United Kingdom The government of the United Kingdom has never introduced or passed any ban on ritual slaughter.
[edit] Proposals from animal welfare groups
Note: this section is duplicated from the similar "Modern Debates" subsection -- this is an open problem, see talk page
Since the mid-1980s, proposals have repeatedly surfaced from the animal welfare advocacy groups based on animal cruelty concerns.
Most recently, the debate was reignited by the findings of a 2003 report by the UK government funded Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC). FAWC, which provides advice to the UK government on livestock animal welfare issues, says that the methods employed in Jewish and Islamic ritual slaughter resulted in "severe suffering to animals" and recommended an end to the current exemptions in British law that permit religious slaughter.[1]
FACW concerned was based on their finding that cattle require up to two minutes to bleed to death when ritual slaughter is employed. Dr Judy MacArthur Clark, chairwomen of FACW, explained it to the BBC: "This is a major incision into the animal and to say that it doesn't suffer is quite ridiculous."[1]
Compassion in World Farming, a European animal welfare organization, voiced support for FAWC's recommendation: "We believe that the law must be changed to require all animals to be stunned before slaughter."[1]
Peter Jinman, the president of the British Veterinary Association said on BBC Radio 4's Today programme that veterinarians respected people's religious beliefs but also urged for respecting animals. He continued "We're looking at what is acceptable in the moral and ethical society we live in."[1]
Roy Saich, a spokesman for the Humanists movement, is quoted as saying:
"There is no imperative for Muslims or Judaists to eat meat produced in this manner [...] There is no reason why they should not simply abstain from eating meat altogether if they do not wish to eat the same meat as the rest of us."[1]
"But for the most part, British Jews believe their government when it stresses that this ban has been proposed with the sole intention of minimizing animal distress. But that doesn’t mean they agree with it."[15]
[edit] Consistent support of bans from anti-Semitic and anti-Islamic groups
The far-right National Front (NF) party, via offering support to the animal welfare groups in their opposition to the ritual slaughter of animals, was able to target Jews and Muslims.[16] An official NF publication at the time announced:
"All the Jews have to do is stop this barbaric and torturous murder of defenceless animals. When they cease the slaughter the NF will cease its campaign. Until then the NF campaign for animal welfare will continue."[16]
Similar support was offered to animal welfare groups in the mid-1990s by the successor to the National Front, the British National Party (BNP). A report on anti-Semitism in the United Kingdom from the Israel-based Stephen Roth Institute detailed the familiar tactics of the BNP:
"On the far right [...] the move by some activists into so-called animal rights and farmers' campaigns against central government, has led to a small but growing movement against shechita (Jewish ritual slaughter). In March 1998 [...] copies of a new BNP journal, British Countryman, were distributed. This contained an article entitled 'Stop the Real Cruelty,' which stated: 'Hundreds of thousands of animals die in terror and agony by having their throats slashed open without humane stunning. Halal and kosher ritual slaughter of fully conscious animals is a barbaric affront to the British tradition of livestock [...] Ritual slaughter is a deliberate torture!'" [17]
Searchlight, an anti-fascist magazine, wrote in February 2003, describing that the BNP again renewed its opposition to Jewish and Islamic ritual slaughter in the wake of the September 11 2001 attacks. Searchlight gave this description of the party: "Today's BNP is as Islamophobic as it is antisemitic." [18]
The prophet Muhammed (PBUH) forbade slaughtering one animal in front of another. Now that's what I call animal welfare.
Widespread Animal Suffering at Slaughter
Ineffective stunning of animals is the most frequent violation of the Humane Slaughter Act (HSA) according to a General Accounting Office (GAO) Report released earlier this year. Slaughter of conscious animals, the most inconceivable of atrocities, was the third most common violation. HSA violations including dragging sick and/or disabled animals, excessive use of electric prods, improper stunning and the shackling and processing of conscious animals, were identified at nearly one-third of all slaughter plants in the US.
The abysmal failure of industry to comply with the HSA was first exposed by Gail Eisnitz in her landmark book, Slaughterhouse, in 1997. In April 2001 following its own investigation, The Washington Post ran a dramatic front-page series reporting that animals at slaughter plants across the country continued to be skinned, scalded and dismembered while still conscious. The GAO has confirmed that the plight of cattle, pigs, sheep and other animals continues unabated.
Am i the only one who finds this a complete joke?
it doesnt matter that women prance around naked and the young are encouraged to commit all kinds of obsene acts due to the influence of media, it doesnt matter that the women that hold there shame as a invaluable jewel are looked down upon, this society is moral and ethical?
nice joke, nice !
All those those things just cause 'offence', usually to very few people. There is absolutely no comparison to an act that causes physical pain and suffering to person or animal. And where are all these women "prancing around naked", outside the odd strip joint, anyway?
I can't really comment on the main point. There is no need to eat animals anyway, so I think the debate on the best way to kill them for that purpose is pointless. Stop eating them, no problem.. not to mention how much more sense it makes in health and economic terms.
All those those things just cause 'offence', usually to very few people. There is absolutely no comparison to an act that causes physical pain and suffering to person or animal. And where are all these women "prancing around naked", outside the odd strip joint, anyway?
I can't really comment on the main point. There is no need to eat animals anyway, so I think the debate on the best way to kill them for that purpose is pointless. Stop eating them, no problem.. not to mention how much more sense it makes in health and economic terms.
