View Full Version : Jews and Muslims method of slaughter does hurt animals

10-17-2009, 02:14 AM

A study proving Jewish and Islamic methods of slaughtering animals are painful has led to renewed calls for a ban in Britain

By Tim Edwards (http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/author,111,tim-edwards)


Scientists are used to being attacked by anti-vivisectionists for causing unnecessary suffering to animals in the course of research. But a new study into the pain felt by dying animals has animal rights groups on side – and has led to renewed calls for Islamic and Jewish slaughter rituals to be brought into line with secular practices.

UK law requires that all livestock be stunned prior to slaughter – with the exception of those animals intended for consumption by members of certain religions. Islamic halal and Jewish kashrut law require that animals are slaughtered by having their throat cut – a relatively slow means of death. The Sikh ritual – chatka – is much quicker when done correctly, involving a clean sword strike to the neck.

Practitioners of ritual slaughter say the animal must be alive to facilitate the draining of blood – and that throat slitting is humane.

But the new research suggests otherwise. Dr Craig Johnson and his colleagues at New Zealand's Massey University reproduced the Jewish and Islamic methods of slaughter in calves. The calves were first anaesthetised so although their pain responses could be detected, they wouldn't actually feel anything. They were then subjected to a neck incision. A pain response was detected for up to two minutes following the cut, although calves normally fall unconscious after 10 to 30 seconds.

The team then stunned the calves five seconds after cutting their throats: the pain signal detected by electroencephalography ceased immediately.

Johnson told the New Scientist he thought this work was "the best evidence yet that [ritual slaughter] is painful". However, he observed that the religious community "is adamant animals don't experience any pain so the results might surprise them".

The findings have earned Johnson the inaugural Humane Slaughter Award from the Humane Slaughter Association. Dr James Kirkwood, the charity’s chief executive, said: "This work provides significant support for the value of stunning animals prior to slaughter to prevent pain and distress."

Adam Rutherford, an editor of Nature, wrote on the Guardian website: "It suggests that the anachronism of slaughter without stunning has no place in the modern world and should be outlawed. This special indulgence to religious practices should be replaced with the evidence-based approaches to which the rest of us are subject."

Some European countries, such as Sweden, require all animals to be stunned before slaughter with no exception for religions. But such a ban in Britain would be hugely controversial – and would draw inevitable comparisons with the ban on kashrut enacted by Nazi Germany in 1933.
Johnson thinks the way forward is best exemplified by Muslims in New Zealand, who use a reversible form of electrical stunning that animals can recover from if they are not immediately slaughtered. This proves the animal is alive when killed and is therefore halal.

Source (http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/54850,news-comment,news-politics,after-scientific-proof-of-pain-should-we-ban-islamic-and-jewish-religious-slaughter)

Fortis in Arduis
10-17-2009, 05:50 AM
The pain and the suffering of the animal are an integral part of the sacrifice.

Why else would they not jump at the chance to rectify this wrong?

It would only require the Chief Rabbi to approve it in the UK.

It is time to make a fuss about this.

10-17-2009, 06:55 AM
Reminds me of this :

Two McDonalds in Melbourne have managed to double their sales by selling Halal burgers. For anyone wondering what that actually means, it means the cow was killed facing Mecca and slowly bled to death whilst being blessed. Unsuprisingly, animal rights people think it's all terribly nasty and a barbaric way to kill an animal you intend to eat.

There does appear to have been some backlash to the changes though, some people have thrown the argument on it's head and saying, "Just as a Muslim would not want to eat anything that isn't halal, I should have my rights to eat normal, ordinary food that hasn't been blessed". Frankly, I think that's just an argument for argument sake, if you're not a Muslim what should it matter how they killed the animal you're eating?

Bottom line in this story is that these two McDonalds outlets have doubled their sales by doing that which their immediate market dictates. As the late Milton Friedman said, "the business of business is business". They doubled their sales, good work I say.

:( :(

10-17-2009, 07:00 AM
It's why I boycott McDonald's and spit upon anybody who works in McDonald's. Indeed, anybody who works in these brightly coloured dietary Hell holes, whether that be MackD, Burger King, KFC, etc....

10-17-2009, 07:04 AM
I don't eat at macdonalds and friends either. But what this article reveals is quite sad.

10-17-2009, 08:09 AM
There does appear to have been some backlash to the changes though, some people have thrown the argument on it's head and saying, "Just as a Muslim would not want to eat anything that isn't halal, I should have my rights to eat normal, ordinary food that hasn't been blessed". Frankly, I think that's just an argument for argument's sake, ...

Indeed. There are however several arguments in this debate. We had a similar one in Sweden.

Fanatically anti-religious so-called secularists who are not content with being themselves anti-religious demand that everyone else should live according to their dictates.

For vegan animal rights activists it is a matter of forcing their particular understanding of what life and suffering means on everybody else.

For the pure moralist it is a matter of arguing no end, not about whether we have a right to kill animals, but about how an animal should be killed: about what the moral way to go about it is. That science often does come into the picture here is no surprise, but the mere expression 'scientific morals' is contradictory already. The appeal to science is much like the muslim appeal to the Quran, the difference being that muslims want to live according to their tradition, whereas moralists only want to be in the right.

For those who have an inverted obsession with islam - allow me to call them islamophobes, since that is what I really think they are - it is a matter of grabbing any argument they can get, and to create as much negative publicity about muslims as possible.

I guess that this overview also made pretty clear that I don't see a problem with this type of slaughter. I don't agree in the least with any of the arguments against it.