'Dutch ban religious slaughter' - time to do the same here?

Re: 'Dutch ban religious slaughter' - time to do the same here?

Martin Atkinson — Fri, 01 Jul 2011 15:44:37 GMT

I do often start a debate playing Devil's Advocate with the intention of opening Pandora's Box but not on this occasion so as we have invoked Godwin's Law, as the OP, can I repectfully ask that we now cease hostility before some says something they truly regret, this is not the place for this sort of debate any longer.

Re: 'Dutch ban religious slaughter' - time to do the same here?

Gerry Henry — Fri, 01 Jul 2011 12:26:53 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]

[quote user="Gerry Henry"]Funny how people who stand for pluralism and tolerance against neanderthal religious bigots are branded fascist. [/quote]

Uh oh.. I can feel my right arm twitching.

and then there's the rest of Mr Henry's posting - see how it has changed and now has not one word about slaughter? This is an issue that is linked to politics and if you are content to be associated with the Animal Rights and Nationalist extremists then you can kiss goodbye to your credibility and recognised objectivity as a veterinary surgeon. Your choice.

JGW

[/quote]

My post never mentioned ritual slaughter, it hasn't changed since I posted it last night. It concerns itself with careless, lazy comment which tars and smears all of the modern Dutch resistance with the same brush. I'm sure it ups your 'right on' cred to bandy expressions like 'fascist' but Theo Van Gogh was no fascist, neither was Pim Fortuyn, neither is Wilders. Van Gogh and Fortuyn were murdered for expressing opinions that were profoundly decent, tolerant and liberal, i.e. typically Dutch.

On a purely historical point there were only two truly fascist parties in western europe in the 20th century, Mussolini's Fasisti and Primo De Rivera's Falange neither of which were remotely racist. Hilter's nationalist socialist party was profoundly rascist but it wasn't fascist. Type less, think more.

Re: 'Dutch ban religious slaughter' - time to do the same here?

Niall Taylor — Fri, 01 Jul 2011 12:07:41 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"] For those of a less excitable demeanour there is this

http://www.fve.org/news/position_papers/animal_welfare/fve_02_104_slaughter_prior_stunning.pdf

JGW[/quote]

"FVE is of the opinion that from an animal welfare point of view, and out of respect for an animal as a sentient being, the practice of slaughtering animals without prior stunning is unacceptable under any circumstances..."

No issue with that really... Pretty much reflects the tone of many of the posts here.

Niall

Re: 'Dutch ban religious slaughter' - time to do the same here?

Clive Ansell — Fri, 01 Jul 2011 11:51:17 GMT

[quote user="bob lehner"]

[quote user="mariette asselbergs"] The big issue in our so-called civilisation is exactly this enormous lack of respect for animal life, the industrial processing of animals for meat as if they are just things with all the so-called welfare regulated but not felt. [/quote]

Couldn't agree more - industrialised meat production is vile. Personally I haven't eaten meat for very many years - mainly based on unpleasant experiences in abbatoirs/chicken processing factories whilst I was a student.

Humans don't need to eat meat. It's a waste of the world's resources. Ban it and the question of ritual slaughter etc will disappear.

Sadly pigs might also fly.

[/quote]

I totally agree that industrialised meat production is abhorrent, but sadly whilst there is a demand for a cheap protein source (My partner recently told me she had seen chickens in Tesco for 99p!) for the masses, and for vast profits for supermarkets it ain't gonna stop any time soon.

Not sure I undersatnd how is it a waste of world resources?

I enjoy eating meat and have no plans to stop, but I do eat less these days and I buy almost all of it from local farm shops. It is produced, butchered (20 miles from farm) and sold locally, that way I know at least the animals have led a fairly normal outdoor life, and local farmers are kept in business.

Ragley estate meats

Rhug estate food

As for the OP, yes I do think religious slaughter should be stopped.

Re: 'Dutch ban religious slaughter' - time to do the same here?

Mark Holmes — Fri, 01 Jul 2011 11:19:35 GMT

[quote user="bob lehner"]

[quote user="Mark Holmes"]Yes they do, vegetables don't curry anything like so well.[/quote]

Curry was only invented to disguise the smell and taste of rotting meat !

[/quote] They overachieved.

Anyway whilst humans can manage without meat they find it much more difficult to live as vegans. Hence the vegetarian paradox.

Re: 'Dutch ban religious slaughter' - time to do the same here?

bob lehner — Fri, 01 Jul 2011 10:46:23 GMT

[quote user="Mark Holmes"]Yes they do, vegetables don't curry anything like so well.[/quote]

Curry was only invented to disguise the smell and taste of rotting meat !