I would tend to disagree that eating animals is unhealthy. Yes, red meat has been found to be a culprit in some heath issues...at least till next week when they change their minds and blame it on something else. A vegetarian diet lacks some very important nutrients that are found in meat, including amino acids, Vitamin B12, calcium, iron, zinc, etc. Granted, one can purchase these nutrients from a vitamin store to make up for their lack, but most people don't have the money or the interest in doing so. This may be off topic, but I just don't agree that a pure vegetarian diet is the way to go for health reasons. The more realistic approach would be to limit the amount of meat one eats and obviously eat more vegetables and fruit.
i try to eat as little meat as possible because of the greed-motivated cruelty with which they are raised, which is inexcusable.
dairy cows are also raised under horrible conditions - but i find it very hard to eliminate dairy products.
i am curious - what does islam say about how food animals should be raised?
each man thinks of his own fleas as gazelles
question authority
I don't see why everyone's getting so hot and bothered. It's a proposal by a pressure group, not law. I find it faintly amusing that a vegetarian is telling Jews and Muslims how to slaughter animals.
And before anyone pounces on me, I do not tolerate cruelty to animals, and I have nothing against vegetarians - indeed their diet is very healthy. I just found the situation ironic.
I'm somewhat confused by this. How is it ironic? Wouldn't it rather be ironic if 'secular' industrialized slaughters in the West criticized Muslims and Jews on this? If anyone is IMHO in a position to criticize it is vegetarians, since they, so to speak, have no blood on their hands.
Well, to me it's like 'Hey, meat is murder, but if you're gonna murder, at least do it humanely!'
I'm not criticising vegetarians, I'm just trying to articulate why I found it somewhat amusing.
I don't know. I'm weird.
EDIT: Um... you made a double post, so I attempted to merge them. I must have made a mistake because now they have disappeared altogether. I didn't delete them, they weren't inappropriate or anything, I just made a mistake, so you can repost what you wrote if you like. My apologies.
EDIT 2 (The George Lucas Special Edition sans Ewok Yub-Yub Song): found 'em! I seem to have merged them into another thread like a plonker. I'll renistate them here:
format_quote Originally Posted by KAding
I am totally unconvinced by the arguments in favor of cutting an animals throat for slaughter. At the very least there is considerable doubt on the issue.
The Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC), which advises the government on how to avoid cruelty to livestock, says the way Kosher and Halal meat is produced causes severe suffering to animals.
Quite frankly, call me a cynic but Muslims have a reason to present it as a humane and gentle way of killing an animal. Animal rights activist do not have a similar motive to present it as unnecessarily cruel. Like many things in Islamic law, I think it probably was as good as was possible 1400 years ago, but now-a-days we must strive to do better
format_quote Originally Posted by Muezzin
I find it faintly amusing that a vegetarian is telling Jews and Muslims how to slaughter animals. <snip> I just found the situation ironic.
I'm somewhat confused by this. How is it ironic? Wouldn't it rather be ironic if 'secular' industrialized slaughters in the West criticized Muslims and Jews on this? If anyone is IMHO in a position to criticize it is vegetarians, since they, so to speak, have no blood on their hands.
There is no need to eat animals anyway, so I think the debate on the best way to kill them for that purpose is pointless. Stop eating them, no problem.. not to mention how much more sense it makes in health and economic terms.
Hang on, are you saying sedation and stunning causes more pain than slitting a throat? I strongly disagree with that.
If chickens could speak, they'd tell you a different story.
I know a bloke who works at one of these factorys, he has seen many many chicken go through Torture before they die.
Part of the procedure is that they stick the Chickens head into the WATER which ELECTRICUTES them. This bloke has seen MANY chicken sticking their heads UP, which results in the chicken NOT BEING SHOCKED, and when it gets to the next stage ( De-feathering.. )
Result?
So yes, Stunning can be very very bad
format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
yeah, i maybe i will.
i have learned (here) that islam does consider causing animals to suffer a sin.
ok back to topic....
Snakelegs, that is where you are wrong
Fear God, in treating dumb animals and ride them when they are fit to be ridden and get off them when they are tired.
An adultress passed by a dog at a well; and the dog was holding out his tongue from thirst, which was near killing him, and the woman drew off her boot, and tied it to the end of her garment, and drew water for the dog, and gave him to drink; and she was forgiven for that act.
A woman was punished for a cat which she tied till it died from hunger. She gave the cat nothing to eat, nor did she set it at liberty so that it might find some food.
"Are there rewards for doing good to quadrupeds, and givng them water to drink?" Muhammad said, "Verily there are heavenly rewards for any act of kindness to a live animal."
Verily God hath one hundred loving kindnesses; one of which he hath sent down amongst man, quadrupeds, and every moving thing upon the face of the earth: by it they are kind to each other, and forgive one another; and by it the animals of the wilds are kind to their young; and God hath reserved ninety-nine loving kindnesses by which he will be gracious to His creatures on the last day.
A young man came before the Rasul with a carpet and said, "O Rasul! I passed through a wood and heard the voices of young birds; and I took and put them into my carpet; and their mother came fluttering around my head, and I uncovered the young, and the mother fell down upon them, then I wrapped them up in my carpet; and there are the young which I have." Then the Rasul said, "Put them down." And when he did so, their mother joined them: and Muhammad said, "Do you wonder at the affection of the mother towards her young? I swear by Him who hath sent me, verily God is more loving to His creatures than the mother to these young birds. Return them to the place from which ye took them, and let their mother be with them."
Last edited by SirZubair; 11-18-2006 at 09:08 AM.
Dont Mistake My Harshness For Strength And Neither Mistake My Kindness For Weakness.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Quote
.
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks