Boris Johnson's father calls for 'cruel' halal meat ban

[TomSea]

Boris Johnson's father calls for 'cruel' halal meat ban
Tom Powell


Concerned: Stanley Johnson holds the RSPCA’s Richard Martin Award for Outstanding Services to Animal Welfare ( Mary Turner/Getty Images )

The father of foreign secretary Boris Johnson has called for “cruel” halal meat to be either labelled or banned.

Stanley Johnson, a former Conservative MEP, author and journalist, wrote in the Independent that he would be “happy to see” halal meat excluded from the UK after leaving the EU.

Currently, there is a “religious exception” to the EU’s 2009 Slaughter Regulation requiring all animals to be stunned before slaughter.

This allows for halal meat, a market worth £2.6bn in Britain alone, to be killed by hand without being stunned first.

Read more at: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/boris-johnsons-father-calls-for-cruel-halal-meat-to-be-either-banned-or-labelled-a3316376.html

RSPCA, Royal Society Prevention for Cruelty To Animals award winner, he must know of what he talks. I've looked into the matter some. You need to know a few things but I think he's probably right. I don't know about Kosher, etc. I think it is more humane.

[thackney]

RSPCA, Royal Society Prevention for Cruelty To Animals award winner, he must know of what he talks. I've looked into the matter some. You need to know a few things but I think he's probably right. I don't know about Kosher, etc. I think it is more humane.

Kosher is the same rule and exception to law.

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/222246/jewish/Whats-Wrong-with-Stunning.htm

"Stunning" refers to the methods of attempting to render an animal or bird unconscious prior to slaughter....

These methods are contrary to Jewish law, because an animal intended for food must be healthy and uninjured at the time of shechita. The above stunning methods injure the animal, making it treifa (non-kosher and thus prohibited). If the stunning kills the animal it makes it neveila (an animal which has not been shechted) and is forbidden as food for Jews....

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/halal-and-kosher-slaughter

[bigheadfred]

Ban moslems. Send them back to the sh**holes they came from. Problem(s) solved.

[thackney]

Ban moslems. Send them back to the sh**holes they came from. Problem(s) solved.

And the jews?

[bigheadfred]

And the jews?

Just start with the moslems.

[PeteS in CA]

Kosher is the same rule and exception to law.

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/222246/jewish/Whats-Wrong-with-Stunning.htm

"Stunning" refers to the methods of attempting to render an animal or bird unconscious prior to slaughter....

These methods are contrary to Jewish law, because an animal intended for food must be healthy and uninjured at the time of shechita. The above stunning methods injure the animal, making it treifa (non-kosher and thus prohibited). If the stunning kills the animal it makes it neveila (an animal which has not been shechted) and is forbidden as food for Jews....

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/halal-and-kosher-slaughter

Thanks, @thackney. IIRC, the requirements for kosher slaughtering require different measures to mitigate/prevent the animal from experiencing pain. IMO, this EU reg was antisemitic - i.e. anti-Jewish - in it original intent, but happened to ensnare Islamic halal butchering as well.

[Fishrrman]

I've got no problems with banning halal slaughter.

If kosher requires the same, quite frankly, I would be happy to see that banned, as well.

Too bad.

[bigheadfred]

Maybe there were people who complained about how Jewish people slaughtered animals for food. But they (the Jews) weren't in the stores forcing the stores to follow their standards. They weren't in the government passing laws forcing everybody to comply. And they sure as F*** weren't out in the street chopping your head off.

Ban moslems. 1.8 BILLION of the worthless bastards.

15 million Jews.

[Neverdul]

Just start with the moslems.

So the Jews should or could be banned after we're done banning the Muslims? The "moslems" are just the start?  All-righty (ALT-Righty or ALT-Ternatively - or how ALT-Whitey of you ) then.

Next let's go after those damned Amish. FWIW, I have no problem with the Amish in general, unless you consider the puppy mills they run and how they (or some of them) treat their horses.

Then again the Indians (those from and in India - the Dot Indians, not the Feathered Indians) love them their cows, but of course not to eat. So much so that in India, vigilante Hindu's are beating Muslims, in some cases beating them to death for eating cows or even just transporting beef or in some case just being suspected of this "crime". And the current government in India (Modi - a "nationalist" who proudly models himself after Trump) declines to prosecute these cases. 

But hey, it's all good because (at least for now) it's only about just those bloody Muslims. 

It's not as if history doesn't teaches us that these things tend to "bleed" over to other groups we don't like for one reason or another. No?

And as we know, every single Muslim is a terrorist and is a mass murderer or a potential mass murderer. 

You know, just like every Jew is....

[roamer_1]

All y'all have never slaughtered anything, right?

[bigheadfred]

So the Jews should or could be banned after we're done banning the Muslims? The "moslems" are just the start?  All-righty (ALT-Righty or ALT-Ternatively - or how ALT-Whitey of you ) then.

Next let's go after those damned Amish. FWIW, I have no problem with the Amish in general, unless you consider the puppy mills they run and how they (or some of them) treat their horses.

Then again the Indians (those from and in India - the Dot Indians, not the Feathered Indians) love them their cows, but of course not to eat. So much so that in India, vigilante Hindu's are beating Muslims, in some cases beating them to death for eating cows or even just transporting beef or in some case just being suspected of this "crime". And the current government in India (Modi - a "nationalist" who proudly models himself after Trump) declines to prosecute these cases. 

But hey, it's all good because (at least for now) it's only about just those bloody Muslims. 

It's not as if history doesn't teaches us that these things tend to "bleed" over to other groups we don't like for one reason or another. No?

