The problem(s) with banning non-stun slaughter

In previous writings I’ve joined the chorus in calling for a ban on non-stun slaughter (as part of a wider hostile environment policy). The question, though, is whether it will work. After some debate, I’m not convinced that it will.

If I was going to author such a policy, I wouldn’t start from there. I would look at a more general meat industry policy, as an adjunct of agriculture, recognising that the meat industry itself is under threat. We’re now in the final stages of a thirty year trend where slaughterhouses are going under thanks to onerous regulation.

This is something I’ve written about dozens of times, and it’s something that should have been addressed immediately after Brexit. Policy should emphasise rebuilding small, local slaughterhouses.

I say this because you cannot talk about banning non-stun slaughter on animal welfare grounds when you’re increasingly having to transport animals over long distances to then have to wait in a queue at the slaughterhouse behind four other lorries. Those who are really serious about animal welfare in slaughterhouses need to look at the practice of employing poorly-trained foreign vets (often with limited language skills and no enforcement experience) to supervise welfare conditions.

I’m also of the view that if we ban non-stun slaughter, it will lead to a rise in clandestine backstreet slaughter operations - which is already a problem and is linked to large scale livestock theft. It may also lead to smuggled meat imports through Dover - for which we would have to implement even more stringent border inspection systems.

Ultimately, even if you deported one million Muslims, that would still leave three million. Islam is here to stay for the foreseeable future. You thus have a choice of accommodating halal, or driving it underground, presenting major challenges for enforcement (with a severe adverse impact for a huge number of animals).

The practical alternatives are to insist on mechanical slaughter (which will increase the price and help to disincentivise halal), and insist on labelling, plus better welfare enforcement in abattoirs. The question is whether we are genuinely concerned with animal welfare or are just proposing a ban as a stick with which to beat Muslims. As a matter of public policy you can compel councils to default to stunned meat in schools and hospitals, and insist that halal/kosher is conducted in specially built licenced slaughterhouses but an outright ban is both vindictive and counterproductive.

In a tweet this week, t’other North notes: “As a qualified EHO/meat inspector (now retired) I have worked extensively in slaughterhouses and visited over a hundred up and down the country. And, unlike many pundits, I have actually witnessed ritual slaughter - manual and mechanical. With that experience, I can attest that mechanical devices such as these (pictured) are at least equivalent to non-ritual slaughter in terms of handling and welfare when dealing with large animals. A similar device needs to be produced for "smalls".

With better regulation, and better enforcement, we stand a chance of combatting the already problematic practice of backstreet slaughter where we see the worst abuses. I’m all for hostile environment measures as part of a remigration policy but the problem with banning non-stun slaughter (as a standalone policy) is the same problem we see with many other policies from the slop right. Ideologues lack the ability to make their policies useful to people who don’t share their obsessions (the average normie who doesn’t care what’s in their curry after nine pints).

A broader reform of the meat industry not only saves it from oblivion, it will go along way to improving animal welfare standards overall. If, though, you show no interest in that then your policy is just about punishing Muslims and Jews. If that’s your intent then just say so instead of pretending it’s about animal welfare. People on both sides of the debate will appreciate the honesty.