View previous topic | View next topic

Halal and Kosher ban in NL

Page 1 of 3
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next

Posital
862539.  Sun Nov 06, 2011 5:22 pm Reply with quote

And no praying in the street in France. Or wearing a veil...

What's going on?

 
exnihilo
862542.  Sun Nov 06, 2011 5:33 pm Reply with quote

Strictly, it's only dhabiha and shechita that are now banned, which is to say the forms of slaughter. Halal and kosher are wider terms covering much more.

I understood the jury to still be out on the cruelty issue, at least insofar as them being no more cruel than the massive processing plants used for 'normal' slaughter.

It is inevitable that it will be banned in more places, though, and scientific evidence will have little to do with it. As for the veil, well I wouldn't wear one but if other people want to I'm not so sure the Government should tell them not to.

 
Gooische Vrijgezel
862665.  Mon Nov 07, 2011 5:04 am Reply with quote

Quote:
And no praying in the street in France. Or wearing a veil...

What's going on?


The Dutch ban is initiated by the political Party for the Animals. Let's assume they (left wing) care about animals instead of their own religions, unlike the French (right wing). Both like snails, but not exactly in the same way.

 
Southpaw
862687.  Mon Nov 07, 2011 7:22 am Reply with quote

Quote:
I understood the jury to still be out on the cruelty issue, at least insofar as them being no more cruel than the massive processing plants used for 'normal' slaughter.


Well, would you rather be conscious while you have your throat cut, allowing your life to ebb away, or be quickly shocked into insensibility beforehand? I know what I'd prefer.

I'm not saying that meat production isn't cruel in many ways, but some methods are crueller than others.

 
hassan el kebir
862728.  Mon Nov 07, 2011 11:31 am Reply with quote

I think I've had a witter about this subject before but, just in case I haven't, I shall stick my two penn'orth in now.

Modern factory slaughterhouses are not, I think we all agree, nice places. The huge demand for meat doesn't leave a lot of room for compassion, be the killing Halal, Kosher or otherwise. What is needed is a return to small, salughterhouses serving their own local areas or, even better, the farmer slaughtering on site where, if done properly is about as close to a stress free end for the beast as you can hope for.

Over the last few years I have seen rather a lot of sheep slaughtered and Halal is the fastest, kindest (if that's the appropriate word) manner of despatch that I've yet had the misfortune to witness.

OK, I've not seen larger beasts killed but for the smaller animals, they're quietly removed from the herd, given a last drink then they're on their backs and their throats cut through to the spine before they even realise that anything's happened to them. The speed and efficiency of the butchers is impressive.

So, from my experience, Hala slaughter is to be recommended not banned.

I should add my feelings have nothing to do with me being Muslim, it has everything to do with my feelings about the way animals are treated.

 
'yorz
862733.  Mon Nov 07, 2011 12:03 pm Reply with quote

Quote:
Well, would you rather be conscious while you have your throat cut, allowing your life to ebb away, or be quickly shocked into insensibility beforehand? I know what I'd prefer.

I wouldn't count that as a valid argument.
Animals don't lie on their backs thinking, "What's that bloke doing... o jeez, he's fetching a knife, AND HE'S COMING TOWARDS ME. MUMMY!".

Pro Halal

Wiki: In 1978, a study incorporating EEG (electroencephalograph) with electrodes surgically implanted on the skull of 17 sheep and 15 calves, and conducted by Wilhelm Schulze et al. at the University of Veterinary Medicine in Germany concluded that "the slaughter in the form of a ritual cut is, if carried out properly, painless in sheep and calves according to EEG recordings and the missing defensive actions" (of the animals) and that "For sheep, there were in part severe reactions both in bloodletting cut and the pain stimuli" when captive bolt stunning (CBS) was used. This study is cited by the German Constitutional Court in its permitting of dhabiha slaughtering.

A different witness statement
Quote:
Testimonial: As a very young lab technician 40 years ago, I was sent to a Kosher slaughter yard to obtain samples for comparative anatomy studies. I can say without reservation that the animals were terrified as they were driven one at a time into a device that turned them upside down to have their throats cut. They took between one and two minutes to die. I know that any sort of slaughter is inherently unpleasant, but the screams of these animals, and the sight of them in their death agonies has stayed with me all my life. To claim that the death is instantaneous and painless is a blatant lie. I cannot believe that anyone's God would demand such a barbaric practice.


