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

[nc0007]

Well it’s not really a debate, is it? You either don’t care, or you’re absolutely seething because your meat may or may not be halal. But irrespectively of what you think about this, AIBU to think that people ‘outing’ businesses on social media about what meat they use and encouraging hundreds of people to smear them not just in posts but reviews to tank their ratings is just crazy?

Hundreds of people commenting ‘I’ve just left them a bad review on google’ because a (British owned baked potato) business extended their trading hours to their Muslim customers? People who have never bought anything from them in their life, probably geographically will never go there. Actively trying to sabotage a business because you think you’re what - some sort of activist?

And don’t get me started on the posts where people reach out to these poor customer service reps in supermarkets to ask them if the meat they sell is halal because of this mad narrative that ‘80% of supermarket meat is halal’ - where has this nonsense come from?!?! 😂 People screenshotting and commenting about how ‘Clare from Lidl’ is avoiding the question when she probably doesn’t have a scooby and the answer probably isn’t a straight yes or no either!

Madness. Utter madness. People treating this like it’s a full time job.

I am engaging with your points.

I’ll put it another way to see if you can accept what people are saying.

If there was an item of food that looked exactly the same and one was vegetarian and one was meat would you want to research every outlet and item to make sure you got the right version, or would you just say make a label, make it clear.

And ik you’re going to say you want labels but then go on about people researching province. It’s time consuming and unnecessary if there’s a label, that’s the point of clear information.

Agree and Easternstandard it’s also worth noting,
having tried to do this myself with some Asda products, no matter how high you go with a business they rarely come back with a definitive answer because they don’t know it themselves

No but an animal is slaughtered accor8dng to kosher rules and then as it is the hind legs or whatever, they are sold on the main meat market and never labelled as kosher as it is not kosher by Jewish standards. It has just been killed in a way that means the kosher parts can be consumed by Jewish people.

The rest is sold to us as meat.

You're not engaging with my point, because you're still on about labelling. Which I have repeatedly said that I support.

As for people doing the research, for someone who genuinely cares about animal welfare, it wouldn't be unnecessary. But I agree that it could be time consuming, hence my support for comprehensive labelling to make things easier.

But none of that addresses my previous points.

So why not actually engage with it and explain how it is possible for people to genuinely care about animal welfare while still being happy to eat mass produced meat as long as it isn't halal. Please could you explain the specific logic behind the thinking process that Muslim cruelty = bad and non-muslim cruelty = ok.

So people who are avoiding halal and kosher because of the stunning issue may still be eating unstunned meat if they are consuming mass produced meat without knowing its provenance.

They know. They just don't want to tell you.

If meat is produced to high welfare standards, they will make this very clear in order to justify the inevitably higher prices.

I don’t even know why there’s a disagreement since everyone wants labelling for halal meat.

Mostly I think some have got it wrong with the disingenuous and bigoted accusations. If they’re dropped then it’s all good.

You're just sidestepping now. I understand that you haven't really got an answer.

"Halal" doesn't just apply to meat it can apply to all foodstuffs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halal

To what?

Yes. And it's more the case for kosher meat.

Let's say a Jewish community requires 50kg of lamb a month. If you only count certain parts of the animal as appropriate to eat, then you have to kill more lambs to get that 50kg of meat per month.

I'm also vegetarian. I believe you shouldn't live a life that requires other people to do jobs that you wouldn't. I would happily keep chickens and goats for milk/cheese. So I can eat dairy.

Is that dream Disney cottage the reality for most dairy and egg production? No, not at all. But I buy the most ethical dairy and eggs available. So it's a start, and supports better farming practices.

The perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the good. The good shouldn't be the enemy of small in scope, rather dull, incremental improvements that over time will radically change things for the better.

We have a legal requirement for all UK abattoirs to pre-stun. This is based on the best available evidence that it offers better (meaning less terrible) animal welfare.

It is outrageous that there is a religious exemption to this. This should never have been permitted.

It's not just about animal welfare. It's also about the fundamental principle that the UK is a secular nation, with one law for all. And we are, in practice, functionally secular.

(But we really should rid ourselves of the archaic 26 bishops within the 842 peers in the House of Lords. On the upside, any replacements have to be women bishops.)

We aren't a secular nation, although I would like us to be. Our head of state is also head of the church of England.

I believe the exemption for kosher/halal slaughter was included in the initial legislation when stunning was first made mandatory - it isn't a recent development.

As for the perfect not being the enemy of the good, I agree, but there is nothing very good about eating mass produced meat, so I'm not sure what the argument is there.

My point isn't that people shouldn't make the choices that they feel that they should make, but rather that they are not really in a position to express moral judgement if they themselves are guilty.

