Pete, while I always appreciate your articles and analysis, I would really appreciate your solutions.
I have been campaigning to ban hala,l at best label it. Investigating supermarkets is a mission as they obfiscate. They do not differentiate between full stun and stun. There is a distinct difference.
Christians, Sikh and Hindu are forbidden in their scriptures to eat halal. The method of slaughter is totally inhumane and should be stopped.
If Halal and Kosher wish to eat that way, go ahead and import. There are other countries that have done it. Why not us?
Just because you say it won't work - give us a solution. I'd settle for:
1. RS labelling - huge fines applicable
2. Strike vets off if they sign off in contravention
3. Spot inspections of all abattoirs
4. Shut downs and fines if any animal safety rule, hygiene rule is broken.
For a change, let’s start from the position of “What’s the right thing to do?” If. We all agree that banning Halal and Kosher from British slaughterhouses on the grounds of its excessive cruelty is the right thing to do, then that should inform our policy. Once we have a policy we have to devise practices to enforce that policy. We don’t give up on doing something just because it’s hard to do! Sometimes we do things because they’re hard.
Your thoughts are logical but I will just say, after an exchange on here with a poster, that just because something is difficult to enforce doesn't mean it should not be banned.
So in conclusion are you saying halal slaughter should never be banned in this country or just that it should in time be better regulated with more efficient but expensive kit?
Where is there is a need it will be met. The debate really is whether it is better to accept that halal meat will be available, one way or another, and try to make it as hygienic and painless as possible, or drive it underground into cruel and dangerous practices. (Analogous to the debates about abortion, which I find equally abhorrent.) I also wonder how a well run halal facility compares with some of the conventional abattoirs currently operating in this country.
How do you enforce clear and accurate marking in where you start from a position where the religious belief behind halal encourages lying? There are already "undergroud" activities, even where strict marking is not enforced. Why the need for those, when halal meat is so freely available.
It is hard to see how Government is going to stop seemingly entitled people from other cultures practising their own cultures within ours.
My understanding is that for a devout Muslim, halal food is pretty much a necessity. And economists note that where there is a need, or even just a desire, and someone can make a profit from supplying that desire, be it sex, drugs and rocknroll or religiously approved food, then supply it they will, licitly or illicitly. So, as Peter is arguing, is it better to try to ban it and drive the trade underground, or legalise and regulate?
I shared this with an NFCU contact who was very impressed and in agreement with you. He added that the biosecurity risk really is huge, and as you say, it's a lot of meat (Hungarian and African mostly) coming in via cars. And if we get African Swine fever here it could wipe out our whole pork farming sector.
I also agree with you and I appreciate your pragmatism. As a Christian and a patriot I would love to simply ban religious slaughter, but I don't think we can successfully enforce it without hideous unintended consequences. I am in favour of clear and mandated labelling, which won't happen under this Government.
So if halal meat is legal in the UK, why are we importing so much illegally?
And I'm sorry, if we take the view that we have to 'keep the peace' we have no chance of our Anglo-Saxon society surviving. It is going to take war/civil uprising and the sooner you understand that, the better.
Nice idea about using a highly tamper-resistant blockchain to audit supply chains. Given practical difficulties involved in retail product recalls, the idea has merits beyond the slaughter mechanism debate. Even better, that sort of tracability audit data (times, dates, names, location, weight and so on) is precisely the sort of nicely-tabulated data that lends itself to automated fraud analysis. It could make life much more awkward for those involved in product counterfeiting, adulteration and/or tax evasion. If retail outlets had a legal requirement to maintain traceability with threats of punitive fines, director disqualification and even imprisonment - a reasonable proposition given the public safety angle - then banning inhumane malpractices will shortly become much more achievable.
Pete, while I always appreciate your articles and analysis, I would really appreciate your solutions.
I have been campaigning to ban hala,l at best label it. Investigating supermarkets is a mission as they obfiscate. They do not differentiate between full stun and stun. There is a distinct difference.
Christians, Sikh and Hindu are forbidden in their scriptures to eat halal. The method of slaughter is totally inhumane and should be stopped.
