+ Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
Yep, the living costs in Muslim nations are no where near as high as Western Europe.
Many poor people in Asia choose to take a chance on more children in the hope they can provide for each other.
I am sure Muslims thinking it is a sin to use contraception is a factor but how cheap it is to raise a child is bigger.
And Europeans are more enlightened, not thinking it is your duty in life to have 10 kids.
The Islamic takeover will be bad news for those of us concerned about animal welfare. Halal slaughter is horrific. Why have the big chains gone along with it? Because they know which way the wind is blowing. This is why our laws on bigamy will also be overturned. Islam is our future.
Isn't the issue whether or not animals are stunned before slaughter or not?
When this was all over the Mail and Telegraph a few years back the story seemed to be that 85-90% of halal meat from was from big slaughterhouses that pre-stunned. The animal rights campaigners were focussed on the 10-15% where that did not happen. Otherwise there was no practical difference in the treatment of the animals between halal and non-halal slaughterhouses?
A major issue was around labelling - which is patchy. The supermarkets were saying that using pre-stunned halal meat saved on labelling and meant muslims and non-muslims would buy the same product. There was spin both ways with that argument.
I haven't seen any reliable figures for what % of meat sold in the UK is halal - although it has clearly been rising.
The news reports also did footnotes on kosher meat, which it seems comes from animals which are never stunned before slaughter.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...d-9331519.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-label-it.html
Is there any reason for carnivores to reject halal meat other than the stunning (animal welfare) concern? Or should we be outraged because this is cultural imperialism and before we know it we will all be beardy boys and girls wearing veils?
"Is there any reason for carnivores to reject halal meat other than the stunning (animal welfare) concern?"
You might as well ask "Is there any reason to reject ISIS other than the beheading of infidels concern?".
It is cruel and unnecessary. Why are Muslims – and Jews – allowed to slaughter without stunning the animal? This religious slaughter is increasing in this country. Why are they exempt from our animal protection laws? What other exemptions are in the pipeline?
Look at this clip to see how they do it :
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/shop...mal-abuse.html
Let me try again.
Other than the animal welfare issue of stunning before slaughter is there any reason for you to condemn all halal meat - including the 85%+ that is slaughtered in a very similar way to non-halal meat? What else is 'cruel and unnecessary'?
I share the opposition to animal slaughter without pre-stunning. I eat meat, but I don't want animals to suffer by bleeding to death whilst still conscious.
But your comments appear to be about all halal (and kosher?) meat. Why? Is there something else (other than animal welfare) that makes you so upset about a process that in one slaughterhouse is deemed to comply with some religious rule, but is almost identical to the process in another slaughterhouse (the secular butchers!) where no-one has the halal certificate.
Personally, as a meat eating atheist, I don't care. I do care about avoidable animal suffering.
I suppose your ISIS comment is the give away. It is such a dishonest and ludicrous comparison that it suggests that animal welfare is not your main concern.
I agree that all meat production is pretty grim, as a veggie though I think there should be a ban on non-stun slaughtering in abattoirs.
As for Jon's question..
"Is there any reason for carnivores to reject halal meat other than the stunning (animal welfare) concern?"
Religion?
"According to the 2011 UK census, Christianity is the major religion, followed by Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, Judaism and Buddhism in terms of number of adherents"
I really don't know the answer to this but do other religions care or get a say in it? what if Christians don't want their meat blessed by another god?
So I want to go to Pizza Express or have an Indian takeaway or go to certain Thai restaurants, where Halal is the sole meat on the menu, then my family have NO CHOICE.
I've been a vegetarian for over 30 years, so the animal rights matters a great deal to me as well as many others who may choose to eat meat.
I was in Bath recently and noticed a Halal sign at a Thai restaurant which hadn't been there in previous years.
I also popped into an Indian takeaway and asked if the meat they used was non Halal. They confirmed it was Halal meat. I asked that Halal is primarily used for 5% of the UK population (probably less in Bath), what about the rest of the population?
The man behind the counter (pleasant enough) stated that people aren't bothered about what they eat.
I find it sad that British apathy and indifference leads to the 5% to DICTATE what the rest of the population eats.
If Christians , along with Atheists and agnostics who despise or dislike Christianity (and surely ALL religions) and Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, etc. all shouted loud enough, would these companies revert back to non Halal meat ?
OR does Islam the vast majority of UK meat production and consumption ?
The very very very very simple answer to your question, if Christians shouted louder would these companies offer non-halal meat, is yes.
