Halal slaughter: Outcry after undercover film exposes brutal

[RNReindeer]

Hope you won't be erasing this post to remove evidence.

You guys seem to know something that I don't. I'm worried that I was making unfounded accusations now!

I've never thought it bothered you before.

 

[RNReindeer]

so the heading of this thread should be:

British slaughter: Outcry after undercover film exposes brutality of the British meat industry

All of these threads posted by handj, nocon and their ilk all begin with some rant against Muslims, seemingly supported by pretentious outrage of some sensitive issue or other.

Their motives are so obvious, their disingenuity so plain, their deceit so intent, and their prejudice so inept, they think we're as gullible as they are.

 

[JBR]

And to balance the story at the start of this thread.

Here's the inside of a non-halal slaughter house.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ideo-captured-campaigners-hidden-cameras.html

Just proves that sick sadistic b*startds come from all religions

I agree with you, and I deplore such behaviour regardless of religion or culture.

As a matter of interest, regarding this extract from the report:

"And the investigators believe the slaughter man looked to be using a bolt gun rather than electronic tongs to stun the animals."

I don't understand why bolt guns shouldn't be used to kill the animals outright without the necessity of stunning. Isn't that how vets put down injured horses? I can't imagine they would do that if it causes pain and suffering.

 

[handyjack]

I don't understand why bolt guns shouldn't be used to kill the animals outright without the necessity of stunning. Isn't that how vets put down injured horses? I can't imagine they would do that if it causes pain and suffering.

As far as I am aware (don't quote me on this) there are two types of bolt guns. One only stuns the animal (no penetration) and the other is fired into the brain.

Neither can be used for Kosher as stunning, or bleeding after death is not acceptable.

Some stunning is done for Halal but penetration which kills the animal is not allowed as the animal must be alive when its throat is cut.

 

[noseall]

The simple matter of fact is that the whole meat industry is a brutal place, right across the board.

Racists only ever object though when Muslims are involved.

 

[Newboy]

exactly

 

[handyjack]

The simple matter of fact is that the whole meat industry is a brutal place, right across the board.

Racists only ever object though when Muslims are involved.

What is racist about wanting to reduce brutal practices?

Slaughtering any animal without stunning has been proven to inflict pain.

In HALAL stunning is allowed but can legally not be used and sometimes is not used. Why?

In fact the Koran allows Muslims to eat meat that has not been slaughtered in accordance with their religion. So no real reason to have HALAL at all.

Killing animals without stunning must be made unlawful for any religion. How is that racist?

 

[RNReindeer]

I don't understand why bolt guns shouldn't be used to kill the animals outright without the necessity of stunning. Isn't that how vets put down injured horses? I can't imagine they would do that if it causes pain and suffering.

As far as I am aware (don't quote me on this) there are two types of bolt guns. One only stuns the animal (no penetration) and the other is fired into the brain.

Neither can be used for Kosher as stunning, or bleeding after death is not acceptable.

Some stunning is done for Halal but penetration which kills the animal is not allowed as the animal must be alive when its throat is cut.

I would like to publicly thank Handyjack for this post.
I think it must be his first honest, accurate and unbiased post.
Thank you Handyjack.

Edit. Sadly I see he's reverted to type with his subsequent post. Oh dear, just as I was beginning to think there was a ray of hope for him.

 

[RNReindeer]

The simple matter of fact is that the whole meat industry is a brutal place, right across the board.

Racists only ever object though when Muslims are involved.

What is racist about wanting to reduce brutal practices?

Slaughtering any animal without stunning has been proven to inflict pain.

In HALAL stunning is allowed but can legally not be used and sometimes is not used. Why?

For strict (Edit)religious requirements, which most Muslims do not adhere to, but some do.

In fact the Koran allows Muslims to eat meat that has not been slaughtered in accordance with their religion. So no real reason to have HALAL at all.

Only when Halal meat is not available.

Killing animals without stunning must be made unlawful for any religion. How is that racist?

Fine, so campaign against all animal cruelty, not just that involving Muslims.

 

[JBR]

I don't understand why bolt guns shouldn't be used to kill the animals outright without the necessity of stunning. Isn't that how vets put down injured horses? I can't imagine they would do that if it causes pain and suffering.

As far as I am aware (don't quote me on this) there are two types of bolt guns. One only stuns the animal (no penetration) and the other is fired into the brain.

Neither can be used for Kosher as stunning, or bleeding after death is not acceptable.

Some stunning is done for Halal but penetration which kills the animal is not allowed as the animal must be alive when its throat is cut.

Presumably, this is why the ISIS sub-humans usually kill their hostages by sawing their heads off.

 

[noseall]

Killing animals without stunning must be made unlawful for any religion. How is that racist?

Are you against animal cruelty in general or just religious animal cruelty.

Why has it taken so long for you to mention 'other' religions?

Going by the title of this thread and your opening post, there is no criticism of any other methods of slaughter, only those used by Muslims.

So yes, it IS racist to single out Muslims for criticism whilst remaining astonishingly mute about other equally cruel methods.

 

[handyjack]

Killing animals without stunning must be made unlawful for any religion. How is that racist?

Are you against animal cruelty in general or just religious animal cruelty.

Why has it taken so long for you to mention 'other' religions?

Going by the title of this thread and your opening post, there is no criticism of any other methods of slaughter, only those used by Muslims.

So yes, it IS racist to single out Muslims for criticism whilst remaining astonishingly mute about other equally cruel methods.

The thread is about religious slaughter and I said "Killing animals without stunning must be made unlawful for any religion. How is that racist?

Go on, how is that racist?

 

[JohnD]

Halal slaughter: Outcry after undercover film exposes brutal

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ality-of-halal-industry-10019467.html[/QUOTE]

Oh, you think that says "any religion" do you?

You can't see the word "Halal?"

Are you a liar, or are you just mentally deficient?

 

[JohnD]

Did you make that up? As far as I am aware, though the slaughterman can be British, he must also be Muslim!

Nope, definitely doesn't say "any religion"

 

[Whitespirit66]

Racists only ever object though when Muslims are involved.

At least if you're going to hurl your little 'R' word around, please try to keep it in the right context.

The ROP is a religion, not a race. Do keep up!