Re: 'Dutch ban religious slaughter' - time to do the same here?

Tim Cheyne — Fri, 01 Jul 2011 10:37:45 GMT

Oh, dear, this is a difficult one, especially as all the meat that I eat is Halal, whether chicken, beef, mutton, camel, local or imported. The alternatives are to become vegetarian or starve. I have seen Halal slaughter done neatly and cleanly with apparently little suffering; I have also seen it done clumsily and repulsively just as I have seen abhorrent practices in some UK abattoirs.

I favour pre-stunning and, many years ago when part of my remit was to teach and discuss methods of slaughter, a representative from Accles and Shelvoke (makers of the Cash Captive Bolt Pistol) told me that he was soon to go to Egypt to demonstrate a percussion stunner in front of the President. Unfortunately (for many of the prospective participants) the assassination of the then President prevented the demonstration. Had the use of the stunner been approved it would have been a major step forward in an influential Arab country.

Islamic conservatism is well-entrenched in communities and tribal and peer pressures prevent individuals from stepping out of line although, away from such observation and pressures, I have known many Muslims enjoy their bacon and eggs and a tot of whisky. It is not easy to change a communal mindset. I once commented to a well-educated friend of mine that I regarded the Bible as a vast parable capable of being interpreted in the light of circumstances; immediately he snapped "The Koran is not." and never discussed any religious subject with me again.

It is easy to say, as I and others have done "If they live in our country they must obey our laws," Fair enough (I have to do that here) but it is a glib statement and not a solution of the present problem. As a previous poster has commented, the laws for Jewish and Islamic slaughter had a solid public health foundation at that time but times have changed and today the main concern is avoiding trauma and adequate bleeding of the carcase. I believe that the use of a Captive Bolt pistol raises the blood pressure and improves exsanguination when done rapidly. I had an example in the Peruvian Andes where I persuaded the slaughtermen to use a Cash pistol instead of the punctilio (severing the cervical spinal cord). They loved it! Apart from the macho image of the gun, they claimed quite spontaneously that it produced a better-bled carcase. I wonder whether pre-stunning methods have the same effect. If they do, the difficulty comes in persuading the minorities that is so and that it does not conflict with religious beliefs.

Tim.

Re: 'Dutch ban religious slaughter' - time to do the same here?

Mark Holmes — Fri, 01 Jul 2011 10:28:55 GMT

[quote user="bob lehner"]Humans don't need to eat meat.[/quote]

Yes they do, vegetables don't curry anything like so well.

Re: 'Dutch ban religious slaughter' - time to do the same here?

bob lehner — Fri, 01 Jul 2011 09:52:39 GMT

Humans don't need to eat meat. It's a waste of the world's resources. Ban it and the question of ritual slaughter etc will disappear.

Sadly pigs might also fly.

Re: 'Dutch ban religious slaughter' - time to do the same here?

Martin Atkinson — Fri, 01 Jul 2011 09:29:15 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]Wow and I thought all I was doing was passing on some information I read in the paper this morning. [/quote]

For those of a less excitable demeanour there is this

http://www.fve.org/news/position_papers/animal_welfare/fve_02_104_slaughter_prior_stunning.pdf

JGW

[/quote]

The pot calling the kettle black? My OP was probably the least exitable post in the whole thread. I expressed an opinion based on a newspaper article I skimmed that I disagreed with ritual slaughter and agreed with a third party's comment that no-one's beliefs gives them licence to harm another living organism. If that got others hot under the collar and they wished to express their opinion merely illustrates the value of debate in a free and democratic secular society - interpret that as you wish.

Re: 'Dutch ban religious slaughter' - time to do the same here?

J G Wray — Fri, 01 Jul 2011 08:42:06 GMT

[quote user="Niall Taylor"]If Hitler was a vegetarian does that make all vegetarians fascist by association? In fact the third Reich were great proponents of homeopathy but, much as I object to it, you don't see me or any other sceptics arguing that is a legitimate reason for people not to practice it - that would be plain silly![/quote]

Oh dear. You know you're missing a point here. You are naive if you believe that the sheer force of argument for pre stunning is going to change society's views to such an extent that the enabling legislation will be taken up by any party and implemented. It will only happen through a political process and at the moment, and historically, this is inextricably linked to political nutters, who appear to have sympathisers on this list......

