn’t to you.

Is this sarcasm? I can't believe anyone still uses that phrase seriously nowadays.

But simple facts do not dictate that. Nowadays the only halal meat you will find that has not been stunned is in specialist butchers. The businesses that supply school food use standard slaughterhouses where all animals are stunned before slaughter.

Yet another disingenuous anti-halal / anti-islamic thread. @MNHQ, why are these ridiculous bot threads allowed to stand?

That's completely incorrect. The majority of halal meat produced in the U.K. is stunned before slaughter, as has been repeated multiple times on this thread.

Why repeat the lie?

It's amazing how many people who claim not to want halal meat are perfectly happy to eat Indian restaurant food and Indian microwave meals.

Why is the school ONLY buying halal meat is the question I'd be asking

It isn’t. OP’s daughter can’t eat the non-halal meat (pork sausages) as they contain gluten.

School can’t offer unlimited choices.

Yes, 65% according to RSPCA. My understanding is that for conventional slaughter this figure should be 100% as any lower than that would be indicating illegal activity? Plus, I was referring to religious slaughter in general as being exempt.

Indeed.

But it does mean that your statement "In the case of religious slaughter, by definition it’s certain the animal had not been stunned" is factually wrong.

And New Zealand lamb, a huge proportion of which is slaughtered on a halal basis before export.

Yes, I see what you mean. I meant that in the case of religious slaughter there can be no reasonable expectation of the animal being stunned ‘by definition’, because it’s exempt from this requirement.

What do I mean?

I mean exactly what I said.

People who refuse to eat halal meats are a tiny minority, if they weren't, then the OP's school would need to supply non halal meat.

I didn't think my post was unclear?

This is reassuring to know. Thank you.