Denmark bans Kosher and Halal meat.

[Rheghead]

Denmark has banned Kosher and Halal meat.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...0.html?l;ksdf;

So do animal rights come before rights to observe religion?

[sids]

Is it "do they," or "should they?"

And are we voting on the situation in Denmark, or elsewhere?

The animals' votes must be the ones that matter. Oh- and votes from religeous zealots.

[golach]

I find the Danish a tad hypocritical banning the slaughter of animals in a certain way, when they shoot live pigs for army doctors to practice on, and kill a perfectly good Giraffe, and kill whales in the manner all shown below
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26098935

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk...-train-3157055

http://www.campaign-whale.org/campai...hale-slaughter

[Rheghead]

Does that mean that nobody or nothing can change for the better for fear of being accused of hypocrisy? It seems damned if you do and damned if you don't.

[golach]

What animal rights did the Giraffe have, or the whales in the Faroe's have, or the pigs being shot at

[_Ju_]

What animal rights did the Giraffe have, or the whales in the Faroe's have, or the pigs being shot at

I'll give you the pigs and the giraffe, but the whales are the work of the Faroese not the Danish, Golash. Both consider themselves as distinct as the English and Scottish.
If Denmark is planing to ban or has banned halal and kosher then it is one ( and only one) step in the right direction. And better one step than none at all.

I hope that religious slaughter with no stunning is banned here too. It is unnecessary. Stunning does not impede religious rights from being performed and it does not stop the heart (unless it is stun to kill- usually only in chicken and large pig slaughterhouses) . The whole point of halal and kosher slaughter is very well bled carcases (ie: heart beating to push out all blood- death by exsanguination) because in hot climates with no refrigeration technology, meat would become very dangerous very quickly if improperly bled. But now we can stun animals without stopping the heart - so complete exsanguination is possible with stunning.

[Phill]

Personally, I think religion is all utter cobblers and since the dawn of time has caused more grief, death, heartache, wars and hatred than anything else. So yes, animal rights before religious observation.

I'd ban religion in its organised environment and certainly reduce or limit the 'rights' that are claimed by some.

[ducati]

I'll give you the pigs and the giraffe, but the whales are the work of the Faroese not the Danish, Golash. Both consider themselves as distinct as the English and Scottish.
If Denmark is planing to ban or has banned halal and kosher then it is one ( and only one) step in the right direction. And better one step than none at all.

I hope that religious slaughter with no stunning is banned here too. It is unnecessary. Stunning does not impede religious rights from being performed and it does not stop the heart (unless it is stun to kill- usually only in chicken and large pig slaughterhouses) . The whole point of halal and kosher slaughter is very well bled carcases (ie: heart beating to push out all blood- death by exsanguination) because in hot climates with no refrigeration technology, meat would become very dangerous very quickly if improperly bled. But now we can stun animals without stopping the heart - so complete exsanguination is possible with stunning.

Didn't really need to know all that. I'm against the exploitation of any animal for any reason so its a yes from me.

[Mrs Bradey]

Personally, I think religion is all utter cobblers and since the dawn of time has caused more grief, death, heartache, wars and hatred than anything else. So yes, animal rights before religious observation.I'd ban religion in its organised environment and certainly reduce or limit the 'rights' that are claimed by some.

here here! well said I totally agree!

[Southern-Gal]

I think it is possible to observe religion without animals suffering.
The slaughter house we used to use simply had same slaughter house but a chap from the mosque used to come and pray whilst the halal lambs and sheep were done.

[mi16]

The Danes are in Denmark and can do as they please, it is none of our business or concern.A pointless poll

[jax]

I think it is possible to observe religion without animals suffering.The slaughter house we used to use simply had same slaughter house but a chap from the mosque used to come and pray whilst the halal lambs and sheep were done.

How on earth can a prayer help when the animal has not been stunned, its just cruel.

[Mrs Bradey]

I think it is possible to observe religion without animals suffering.The slaughter house we used to use simply had same slaughter house but a chap from the mosque used to come and pray whilst the halal lambs and sheep were done.

what a ridiculous statement!! the "chap" from the mosque may offer a feeling if peace and humanity to the muslim end user, but I doubt it is any consolation to the poor beast as it bleeds out taking minutes to die whilst very conscious and aware of its fate!!!

[ducati]

what a ridiculous statement!! the "chap" from the mosque may offer a feeling if peace and humanity to the muslim end user, but I doubt it is any consolation to the poor beast as it bleeds out taking minutes to die whilst very conscious and aware of its fate!!!

I think the point was the animal wasn't treated any differently.

[Mrs Bradey]

The Danes are in Denmark and can do as they please, it is none of our business or concern.A pointless poll

this thread has nothing to do with Denmark. rheghead merely asks, "do animal rights come before rights to observe religion"? simple question and no mention of what the Danes wish to do. what is your opinion?

[Southern-Gal]

I think the point was the animal wasn't treated any differently.

Quite so Ducati

The vet is in attendance and the animal is done with the bolt the same as the rest, the only difference is that a prayer is said to keep to the halal practise.

I would say 'ridiculous' is the amount of people who spout rubbish about things they have no personal experience or knowledge but just quote drivel they have found on the internet!

[sids]

How on earth can a prayer help when the animal has not been stunned, its just cruel.

The benefit is not "on Earth."

[jax]

Quite so Ducati The vet is in attendance and the animal is done with the bolt the same as the rest, the only difference is that a prayer is said to keep to the halal practise.I would say 'ridiculous' is the amount of people who spout rubbish about things they have no personal experience or knowledge but just quote drivel they have found on the internet!

I'm certainly not spouting rubbish or drivel, proper Halal meat is killed with no stunning & throat cut to bleed. To see a pen full of sheep done in this was is cruel. Anyone who has any respect for animals would not slaughter in this way.

[Mrs Bradey]

[QUOTE=ducati;1070952]I think the point was the animal wasn't treated any differently.[/QUOTEI think you will find that true "halal" (an Arabic word meaning "permissible") IS slaughtered and prepared differently to animals slaughtered for non halal meat. .... The slaughtering of an animal for halal meat is called "Zaihah". During Zaihah certain rules must be followed; .... 1. Allah's name must be pronounced during the slaughter. ...... 2. The instrument used must be very sharp to ensure humane slaughter (?) the animal must be slit at the throat. . .......3. The animal must NOT BE UNCONSCIOUS. . .....4. The animal must be hung upside down to bleed dry. Eating blood is not halal. .. ....5. These steps must be accomplished by a Muslim or the people of the book (( Christian or Jew ). ... as can be seen by these rules an animal that has been stunned before bleeding is not halal!

[jax]

Mrs Bradey, my point exactly