What choice do you have if you don't want halal but want pizza? Go somewhere else for your pizza.
If you really care about animal welfare, and I'm sure you do, you should be asking who they get their meat from instead of is it halal. There is plenty of non-halal meat available that is obtained in inhumane ways.
Regarding mass immigration of Muslims I have to ask how and why are they going to integrate into European societies, cultures, ways of life and beliefs.
We have Cardiff City fans having vastly different views on many things. City and Swansea fans or Newport fans.
We have indigenous people from different parts of Cardiff who have totally different values, culture, way of life and beliefs. These differences are spread throughout the UK.
We see the differences between some people from the Valleys and Cardiff.
We see the differences between the French, Germans, Swedes, Poles, Rumanians, Italians, British, yet we are from the same City, country or continent.
Look at the polarised views on Brexit and Trump/Clinton.
When we look at Muslims, Sunni, Shia, Wahabi and many others all have vastly differing views and beliefs.
When those who are concerned about immigration, ulterior motives and terrorism they will inevitably on the more extreme actions of the more extreme Muslims.
When those who aren't concerned, they will obviously focus on what appears to be the vast majority of non physically violent Muslims.
Looking at the history of Islam from hijrah (start of Islamic calendar) in 622 and from Muhammed's visitations from the Archangel Gabriel (Jibril), it is littered throughout it's history with violence, campaigns and efforts to rule where they can.
The Ottoman started in 1299 and ended in 1922, which was followed Ataturk's decision to make Turkey a secular country 1928.
The middle east, large parts of Africa and certain parts of Asia are poorly educated, have very low levels of literacy and are easily led.
Certain parts of their infra structures are still in the middle ages, with villages and many towns pretty much unchanged in centuries.
Even in major cities, the strength of Islam results in it being the ONLY way of life that many will have experienced.
Against these, and many more, backdrops is it any wonder that many Muslims from many of these countries will never even try to integrate with Western values, ways of life, cultures, beliefs. It is ALIEN to them. WE are alien to them.
I liken it to an extreme version of someone being in a coma or in jail for 40 years and being totally ill prepared for what modern society is and how their version of reality would be different to the new version.
I don't blame many of these Muslims for having a different version of reality to the Western version.
When we have such mass immigration, then it is IMPOSSIBLE to even try to integrate all. It is those who do not integrate that WE do not see, when we go to work, go to the pub, gym, library, etc.
They're the ones who are generally unseen and they are the vast majority in Europe, they go unnoticed by the general public.
They will still have massively strong identity of being a Muslim and due to many relying on others for communications, finances, work (in Islamic work places).
It is this unnoticed majority that have the potential to go from the lowest of the low in countries that are alien to them, to go to paradise as a servant of Allah when the time is required.
We are scratching the surface of what 'could' happen over the next few decades and so many in Europe are in denial, believing that there is NOTHING to worry about.
Apathy, denial and disbelief are dangerous allies to those who have sinister intentions towards the West.
I went out with a bird who worked in a halal slaughterhouse. She was stunning.
"Other than the animal welfare issue of stunning before slaughter is there any reason for you to condemn all halal meat - including the 85%+ that is slaughtered in a very similar way to non-halal meat? What else is 'cruel and unnecessary'?"
Why do I need other reasons? You seem to be suggesting that non-stunning is only small thing. How many animals are killed each year in the same way as shown the video? The answer is about 114 million. I find that horrifying. I've been a vegetarian for most of my life, but if an animal has been looked after and it dies without pain then that seems tolerable. What you can see in the video is not tolerable.
What are our leaders doing about it? Nothing, of course. Slimeball Cameron said the would keep halal "safe in Britain". In a 2015 debate in Parliament about religious slaughter only a few MPs seemed to show any concern for the rights of animals. It was mainly MPs speaking on behalf of their Muslim and Jewish constituents and also Jewish and Muslim MPs saying there was no real problem and all this talk about religious slaughter was just anti-semitism and "Islamaphobia". At one time religious slaughter was illegal in the UK but it just shows how some small but well-organised religious pressure groups can get their way.
Another sign of Muslims punching above their weight is halal certification which is just a money making racket to further the aims of Islam. Many of the big brands in the UK are jumping through hoops on this issue.
Only Muslims are allowed to slaughter the unfortunate creatures who end up in these slaughterhouses. So much for equal opportunities if you are mad enough to want a job killing animals. Eventually most lamb and beef will be halal in the UK.
