Why I find it hard to dislike the Archbishop

As long as ignorant cunts talk this kind of shit:

Why is McDonald’s considering and even trialling Halal meat in a Christian country? I find this grossly inconsiderate to the majority of the English people who are Christian and would have issues with eating meat prepared in such a way

…I’m going to be on the side of the likes of Rowan Williams purely on an “enemy of my enemy” basis.

1) halal animals do not suffer any more than conventionally-killed animals. If you cut something’s throat with a sharp knife, it loses consciousness long before the pain from the throat wound cuts in;

2) if you give even the slightest flying fuck about animal welfare (rather than just about sticking it to the darkies), you won’t be eating at Maccy D’s anyway;

3) Jesus stated quite explicitly that Christians are not bound by dietary rules and are allowed to eat meat prepared along the lines of any other creed, Jewish or Roman. While Mohammed wasn’t about in Jesus’s day, given that halal is a toned-down version of kosher it seems unlikely that the lovey-dovey beardie chap would’ve been too grumpy about the whole thing.

If you’re a vegetarian [*], you’ve every right to criticise halal. If you only eat super-turbo-happy-meat and have got some in-depth scientific research which confirms that having your throat cut is much much worse than being shot in the head with a bolt gun, then you’ve some right to criticise halal. If you’re neither, you’ve every right to fuck off and die.

[*] perhaps “if you’re a vegetarian who doesn’t drink industrially-produced milk or eat industrially-produced cheese”: a free-range-but-halal-killed animal has a much better life and death than an industrially-farmed dairy cow.

7 thoughts on “Why I find it hard to dislike the Archbishop

  1. Beatniksalad says:

    Animal welfare (as distinct from biodiversity – i.e. animals we’re eating anyway), is a bit far down my list. More bothered about planet welfare and people welfare at the moment. That said:-

    “If you have got some in-depth scientific research … you have every right to criticise Halal”. I’m confused by this. Point #1 stated “Halal animals do not suffer any more than conventionally killed animals”. So it’s case closed on this one, surely? I presume the wealth of scientific evidence is already on your side?

    There’s plenty of evidence that slaughter without pre-stunning is bad news in animal welfare terms, and that You Are Wrong. Incidentally, I’ve heard that the great majority of halal meat is actually pre-stunned, but that most muslims don’t realise this, and the halal meat industry is reluctant to make it more widely known. Interesting… However I can’t back this up at all, and don’t like to make assertions I can’t back up :).

    So on # 1, you’re making it up as you go along. On number 2, yeah absolutely. On number 3, wasn’t there the bit in Leviticus about shellfish and gays both being abominations? And overall, it’s mainly an ignorant comment for assuming that the only people who might object to slaughter without pre-stunning are Christians. Bastards think they have a monopoly on morality.

  2. PDF says:

    I presume the wealth of scientific evidence is already on your side?

    Yes-ish. The complicating factor is that we don’t know very well what animals are thinking; most people in the field think that during the time during which the animal is bleeding but not feeling pain, it isn’t clever enough to work out what’s happened to it and therefore it doesn’t suffer like a person who’s just realised they’re dying. If you can show me evidence which shows that they do, then I’ll happily retract it.

    There’s plenty of evidence that slaughter without pre-stunning is bad news in animal welfare terms, and that You Are Wrong.

    AIUI the reason stunning is preferred is because of mistakes and fuck-ups (i.e. you wound the animal non-fatally), which can happen in halal but are more likely to happen in industrial slaughter because it’s a less skilled, faster-throughput process.

    It’s mainly an ignorant comment for assuming that the only people who might object to slaughter without pre-stunning are Christians

    No, it’s a badly-expressed comment, sorry.

    On top of the animal welfare concerns, some anti-halal-served-in-schools-and-McD’s types also say that they don’t want to eat halal because they’re Christian and it’s been killed in the name a god they don’t believe in. They are wrong to say this, because Jesus stated that the clean/unclean prohibitions in Leviticus no longer apply and so his followers can eat any food, even if it was killed to the wrong god. But it doesn’t have any bearing on the animal welfare issue.

  3. Neil says:

    “the reason stunning is preferred is because of mistakes and fuck-ups”

    Indeed – I’ve heard an amusing tale from an old-school butcher relative of what happens if you fumble the job of doing in a pig. Basically, you get the fuck out of there until it wears itself out (or get in there and hit it with the hammer again, if you’re really hard).

    Which could also explain why halal/kohser slaughter and pigs don’t go together.

  4. Neil says:

    “the reason stunning is preferred is because of mistakes and fuck-ups”

    Indeed – I’ve heard an amusing tale from an old-school butcher relative of what happens if you fumble the job of doing in a pig. Basically, you get the fuck out of there until it wears itself out (or get in there and hit it with the hammer again, if you’re really hard and or embellishing the story).

    Which could also explain why halal/kohser slaughter and pigs don’t go together.

  5. Beatniksalad says:

    I meant the bloke’s comment you quoted was ignorant…

    But yeah, the RSPCA quote the farm animal welfare council study as being the dope on this. They say “when a large transverse incision is made across the neck a number of vital tissues are transected including: skin, muscle, trachea, oesophagus, carotid arteries, jugular veins, major nerve trunks plus numerous minor nerves. They concluded that such a drastic cut would inevitably trigger a barrage of sensory information to the brain in a sensible (conscious) animal. FAWC stated that, “we are persuaded that such a massive injury would result in very significant pain and distress in the period before insensibility supervenes”.

    Oh and the same rspca study says 90% of halal meat is pre-stunned.

    Not sure what the point of all this is, but hey, you bought it up. :)

  6. Anna says:

    I think that part of the point of the original message was that this country being a mainly Christian one, is seems quite absurd to sell something like Halal meat, and sometimes it feels as if we’re kind of being (I’m not really sure of how to put this), being taken over by other cultures, and ours is just blurring into the background somewhat. Or course I would not want this to be seen as offensive in any way, and having lived for a large proportion of my life in a Muslim country (the UAE), I cannot be called “a BNP cunt”. Though it must be said that I do not have a problem with eating the meat.

    And I would just like to add, that while of course I find the extremist views of a huge majority of BNP members thoroughly annoying, it’s completely innappropriate to wish somebody’s death, and such offensive words as ‘cunts’ are, I believe, also unnacceptable, as it is just there point of view and you are generalising. It’s the equivalent of me accusing every single Muslim of being a suicide bombing, extremist terrorist. (In this I am refering to a more recent post that I saw)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>