The profession should engage politically, but in a way that is sensitive to the political shenannigans that could take it off track. The Royal Dutch Veterinary Society are having a testing time wrestling with this at the moment. They've appeared to have been given what they want wrapped up by the nutters. That's almost a poisoned chalice - geddit?

JGW

Re: 'Dutch ban religious slaughter' - time to do the same here?

Niall Taylor — Fri, 01 Jul 2011 07:51:19 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"] Suggest engage brain before contacting keyboard.[/quote]

Cute .

If you want to argue against using legislation to impose change on religious practice fair enough but don't suggest that anyone should withdraw a legitimate objection to an inhumane practice done in the name of religion simply because obnoxious people also want the same thing for different reasons. Objecting to religious slaughter on welfare grounds doesn't make anyone a fascist or an animal rights extremist by association and neither would it make any veterinary bodies who opposed such practices in the UK. If Hitler was a vegetarian does that make all vegetarians fascist by association? In fact the third Reich were great proponents of homeopathy but, much as I object to it, you don't see me or any other sceptics arguing that is a legitimate reason for people not to practice it - that would be plain silly!

People are more discerning than you seem to give them credit for and it would do the profession infinitely more harm (if the situation arose in this country) if it were to stand on the sidelines, nose in air, making statements about not getting involved in politics. It could be argued that it ought to be the place of the profession to lend an authoritative and rational voice to the debate in order that the agenda doesn't get completely hijacked by nutters.

Niall

Re: 'Dutch ban religious slaughter' - time to do the same here?

J G Wray — Fri, 01 Jul 2011 07:18:31 GMT

[quote user="Gerry Henry"]Funny how people who stand for pluralism and tolerance against neanderthal religious bigots are branded fascist. [/quote]

Uh oh.. I can feel my right arm twitching.

JGW

Re: 'Dutch ban religious slaughter' - time to do the same here?

Mark Holmes — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 23:19:38 GMT

As I said earlier. That it is done well however it is done is more important than the issue of stunning for me. Given the choice between no stun slaughter respectfully done at a small quiet local abattoir or a long road trip to a large commercial abattoir I would prefer the first. My concern is that the fact that an animal is stunned creates a culture of complacency with regards to the rest of the process. Clearly stunning plus all the other factors together would be best of all but given where we are today, if I only had the opportunity to change one thing. I would bring back the local abattoir. They would stun obviously. But I would do that over banning the relatively small amount of no stun slaughter currently performed.

Re: 'Dutch ban religious slaughter' - time to do the same here?

Gerry Henry — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 22:44:19 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]

[quote user="mariette asselbergs"]I am not religious myself at all, but in this Dutch case I know the infamous guy Wilders with his rabid anti-islamism has joined up with the political animal rights party on this issue, and I don't think his motivation is animal welfare at all.[/quote]

Dr Asselbergs makes the point I was alluding to earlier. The discussion about the animal welfare aspects of slaughter without (adequate) pre stunning will always, always, become entangled in the religion question. This is because this will only ever be settled in a political arena.

If, as a vet, and the points already made have come from veterinary surgeons, you are intellectually able to divorce the merits of pre stunning from the faith aspects of slaughter then that is fine. However, if you believe, even for one second that your arguments are so overwhelming that they will precipitate inevitable social change then you are deeply naive. How does that feel? Changes will take place only if the political climate is conducive to change.

In Holland the tiny 2 seat Animal Rights Party holds disproportionate influence in a multiparty Parliament with narrow majorities. Backed by the vile neo-Fascists it has pushed through this Bill. The link between ban on slaughter without pre-stunning - the actual Bill and not as reported by Mr A from skimming the Daily Telegraph - and extremism, both to Animal Rights activists and the Right is made.

As Mr Wedderburn pointed out in the same errr paper a few weeks ago when reviewing a recent rehash of an earlier book, the banning of this type of slaughter on animal welfare grounds was first championed by the National Socialists in 1930s Germany. Historically the link is there as well.

Loud and emphatic language in support of the Dutch move will become inextricably linked to holding the same views in general as the proponents of the Bill. It is naive (sic) to believe that society, the media and pliticians will accept that vets hold a "purist", secular view unencumbered by the revolting other stuff - if you shout about it and want reform at a stroke.

Now, there may be some who do agree with Animal Rights or Fascist agenda as well, but I don't.

I posted this on the BVA website after another vet who didn't think it through, because BVA will be the ones representing the profession in this respect:

"..I don't want the BVA to be dragged into something as politically fraught as this by ranters. I would like to see some cool and tolerant and politically savvy types in charge who set about the task of achieving universal adoption of pre stunning by small incremental agreements..."