So many different points of view, be they religion- or science-based, or sprouting from own conviction/experience.

All these are valid, in my view. The 'would you like that done to you?' - not.

 
Southpaw
862738.  Mon Nov 07, 2011 12:15 pm Reply with quote

I was thinking from an 'ability to feel pain' perspective, not the anticipation of said pain, or lack thereof. One study against the animal feeling pain does not conclusive proof make, and there is the interesting caveat of 'if properly done'.

 
masterfroggy
862749.  Mon Nov 07, 2011 12:40 pm Reply with quote

Southpaw wrote:
I was thinking from an 'ability to feel pain' perspective, not the anticipation of said pain, or lack thereof. One study against the animal feeling pain does not conclusive proof make, and there is the interesting caveat of 'if properly done'.

If done incorrectly the modern stunning method leaves an animal in intense pain but unable to move. Sometimes it take three attempts before the animal is stunned enough to be despatched, and if the animal is a pig, and the pig sticking is not done properly then they are left bleeding, in incredible pain before they are scalded to soften the hair ready for removal.

 
Neotenic
862752.  Mon Nov 07, 2011 12:46 pm Reply with quote

The evidence both for and against 'stunning' is, at best, muddled - but I can't help but think that if it was so humane, why don't Texan prison guards render a hefty thwack to the back of the head of the condemned before the lethal injection is administered?

 
masterfroggy
862755.  Mon Nov 07, 2011 12:49 pm Reply with quote

Neotenic wrote:
The evidence both for and against 'stunning' is, at best, muddled - but I can't help but think that if it was so humane, why don't Texan prison guards render a hefty thwack to the back of the head of the condemned before the lethal injection is administered?
The same reason you can put down a dog that is suffering, but not take away the pain of a human who is equally suffering.
Humans are sentient and cows/dogs/pigs/ fluffy llamas are not.

 
suze
862759.  Mon Nov 07, 2011 12:56 pm Reply with quote

Neotenic wrote:
I can't help but think that if it was so humane, why don't Texan prison guards render a hefty thwack to the back of the head of the condemned before the lethal injection is administered?


In effect, they do - the first drug administered is a powerful anesthetic. The drugs which cause death are administered once that has taken effect and the person being executed is unconscious.

We might baulk at the idea of eating animals which have been injected with dangerous drugs, so they do it differently when it comes to slaughtering animals for the table.

 
masterfroggy
862760.  Mon Nov 07, 2011 1:02 pm Reply with quote

suze wrote:

We might baulk at the idea of eating animals which have been injected with dangerous drugs.
snip
Yet people drink Milk...

 
aTao
862793.  Mon Nov 07, 2011 2:22 pm Reply with quote

Neotenic wrote:
The evidence both for and against 'stunning' is, at best, muddled - but I can't help but think that if it was so humane, why don't Texan prison guards render a hefty thwack to the back of the head of the condemned before the lethal injection is administered?


The reason is much the same as that which (some) use to prohibit stunning before ritual slaughter. That is that it is possible that the stun process does in fact kill. The problems that then arise are that the slaughter is no longer blessed and the executioner commits murder since killing with a thwack about the head is not a recognised method of execution (it often fails to kill)

 
Gooische Vrijgezel
862831.  Mon Nov 07, 2011 4:08 pm Reply with quote

hassan el kebir wrote:
Modern factory slaughterhouses are not, I think we all agree, nice places. The huge demand for meat doesn't leave a lot of room for compassion


Modern factories already may be compliant with e.g. Halal, so their meat they processed can be sold to more people. A professional appearing in an episode of a very left wing Dutch tv show explained (in 2004'ish) that at least all veal, processed in the Netherlands, is Halal. The same applies to cheese. The huge demand for meat made it possible, but of course you'll have to pay extra for meat with a Halal-label. Especially cheap lamb Doener Kebab or Shoarma rarely is Halal and can even consist of 100% pig meat (website of that episode in Dutch, their "research" resulted in exactly one example that wasn't haram).

 
Spud McLaren
862858.  Mon Nov 07, 2011 7:11 pm Reply with quote

masterfroggy wrote:
Humans are sentient and cows/dogs/pigs/ fluffy llamas are not.
What on earth brings you to that conclusion? If you had said self-aware instead of sentient, you'd have an arguable case. But you didn't.

 

Page 1 of 3
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group