Say no to stalybridge mosque

Quoted post


Guest

#572

2013-11-18 22:29

Your facts about halal turned out to be inflated due to 70% being stunned prior, and not being able to put it into context against the % of other types of slaughter in which animals suffer due to failed stunning (surprisingly high) and animal cruelty (rife within abattoirs)

You simply said it was cruel and some links were posted with graphic videos of it being carried out in the halal manner. Put into context though, it isn't as extreme or cruel.

Replies


Guest

#580 Re:

2013-11-19 18:26:15

#572: -  I never stated what proportion of Halal was pre or unstunned just that I was strongly opposed to the latter due to its inherent barbarity and cruelty and the fact that British slaughtermen would be prosecuted for doing so, and that having separate laws for different cultures within the same country was dangerous, unfair and divisive. People are prosecuted for animal cruelty or neglect if the stunning failure is due to negligence if caught, unless of course they're practising Halal/Kosher (or is that anti-Semitic) in which case they're let off when inflicting deliberate and totally unnecessary suffering, an indefensible and appalling state of affairs. It manifestly IS far more cruel to deliberately slit the throat of an animal when fully conscious as opposed to unconscious, that's why stunning was introduced in the first place. Why comment about the proportions stunned and unstunned if you really do equate the two.