[/quote]

Presumably Geet Wilders and his Freedom Party are the 'vile fascists'. Funny how people who stand for pluralism and tolerance against neanderthal religious bigots are branded fascist. I presume you think Theo Van Gogh or indeed anyone who questions (in Theo's case, questioned, past tense, he was murdered for his fascist views http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_(film_director)#Submission ) the more barbarous aspects of islam are fascist too or were you just getting your cringe in first?

Re: 'Dutch ban religious slaughter' - time to do the same here?

mariette asselbergs — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 22:18:21 GMT

Yes Richard,

I have worked in slaughterhouses, and in African villages,and have slaughtered my own animals and I agree completely with you. The big issue in our so-called civilisation is exactly this enormous lack of respect for animal life, the industrial processing of animals for meat as if they are just things with all the so-called welfare regulated but not felt.

Mariette

Re: 'Dutch ban religious slaughter' - time to do the same here?

Richard Carter — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 22:05:36 GMT

There are probably fine points of difference in the definitions but in South Africa where most meat consumed is going through large export level abattoirs the clever people got together and decided that the blessing part was the important bit and so all meat is halal and kosher and is stunned prior to slaughter (or was when I was there). Don't know why there is such resistance to stunning.

Having said that the terror in the animals faces when being forced into races with blood, noise, people, the industrial machine swinging into action and the 100's to 1000's processed per day and the inevitable disasters where the stunning failed but the conveyor system still working makes me far more against the mega-abattoir system as such and much more in favour of the village slaughter pole where one or two animals are cleanly dispatched with care and some compassion and are known to be dead before dismembering.

Re: 'Dutch ban religious slaughter' - time to do the same here?

J G Wray — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 19:51:58 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]Wow and I thought all I was doing was passing on some information I read in the paper this morning. [/quote]

For those of a less excitable demeanour there is this

http://www.fve.org/news/position_papers/animal_welfare/fve_02_104_slaughter_prior_stunning.pdf

JGW

Re: 'Dutch ban religious slaughter' - time to do the same here?

Martin Atkinson — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 18:44:26 GMT

Wow and I thought all I was doing was passing on some information I read in the paper this morning. Carry on this is fun......

Re: 'Dutch ban religious slaughter' - time to do the same here?

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 18:24:50 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]The spokesperson of the animal right's group came up with the most succinct reposte to that and said, 'religious freedom stops when humans and animals start to get hurt'[/quote]

Funny that. Animal rights groups cheerfully release mink into the countryside, steal cats from their happy settled colony homes, dig up people's mothers graves, beat up people with baseball bats.............

Re: 'Dutch ban religious slaughter' - time to do the same here?

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 17:54:56 GMT

The tone of this thread was set by the original post:

triumphal crowing of an atheist over the defeat of the wicked people who hold deep religious belief.

Just for once I am in full........ well no, that would be a bit much, say 90%........... agreement with Mr. Wray.

Suggest engage brain before contacting keyboard.

Re: 'Dutch ban religious slaughter' - time to do the same here?

Thomas Johnson — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 15:33:04 GMT

My understanding is that some muslim groups will accept stunning of animals before slaughter for halal meat if the animal would be able to recover from the stunning, the arguement being that it is unconscious but still alve when its throat is slit.

Re: 'Dutch ban religious slaughter' - time to do the same here?

Charlotte Marshall — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 15:30:51 GMT

As I understand it quite a few muslim authorities in the UK will accept stunning pre slaughter for halal meat. I don't know what proportion of halal meat on the UK market is or isn't prestunned. As far as I am aware pre stunning for kosher meat is not accepted at all.

Re: 'Dutch ban religious slaughter' - time to do the same here?

J G Wray — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 15:17:22 GMT

Now, there may be some who do agree with Animal Rights or Fascist agenda as well, but I don't.

I posted this on the BVA website after another vet who didn't think it through, because BVA will be the ones representing the profession in this respect:

Re: 'Dutch ban religious slaughter' - time to do the same here?

Niall Taylor — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 14:49:49 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]... reading the God Delusion could have been enough to make me religious as Dawkins is preaching fundamentalist atheism which almost as bad.[/quote]

Well, not quite as bad as some of the practices carried out in the name of religion, I've never heard Dawkins calling for non-athiests to be murdered for example, but I am inclined to agree somewhat that Dawkins takes the whole thing a bit far. At one point he seems to suggest that common-or-garden churchgoers like my little old mum are responsible for the rise in global religious terrorism - I don't think so really!

Niall