David Vincent, as a vegetarian what do you think of the slaughter of non-halal meat in the UK?
As I have written above I have no problem as long as the animal has been well looked after and it feels no pain when it is killed. What Jon59 seems to be suggesting is that there is no difference between halal killing where the animal is not stunned and non-halal killing where it is stunned. He says the two processes are "almost identical". I suppose if your brain is made of wood and sawdust it is hard to notice differences and to make distinctions. The stunning makes a big difference. With halal killing the animal is awake - which is probably an unfamiliar concept to Jon59 - and with non-halal killing the animal is unconscious.
The strange thing about Jon59's post is that before he says the two forms of slaughter are almost identical he says he is opposed to killing without stunning. Why is he opposed if there's hardly any difference? This is what happens when you try to support illogical dangerous religious cults - you tie yourself up in knots and you make yourself look slow-witted.
I'm afraid that you are the one who looks slow-witted to anyone who is still following this. Jon was clearly referring to the ~85% of meat that is slaughtered by halal rules but also is stunned beforehand.
https://fullfact.org/news/stunned-sl...-meat-sold-uk/
Your misunderstandings of his post notwithstanding, I'm sure you'll read a terrible report like this and agree that cruelty is not unique to halal slaughter.
https://www.theguardian.com/environm...oirs-two-years
Edit: in case you can't be arsed to read it:
"Failures in the slaughter process were also highlighted, with thousands of instances of animals not being stunned properly and in some cases not stunned at all."
Last edited by lardy; 17-02-17 at 15:38.
Eric and Lardy have said it for me. You seem to have a real problem understanding simple English. I did not say 'there is no difference between halal killing where the animal is not stunned and non-halal killing where it is stunned' - quite the opposite. Let me try one last time:
Animals killed without being pre-stunned in either halal or non-halal abattoirs = wrong. Should be banned.
Animals killed after being stunned in either halal or non-halal abattoirs = right. Should be the standard all meet.
Is there any other reason (if not animal welfare) for you to object to halal slaughterhouses in the 85-90% of cases where they do stun the animal?
It is a genuine question. Are there other animal welfare concerns apart from stunning that we should think about? Or is the objection because these places are staffed by Muslims and comply with a religious requirement? I assume that is your concern (you haven't come up with any other animal welfare issues) and that is what Mrs Steve R suggested in one of her earlier posts. Is it a fear of 'creeping Islamisation' or something?
I don't personally have a problem with certificates or rituals that have no bearing on any pain or suffering of the animal or on the quality of the meat. If an Andean shaman wants to have a dance and bless a carcass in an abattoir that does not bother me at all. Same for any rituals that Muslims or Jews want to follow - with the caveat above. I don't share their beliefs (I don't have any religious beliefs) but they seem harmless to me and you haven't explained why they are not.
I am of the same view as Lardy. What counts is the welfare of animals in any slaughterhouse - whether halal or not. There are too many examples of cruelty and suffering in halal, kosher and other (probably the majority) slaughterhouses. That should be what gets people angry.
Edit: Just re-reading your post above you seem to be denying that any halal slaughterhouses stun animals before slaughter - that the definition of 'halal' is that they are not stunned. That is not true.
Last edited by jon1959; 17-02-17 at 16:32.
I don't read The Guardian unless I'm looking for fake news.
One method seems to be cruel in error and the other cruel in principle. At least with stunning - even if it doesn't work every time - an attempt is made to lessen suffering.
Muslims when they do stun do not use the more effective captive bolt method of stunning. They are not "almost identical" methods of stunning as Jon59 suggests. Many animals need to be given the electric shock method of stunning more than once. It is stressful and unnecessary. Jon59's line of argument is a red herring. He is trying to divert the argument away from the increased use of a cruel method of killing animals in the Uk to whether I am an Islamaphobe.
Another thing that is overlooked is that Muslims are only allowed to use religious slaughter for consumption by Muslims. They are deliberately overproducing halal meat.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/halal-and-kosher-slaughter
Last edited by David Vincent; 17-02-17 at 16:35.
Thanks for partly answering my question. So you are saying that the method of stunning in halal abattoirs is less effective and therefore more distressing/cruel than in non-halal abattoirs? If that is true it is a fair point. It isn't something that I have seen in any of the news reports on the controversy from 2014, including this (presumably 'fake news') item:
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeands...ughter-involve