If Halal and Kosher wish to eat that way, go ahead and import. There are other countries that have done it. Why not us?
Just because you say it won't work - give us a solution. I'd settle for:
1. RS labelling - huge fines applicable
2. Strike vets off if they sign off in contravention
3. Spot inspections of all abattoirs
4. Shut downs and fines if any animal safety rule, hygiene rule is broken.
Doing anything less is NOT acceptable.
For a change, let’s start from the position of “What’s the right thing to do?” If. We all agree that banning Halal and Kosher from British slaughterhouses on the grounds of its excessive cruelty is the right thing to do, then that should inform our policy. Once we have a policy we have to devise practices to enforce that policy. We don’t give up on doing something just because it’s hard to do! Sometimes we do things because they’re hard.
Your thoughts are logical but I will just say, after an exchange on here with a poster, that just because something is difficult to enforce doesn't mean it should not be banned.
So in conclusion are you saying halal slaughter should never be banned in this country or just that it should in time be better regulated with more efficient but expensive kit?
As Jennifer H wrote: "The method of slaughter is totally inhumane and should be stopped". It is something that we can work towards.
Where is there is a need it will be met. The debate really is whether it is better to accept that halal meat will be available, one way or another, and try to make it as hygienic and painless as possible, or drive it underground into cruel and dangerous practices. (Analogous to the debates about abortion, which I find equally abhorrent.) I also wonder how a well run halal facility compares with some of the conventional abattoirs currently operating in this country.
I think the Tory Esther McVey makes a good point that it should be clearly marked and if that was enforced its practice would decline.
How do you enforce clear and accurate marking in where you start from a position where the religious belief behind halal encourages lying? There are already "undergroud" activities, even where strict marking is not enforced. Why the need for those, when halal meat is so freely available.
It is hard to see how Government is going to stop seemingly entitled people from other cultures practising their own cultures within ours.
Your first sentence conflates need and desire and proposes that people get what they want under all circumstances.
My understanding is that for a devout Muslim, halal food is pretty much a necessity. And economists note that where there is a need, or even just a desire, and someone can make a profit from supplying that desire, be it sex, drugs and rocknroll or religiously approved food, then supply it they will, licitly or illicitly. So, as Peter is arguing, is it better to try to ban it and drive the trade underground, or legalise and regulate?
Liberal cities function per this rule of thumb and are a disaster as a result
I shared this with an NFCU contact who was very impressed and in agreement with you. He added that the biosecurity risk really is huge, and as you say, it's a lot of meat (Hungarian and African mostly) coming in via cars. And if we get African Swine fever here it could wipe out our whole pork farming sector.
I also agree with you and I appreciate your pragmatism. As a Christian and a patriot I would love to simply ban religious slaughter, but I don't think we can successfully enforce it without hideous unintended consequences. I am in favour of clear and mandated labelling, which won't happen under this Government.
Insight and pragmatism, Pete? Will never catch on!
Pragmatism can blend all too easily into capitulation especially around “difficult” things which is why , more generally, we are in the mess we are in
Far too reasoned. It'll never fly.
So if halal meat is legal in the UK, why are we importing so much illegally?
And I'm sorry, if we take the view that we have to 'keep the peace' we have no chance of our Anglo-Saxon society surviving. It is going to take war/civil uprising and the sooner you understand that, the better.
Ban it irrespective.
Nice idea about using a highly tamper-resistant blockchain to audit supply chains. Given practical difficulties involved in retail product recalls, the idea has merits beyond the slaughter mechanism debate. Even better, that sort of tracability audit data (times, dates, names, location, weight and so on) is precisely the sort of nicely-tabulated data that lends itself to automated fraud analysis. It could make life much more awkward for those involved in product counterfeiting, adulteration and/or tax evasion. If retail outlets had a legal requirement to maintain traceability with threats of punitive fines, director disqualification and even imprisonment - a reasonable proposition given the public safety angle - then banning inhumane malpractices will shortly become much more achievable.