I may be a vegetarian, but you don't have to be a vegetarian to object to needless cruelty being inflicted on animals for the sake of fundamentalist religious beliefs.
One thing that particularly disturbs me is the ritual slaughter of animals in the production of halal and kosher meat, which involves cutting the animal's throat and leaving it to bleed to death. The animal rights organisation "Viva!" claims that, in over 90% of cases in the production of halal meat, the animal is electrically stunned prior to the slaughter, which of course means that in 10% of cases the animal is fully conscious. From what I can make out from my Internet research, stunning is forbidden in the production of kosher meat, so unless I am informed otherwise, I will assume that the animals are always conscious when they have their throats cut.
UK law requires that animals be stunned prior to slaughter, but gives an exemption to religious slaughter. I can see no justification in allowing religious fundamentalism, which has caused untold suffering throughout history, to be allowed to cause severe and unnecessary suffering to animals when it is rightly banned for everyone else. We don't allow religious fundamentalists to stone people to death for adultery; and in the case of animals, who are unable to speak for themselves, and whose suffering takes place conveniently hidden from our eyes and our consciousness, we should not be allowing fundamentalist religious adherents any dispensation from the law all other citizens of this land must obey.
This is not a maverick view I am presenting here. In 2011, the Dutch parliament banned the ritual slaughter of animals without prestunning. We should follow suit. If 90% of animals for halal meat have been pre-stunned, then it is only 10% of the Muslim population that is eating meat from non-prestunned animals. It therefore cannot even be a practice that is intrinsic to mainstream UK Islam. I have been unable so far to arrive at evidence of how many Jewish people will only eat non-prestunned kosher meat: obviously, it is a strongly-held value in the Orthodox tradition. But elsewhere?
The freedom to practise a religion must remain sacrosanct: but when the practising of a religion causes suffering to other sentient beings, then their rights also need to be taken into consideration. Following a particular form of a religion should not confer special rights to cause human or animal suffering.
In connection with this issue, I am very concerned at what seems to be an invidious tacit social rule that seems to have emerged, and that is creating a new orthodoxy in public debate: that certain religions and their practices may be criticised openly, but other religions and their practices may not. That is a profoundly discriminatory as well as socially harmful paradigm. It is also an affront to the right to, and importance of, free speech and debate.
I recently submitted a proposition to a voting website that kosher and halal meat not be served in British schools because of the animal cruelty involved in their production, which goes against the compassionate values we need to be modelling to children in the places where they learn. Shortly afterwards, I discovered that my proposition was no longer on the site. I have contacted the site owners to ask whether they have removed it deliberately. It is, of course, possible that it has disappeared accidentally as a result of a technical glitch. I hope that is the reason, and I will republish this blog with the answer once I hear back from the site owners, if I ever do.
If someone risks getting censored these days for expressing the view that certain forms of religious slaughter are cruel, then the Middle Ages are making their way back into modern history through the back door, held wide open by people who should know better.
I have submitted a new proposition to the voting site in question, in the service of testing its parameters of censorship. The new proposition is as follows:
"To avoid severe animal suffering, the Govt should accept the recommendation of the Farm Animal Welfare Council and, like the Dutch, ban the practice of halal and kosher slaughter without prestunning."
I wait with anticipation to see what happens to it.
For anyone who would like to read more about opposition to ritual religious slaughter in the UK without prestunning, the following may be of interest:
The Dutch ban on ritual slaughter without pre-stunning.
Opposition to non-pre-stun ritual slaughter in the UK Parliament.
Viva!'s piece on ritual slaughter without pre-stunning.
© Gary Powell, 2013
Don't believe everything you think.
