To ask you all to acknowledge this rise in non-stun slaughter?

[kinkytoes]

I've read numerous conversations on here where there seems to be a rejection of the fact that this even happens in the UK, let alone on a scale like this.

These animals need a voice! 30 million+ of them this year alone. This is not ok.

Reject Halal. Reject Kosher.

www.farminguk.com/news/rspca-calls-for-non-stun-slaughter-ban-as-numbers-rise-nearly-20-_65730.html

Obviously I know we don't have christian abbatoirs, ffs, that's why the phrase was in inverted commas
The point is, the OP was opining and stirring about the use of religious and cultural slaughter methods as if they were more stressful and disgusting than the 'traditional' way done in our 'christian' country

I do agree with you. I just think some battles are easier won than others.

The non stun thing is a more recent development so it makes sense to me to fight back on this first.

I never mentioned Christianity either. I'm an atheist!

I presumed that PP was referring to the practice of circumcising baby boys as a matter of routine.

If somebody needs it for genuine medical reasons (not including the false, loaded claims that it's supposedly a problem when a young boy's foreskin simply doesn't yet retract - as this is perfectly normal and the equivalent of claiming that a very young girl has a medical 'issue' because she doesn't yet have breasts), then I don't think anybody would have an issue with it. Or even if an adult man chose it because he preferred it for whatever reason.

But most religiously killed meat is stunned. This is the ignorance that others turn into racism.

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/may/08/what-does-halal-method-animal-slaughter-involve

Again, the implication is that slaughter (traditional) in 'our' largely christian country, is better than the slaughter by other cultures/religions

As a woman I'd still rather live in a 'Christian' society than many others.

Slaughter involving stunning is considered less cruel than slaughter not involving stunning. It's not about religion per se, but some religious groups do opt for non-stun methods.

30 million is still 30 million though.

I'd rather live without religion at all but I doubt that will ever happen. Too many men brought up to think they can control. That's another debate entirely though.

Yes I agree 👍

I wrote a comment up-thread about fish. Coincidentally, there’s a section of today’s Matthew Parris column in the Times about the cruelty of fishing. (You can skip the bit about Ed Davey.)
https://www.thetimes.com/article/66de2a42-526a-4f43-a6e6-0927f9920044?shareToken=f58f9c3733a280ebb6be258f40ed2598

When talking to the public, the majority seem to know about stunning but a lot presume all animals are stunned here and are surprised to find out that isn’t the case. I’ve been accused of lying and had people google it in front of me as they’re convinced the UK wouldn’t allow it.

The public are deliberately kept in the dark about farming and slaughter and have propaganda presented to them often about what lovely lives animals have etc. You can’t really blame people for believing it or not having time to look into it more.

Because it is. I’ve unfortunately seen both in real life many times and there is no doubt in my mind about it.

It's part of our attitude to cheap protein. There are other methods (see "Ikejime") that are instant, and said to produce better quality fish, but they aren't suited to indiscriminate netting and trawling.

What race is OP being racist against? Surely you mean it's anti-religion? Do you have a problem with people being anti-religion?

Why are you only posting about this one specific form of animal cruelty then?

Why is halal and kosher slaughtered lamb more of a problem for you than factory-farmed pork?

Or surely at this time of year, you could be raising awareness of the cruelty of intensively reared Christmas turkeys?

Yes, I agree. Also, although I'm no expert, I thought that halal meat was about much more than just the method of slaughter (and even then, open to interpretation, as a pp stated). Halal meat also relates to the animals' life, and that it calls for good care and welfare of the animal during their lifetime?

Because a 20% rise in a less ‘humane’ way of slaughtering animals is awful and it’s a very recent article perhaps? Why shouldn’t it be discussed?

Good care and welfare are nothing like a lot of people assume for the majority of farmed animals, halal or not.

I don't eat fish now either.

Nobody has yet answered my question which was under what circumstances does non-stun slaughter happen without religious reasons?

Honestly I can’t think of any good way to slaughter animals. The poor creatures are treated appallingly during their lives and meet a terrible end. I am sure they would rather be alive and grazing.

If they could express a view I'm sure this would be true, but then if they weren't destined to be eaten most animals in the food industry wouldn't exist in the first place

Personally I have no issue at all with eating animals ... I just don't want them to be tortured so that I can, so stick carefully to responsibly sourced meat

It’s pretty easy to stop eating meat OP. I haven’t eaten it since 1989. Bit harder to avoid all animal products, but not all that difficult.