And as we know, every single Muslim is a terrorist and is a mass murderer or a potential mass murderer. 

You know, just like every Jew is....

What history? 

The one that is currently in favor?

The one that isn't going to include you except as a footnote?

[bigheadfred]

All y'all have never slaughtered anything, right?

Everything. From bugs to people. Completely without fear or hurt/pain whenever possible to the about to be dead. Except for the magnifying glass thing.

[bigheadfred]

Brainwashed.

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,372908.msg2038767.html#msg2038767

[roamer_1]

Everything. From bugs to people. Completely without fear or hurt/pain whenever possible to the about to be dead. Except for the magnifying glass thing.

Good. A corroborating expert opinion. How long does it take your average chicken/turkey/goat/deer to succumb to the coup de gras (considering of course a reasonably adept hand)?

[roamer_1]

It's literally seconds folks, till the light goes out of the eye.
I can't speak to halal standards, but the Jews slaughter by the knife as an act of mercy. And they may have a point. It's quick.

[bigheadfred]

Good. A corroborating expert opinion. How long does it take your average chicken/turkey/goat/deer to succumb to the coup de gras (considering of course a reasonably adept hand)?

Distant and feet per second. Say a .22 at 5 feet at a low-end 1000 FPS. .005 seconds. A couple milliseconds longer if you want to include barrel length.

If you are shooting anything in the head that is unaware of your presence, time is not a factor. It never knew what hit them.

[roamer_1]

Distant and feet per second. Say a .22 at 5 feet at a low-end 1000 FPS. .005 seconds. A couple milliseconds longer if you want to include barrel length.

If you are shooting anything in the head that is unaware of your presence, time is not a factor. It never knew what hit them.

Nope. I know that. I mean, the knife.

[roamer_1]

I have not put down anything bigger than a goat/deer without shooting it first... But cutting the throat is pretty standard in fowl and small ungulates (sheep/goats)

We do kill cones for chickens and turkeys, and the lights are out almost immediately. You cut the throat, the blood runs out and the brain shuts off right away. Done. Way more calm, way less awareness than the chopping block, and the effect is exactly the same.

Same thing with sheep and goats. It's over right now. the lights are out immediately. The body struggles a while longer on autopilot, but nobody is home.

[bigheadfred]

Depends on the distance you have to travel. I don't if you can count chickens and turkeys or other domesticated birds. Other animals, like a pig, gets a pan of yummies to distract it before .22 slug stuns it with a point blank shot to the brain. Then the knife cut bleeds it out while the heart is still fibrillating.

[roamer_1]

Depends on the distance you have to travel. I don't if you can count chickens and turkeys or other domesticated birds. Other animals, like a pig, gets a pan of yummies to distract it before .22 slug stuns it with a point blank shot to the brain. Then the knife cut bleeds it out while the heart is still fibrillating.

Yeah, like I said, I ain't killed pigs or cows without the bullet... But I expect the effect is the same as everything else.

The point being people getting all bent out of shape because of knife slaughter, but that's how it is done, and has been done for thousands of years.

[bigheadfred]

Yeah, like I said, I ain't killed pigs or cows without the bullet... But I expect the effect is the same as everything else.

The point being people getting all bent out of shape because of knife slaughter, but that's how it is done, and has been done for thousands of years.

Creeping Sharia. That is all it is about.

We used to catch a chicken and holding its head between a couple of fingers gave it a swing that ripped its head off. 

[roamer_1]

Creeping Sharia. That is all it is about.

We used to catch a chicken and holding its head between a couple of fingers gave it a swing that ripped its head off. 

Yeah, I have done that too. Kill cones are a way better way... And you get to collect the blood for the garden.

The one that gets me is quail...You just take the head off with scissors. I know it's the same thing, but somehow, it's creepy with the scissors... 

[thackney]

All y'all have never slaughtered anything, right?

Some of us have hunted, killed, slaughtered, cooked and eaten their own meat.  And I intend to continue to do so.

[mountaineer]

Is this the way to do it?

Credit: The Sun

[mountaineer]

Don't be a hater!

Student disqualified for criticising halal meat
Published: August 21st, 2019
Tim Dieppe comments on the recent disqualification of a student’s GCSE Religious Studies exam paper simply for criticising halal meat.

A 16-year-old vegetarian student was disqualified for “obscene racial comments” when she made observations about halal meat in her Religious Studies exam in June.

The Sunday Telegraph reported that Abigail Ward was informed by exam board OCR that she had committed a “malpractice offence” and would be disqualified from the GCSE “due to obscene racial comments being made throughout her exam paper.” Her school appealed the decision, explaining that she is a strict vegetarian and that her comment “which I find absolutely disgusting” related to her finding halal butchers disgusting because she is vegetarian. The school explained that no other comments in the paper that could be construed as racist.

The exam board upheld the appeal and apologised for the “upset and stress” accepting that their original letter “describing the frequency and severity of the comments was inaccurate.”

The exam board explained: “OCR takes all incidences of suspected offensive material against a religious group in exams very seriously and must apply rules which are set out for all exam boards in such cases.”

"We accept that initially we did not reach the right conclusion and were too harsh.”
 
Why did this happen?

This incident raises some serious questions. Why did any examiner consider that remarks about halal meat were not only racist but obscenely racist? In fact, so racist that the student should face the extremely harsh penalty of disqualification?

There was actually nothing in her paper that could be construed as racist, as the school said on appeal and which the exam board later accepted. Criticising halal meat is not racist. It is not even criticising all Muslims, though it may have escaped the examiner’s notice that Muslims are not a race.  ...

More