I overheard a heated discussion recently about Halal meat and how it is allowed in the UK despite contravening laws regarding the slaughter of animals.
The core of the discussion was whether Halal meat was humane or not. It seems (according the the protagonists) the law states animals must be humanely stunned before they are bled to death. Halal meat must come from animals that are not stunned before they are bled to death. Well, I don't know enough about slaughtering to have a definite view on the subject of Halal meat other than to acknowledge we need meat therefore animals have to be slaughtered and they should be slaughtered in a way to cause least distress. Also, I don't know enough about the law to know if the situation is as stated although I do know it is widely believed, rightly or wrongly. However, I do have definite views about the fairness and compliance of laws. In this example...
If the law is a good law and it is inhumane to kill an animal without stunning it first then it should apply to everyone. The fact that Halal meat is a religious requirement wouldn't make it any less inhumane. On the other hand, if it a bad law and stunning is no more humane than the Halal method, then the law needs to be repealed as pointless and not fit for purpose. However, having a law for humane reasons and allowing some people to be exempt is unfair, divisive and morally wrong.
It's about time those in a position to do so, and with the knowledge to make a balanced judgement should find out the true situation once and for all. Then either repeal the law or enforce it for everyone depending on the outcome. Breaking the law, whatever the law and whatever the reasons, is not acceptable. Bad laws need to be ended; good laws need to be enforced - FOR ALL.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment