Danish law

[xetog]

The Danish government has been accused of religious persecution after it banned the religious slaughter of animals for halal and kosher meat.  Why do we allow it here?   Although a only a limited eater of meat, I have long been concerned that the slaughter of animals should be carried out as humanely as possible.  If an abattoir were found to be killing animals by slashing their throat for any other than religious reasons, they would be prosecuted and rightly so.  So why do we continue to allow this barbaric practice to continue in the UK so that minorities can practice ritualistic slaughter, which means animals die slowly and in distress?  Apparently, stunning the animals first is not allowed, although it would mean that the poor creature would not be conscious as it dies.  Surely a nation cannot be considered civilised whilst such cruel and shameful practise can be carried out in the name of religion.
 
 
M.

[cheddar-caveman]

The practice is abhorrent! Why we, as a nation of supposedly animals lovers sanction this inhumane practise in our country, just to cater for a minority group I don't know. Last year KFC went over to Halal slaughtered chicken to get a few extra pounds in from the Muslim community, and I've never used them since.

[colin]

deleted double post

[colin]

Well done Denmark.

I often wonder if all animals are killed this way and we are not told.

Do the have to say it is “halal slaughtered” on the packaging.

[Granny49]

This is yet another one which is not as simple as it looks xetog.  I believe that, originally, throat cutting was the quickest and kindest way of killing.  There were no electrical stunners and if they were coshed to make the easy to handle they suffered twice; they still suffer twice if they are stunned.  This does not make it right but perhaps puts a different view on things.  The aim was to make the animals suffer as little as possible.

I have had to walk through a chicken factory quite frequently at one time.  They were stunned but I don't think that those, which when hung upside down on hooks were still fluttering, were in anyway unaware of what was happening.

To be honest you have to decide that if you are going to eat meat or not.  If you do there has to be a level of acceptance that it's not all lambs skipping in the fields.

[xetog]

G49.  I would be quite happy to live without eating meat, but think if animals have to be killed then it should be done as humanely as possible.  Whereas once the answer would have been by exsanguination because humane means of stunning the animals did not exist, it has now become a religious hangover from ancient times.  There are more humane methods and they should be enshrined in law, no matter what an individuals personal, religious hangovers.
 
 I too have seen chicken farms and am not at all happy about what the law allows, but unless the EU ensures it's laws are followed by other nations conditions will never improve.  During WW2 my grandmother kept chickens in the back garden and I watched them regularly having their necks wrung and running around for several minutes afterwards.  I do not know whether they were in pain or it was just their autonomic nervous system kicking in.  That having been said I am concerned about their treatment.
 
 
M.

[Citizen68]

All of this comes from a time, I feel, when animals were not given any consideration at all but were just there to fulfill the needs of Man. Nowadays, many of us give thoughts to the feelings of all living things, even plants, but don't believe everyone has caught up.

[Granny49]

The religious rules where made for exactly the opposite reason to what you have said Citizen68.  They say prayers to express their thanks for what the animal is doing for them (I may have expressed that badly) and they were told to kill in the least traumatic way that they knew at the time.  They may well have seemed much more civilised than people elsewhere when the rules were brought in.  Add to that the fact that many would argue about just what we put animals through when we do things in our "traditional" way is sometimes dubious and we would have to be careful not to damn out of hand something we have little knowledge of.

[granny bee]

The PC sensitivity adopted by our government toward so many aspects of the religious and cultural beliefs of those frpm far away countries now living here does at times appear to clash with the majorities take on things, which is usually ignored!

[Granny49]

But an open mind and a willingness to learn from and about others is surely a good thing Granny Bee or do you think we get everything right.

[xetog]

No, we clearly don't get everything right and we should be open to learning from others.  But where the majority decide that a certain system is best, that rule should apply to everyone.  I realise that I have made a statement that lays me wide open to examples where this is not true (hanging is a good instance), but in general the law should be made by consent of the majority.  In a caring society minorities do have to be catered for, but there are certain issues, such as animal welfare that should not be subject to religious whims.
 
 
M.

[cheddar-caveman]

Don't be too quick to praise the Danes, they are actually a pretty barbaric community. If you have a strong stomach, look at this horrific article where annually Dolphins are herded into a shallow bay so that the young men of the village can slaughter them by hand to "prove their manhood"! BEWARE.......it is horrific.....
http://rense.com/general88/barb.htm

[Citizen68]

We are back to that fundamental question: in society, should the will of the majority prevail, even if the majority appears to be 'wrong'? Should the majority be ruled by the wishes of a minority? We all have different attitudes to social and moral issues, of course, but not everyone can have their 'own way'. If the majority will is not to prevail, what guidelines should there be for making decisions, as a society is governed on the basis of rules drawn up which those who wish to 'belong' agree to abide by? If you can't, then surely you have to move on to find an alternative society which suits you better?

[xetog]

C68. I think I agree with what you say.  I had thought of moving to Spain, but once there I found that the rules did not agree with my ways, so I returned to the UK where I find that I can exist without too much conflict with my principles.  I very much support the rule of the majority,  I call that democracy.  We have a long record of welcoming foreigners to this country and often adapt our ways provided they do not clash with the majority view.  Many have come here however, with the idea that they can ride roughshod over our laws and the views of the majority.  We have a very particular conscience when it comes to animals and the ways that they are treated.  There is a body of law there to protect sentient creatures in various ways, and although it doesn't always work as we might like, when illegal treatment is demonstrated efforts are made to bring perpetrators to justice.  If the law decides that killing animal by slitting it's throat is acceptable, why not adopt it as due process?
 
 
M.

[Granny49]

I wasn't actually saying we should allow this way of killing animals for food just that, far from barbaric, it was specifically intended not to be by considerate and thoughtful people.  Yes, it's out of date but that happens in all societies.  Our society has changed over the millennia from the days when early man came out of Africa and changed the landscape, and presumably upset the indigenous Neanderthal population, by going from hunting to farming.  Changes have been made by incoming populations for ever and a day and some have been taken on by those who are already here and some not. 

As I say, I was not suggesting that the law should allow this but xetog's comment "so that minorities can practice ritualistic slaughter" seemed, at the very least to lack understanding and to be unhelpful if we are to resolve the issue.