No UK cow has had BSE for at least 5 years. We've got the most rigorous tracing regime on earth in place.

The issue isn't the slaughter per se - it's that Halal and Kosher rules forbid stunning the animal.

I think it's a great idea. After all, it's not like British muslims have any reason to be pissed off with current Government policy.

In other news, on the BBC news last night there was a very touching segment with a Halal butcher and Kosher Salt Beef specialist united in condemnation. Next item? Shootings in Israel. Ho hum.

An interesting example of just how much more weight the animal rights movement has in Great Britain. You know, a few years ago people in the UK were saying, "The next thing you know, they'll want to ban kosher slaughter" and the response was that this was extreme nonsense. And here they are now proposing to do just that.

Bad news for Britain, good news for the U.S. & China.

I note that it's "Britons" vs "Jewish and Muslim Religion". How about "Jews and Muslim" vs "FAWC" ?

We had a similar thing here in Canada, and I wrote this rant to our national newspaper of merit:

 http://makeashorterlink.com/?A2D7120E4

FWIW, death may be slow, but do they really feel any more pain? Seems like they'd just get sleepy and pass out when the blood ran low. I guess I'm equating suffering to pain, but live bait fishing causes pain , where a LIVE FISH is hooked through the head or body and used as food to catch larger fish. It seems like fishing should be next, right?

Cool! Liberal Fight! Liberal Fight!

Animinal Activists vs. Multiculturists! This weekend in the Joe and Harry Freeman Colliseum! Who can exploit government power faster! Who will whine more when they lose? Will their march/counter march end in violence or mere window smashing youthful exuberance? Who will call who "Hitler" first? Fun for the entire family! sunday Sunday SUNDAY!

This is almost as good as the Pink Pistols vs. the VPC!


-Donut

I rather like this opinion piece from last month.

BTW, would any brit like to tell us how this thing works in the UK--I mean, a month ago, some nutjobs are advocating a bit of blarney-(ban halal, impose the VAT on processed foods, and a few months later, it's government policy? When does the "White Paper" come in?

It is hard to say if something which has its throat cut is feeling more pain than something stunned by a bold through the skull objectively.
<p>
However if you observe both (based on personal observation of a cow, -not- sheep or goat - which are much smaller and this gets much harder to distinguish if at all); you'll notice that in the latter case the eyes and facial expression of the animal goes blank instantly and there is no further movement by tongue or any other muscle. Whereas in the throat cutting case the animals facial expression, tongue and eyes continue to limp and pull for another minute or so. The laryx, if exposed by the cut, will deform for a minute or so after that.
<p>
At least this is the observation in the netherlands - where a 4 inch metal bold is shot into the head of the animal by a pneumatic 'gun'.
<p>
Dw.

I don't think it's an "animal rights" issue. If it were, the logical extension of "slitting animals throats and allowing their brains to asphyxiate is bad... mmmm'kay?" would be policy that promoted a meat-free diet.

To Brian Carnell -- it's not a sign of the strength of the animal rights movement but an expression of a deeper social attitude towards what is considered right and just. An attitude which is totally seperate from the animal rights movement. Great Britain is a self-desribed nation of animal lovers, and whilst people might not be able to balance up the logic of loving animals and eating millions of them a year, there is still a general concern for animal welfare.

People in Britain are still eating beef?

Edited by author 06-10-2003 01:34 PM
Excuse me Max, but -

"social attitude towards what is considered right and just"
 +
animals

= animal rights movement

Bandying words about does not change the issue.

Edited by author 06-10-2003 01:56 PM
The UK is known for having a "Royal Scociety for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals" but (only) a "National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children." It's the type of society Peter Singer would adore, were it only a bit more radical.

To this end, this existing bias has been tweeked by the 'Animal Rights Movement" which, as everybody knows, is quite a bit more radical in the UK than it is in the US. A deeper social attitude-- pshaw. It's a transparent attempt by the Labour Party to steal votes from the BNP.

Jerwin (/m11) good article.

I happened to hear some talk radio yesterday about animal
slaughter issues. Listening to it I couldn't help feel that
things have gone overboard. Sure there is a reason for society
to worry about people who hurt or kill animals for pleasure --
and I'll grant an exception for hunting -- but how is society
helped if a cow dies instantly instead of in a couple of minutes?

Max Mitchell wrote:

"To Brian Carnell -- it's not a sign of the strength of the animal rights movement but an expression of a deeper social attitude towards what is considered right and just. An attitude which is totally seperate from the animal rights movement. Great Britain is a self-desribed nation of animal lovers, and whilst people might not be able to balance up the logic of loving animals and eating millions of them a year, there is still a general concern for animal welfare."

I don't really think there's much difference in the two formulations. Maybe I should have said it is an example of how pervasive those ideas are in the UK society instead. The only other nation I can think of that is so suffused with such ideas is India, where Hindu extremism and nationalism drive increasingly (I would say absurdly) strong views of how society should accomodate animals.

That Great Britain is seriously proposing to ban kosher and halal show just how deep those ideas go. Again, when the whole fox hunting ban was first proposed, you and MPs standing up saying "if we follow this to its logical extreme, why not ban halal and kosher, and then meat eating altogether" which was dismissed as a straw man. And now, well, here we are.

Social movements do not exist in a vacuum. Each of these changes is pushed by a very active animal rights movement in the UK and each success in turn acts as a feedback loop to reinforce that movement. The UK is well on its way to implementing much of the animal rights agenda (which is why you see British pharma. firms clearly moving toward the U.S., China and other countries where there aren't politically powerful AR movements).

BTW, this also highlights the advantages and disadvantages of various ways of organizing democracies. For example, the Labor Party openly courts the animal rights movement and its sympathizers in a way that is simply inconceivable in the United States. Why? Because in the U.S. the political cost for angering rural voters is much higher than in the UK simply because of the different political systems.

"BTW, would any brit like to tell us how this thing works in the UK--I mean, a month ago, some nutjobs are advocating a bit of blarney-(ban halal, impose the VAT on processed foods, and a few months later, it's government policy? When does the "White Paper" come in?"

It's not policy. It is being leaked that a government-sponsored research group will recommend a ban. If they do, the government can put it in a white paper for consultation before a law is drafted. At this stage the leak is jus a kite - a convenient way to find out what the reaction would be.

"BTW, this also highlights the advantages and disadvantages of various ways of organizing democracies. For example, the Labor Party openly courts the animal rights movement and its sympathizers in a way that is simply inconceivable in the United States. Why? Because in the U.S. the political cost for angering rural voters is much higher than in the UK simply because of the different political systems."

Balls. The reasons are that Labour is and always has been an urban party - the farmers won't vote Labour under any circs. Plus Fabianism and a concern to minimse the needless suffering of animals have always gone together.