You still haven't engaged with the point that I have repeatedly made, you just keep responding to strawmen of your own making. I'm not sure if it is your comprehension skills that are the problem or whether this is just your usual way of dealing with something when you know your argument doesn't really stack up, but I've noticed the same pattern in a lot of threads.

I’ve noticed patterns in your posts like this one, I still have no idea what the question is you want answered.

What is it?

We are all guilty of something. Nobody's perfect. Despite that, we can all try to have informed opinions on those issues important to us, where we could support positive change. Yes, we should try not to be hypocritical. But that's not an excuse to not think or not act.

If anyone who eats meat, or even cheese, is not allowed to argue for improved farm animal welfare, well, we are all doomed. There aren't sufficient numbers of saintly vegans to deliver any changes to animal welfare. And shouting 'shut up, you hypocritical bigots' at the meat/cheese eaters will strangely not gain their support, money or votes.

The UK IS a secular state. We have historical religious ties, but these are now threadbare and merely decorative. King Charles has no legislative power. Law is primarily made by the UK Parliament, and through judges' precedents in court rulings. Not by the whim of the monarch.

The UK is not remotely like Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia or even the Vatican State. We have an elected Prime Minister and Government. Our Judiciary is independent, and British citizens, of any and no religion, are equal before the law.

How is the UK more like an Iranian theocracy than, say, a secular Sweden?

That doesn't mean there's not a genuine issue to address

You haven’t shown any proof that those who genuinely care about animal welfare actually come within the same cohort that eat mass produced meat

I wasn’t actually asking them about meat.
I’ve never bought it

I was asking about other food products and they couldn’t even answer about them
My post was pointing out how difficult it is to get an answer

Well, obviously I haven't because I don't think there can be any overlap.

What I have said is that people who care about animal welfare won't be in any danger of inadvertently eating halal meat because they will not be eating meat without having first checked its provenance.

Of course, there may be vegans who have issues with halal meat as well, but it's very likely that they will also have issues with factory farming methods in general.

Absolutely agree and well said on the first two paragraphs.

but as a complete aside and derail I’ll have to disagree
we are not a secular state

it is fact
because
it has an established state religion (the Church of England), with the monarch serving as its Supreme Governor and "Defender of the Faith".
Additionally, 26 Church of England bishops hold seats in the House of Lords and the state retains constitutional legal ties to the church

Ist para
If there’s no overlap ie the scenario doesn't exist why are you talking about it ??

2nd para
almost impossible to get information in that regard

3rd para
your comment about vegans is irrelevant in the context of eating mass produced meat. Why are you even bringing this up

I see @EasternStandard has given up and I really don’t blame them

Without wanting to be impolite you are going round in circles, calling people hypocrites but Apparently now those people don’t actually exist / you haven't looked because there can’t be an overlap

and on and on it goes.

@KitWyn has it right
everyone has a voice
those that judge others who speak up aren’t helping animal welfare.

leaving you to your own thoughts on this one now

Re the first paragraph - I'm not talking about a scenario in which there is any overlap between people who care about animal welfare and those who eat mass produced meat. Have you actually read any of my posts? I have repeatedly argued that it is not possible for the two to co-exist, that is the whole basis for my argument. I'm talking about people who claim to care about animal welfare while continuing to eat mass produced meat. Claiming to care and actually caring are not the same thing....

Re the second paragraph - I wouldn't know because I've never tried. I don't buy or eat meat personally, so I was going by the claims that I've frequently seen on here about people who only ever eat meat that is produced with very high welfare standards. Perhaps you're right and they are just making it up, who knows.

Re the third paragraph, I was trying to respond to your post about my apparent failure to prove something that I hadn't ever been trying to prove (quite the contrary) but I accept that it was probably irrelevant. I couldn't understand what you were trying to get at, so I was trying to second guess what you might have meant and attempting to respond to that interpretation, but I will freely admit that I was clutching at straws because your comment made no sense to me in the context of the rest of the thread.

I have no issue at all with people who are genuinely speaking up with genuine concerns about animal welfare. In fact, I have a huge amount of respect for people who care deeply about such issues and live their lives accordingly. My issue is with those who show through their behaviour that they don't really care but pretend to care as a means of promoting their own completely unrelated narrative.

Anyway, I agree that we are going round in circles, and it's frustrating that your latest posts suggest that you haven't actually understood the point that I'm making at all. Obviously, I have failed to make the point clearly enough. Never mind.

According to the Halal Monitoring Committee only non-stunned meat is halal. That's what it says on their website. So I'm a bit dubious about the claim that the majority of halal meat is stunned.