Halal & Kosher Slaughter Banned In Denmark As Minister Insists ‘Animal Rights Come Before Religion’

96

The Danish government has introduced a ban on the religious slaughter of animals for the production of kosher and halal meat.

The ban came into effect on Monday (February 17, 2014), and was defended by Agriculture and Food Minister Dan Jørgensen's announcement on Denmark’s TV2 that “animal rights come before religion.”

Usually, slaughterhouses stun livestock before killing them, while kosher rites demand an animal is killed by slitting its throat while it is alive and letting it bleed to death. Halal meat consumed by observant Muslims is killed in a similar way.

The move has been met with opposition from non-profit halal monitoring groupDanish Halal, which has launched a petition against the ban.

It states: “The new order is a clear interference in religious freedom and limits the Muslims and Jews’ rights to practice their religion in Denmark.

“It is a procedure that is done under the guise of animal welfare, despite the fact that many scientific studies show that the animal suffers less [via a] properly performed slaughter than when it gets a blow to the head with a nail gun.”

Responding to the news, a spokesman for animal rights group PETA told HuffPost UK: "No religion needs to slaughter animals for food, and banning certain slaughter methods in which cows and other animals have their throats slit while still sensate is a step in the right direction.

"The rest of the world shouldn't feel superior, though: on factory farms, animals are crammed by the thousands into filthy and windowless sheds, wire cages, crates and other confinement systems. The only diet that is open to all religions and truly respects animal rights is a vegan one."

Israel’s deputy Minister of Religious Services Rabbi Eli Ben Dahan says the Danish government's edict is anti-Semitic.

He told The Jewish Daily Forward: “European anti-Semitism is showing its true colours across Europe and is even intensifying in the government institutions.”

Denmark’s ambassador to Israel Jesper Vahr described the rabbi's accusations as“very insulting”.

Written By: Sara C Nelson
continue to source article at huffingtonpost.co.uk

96 COMMENTS

  1. Good for Denmark! No animal should suffer, even if bred for food. Muslims would argue the animal doesn’t suffer, but unless they have had their throat cut and bled to death, they wouldn’t know.

    Religion often gets a free ride and it is about time the world grew up and followed Denmark’s lead.

    • In reply to #1 by PeteGriggs:

      Good for Denmark! No animal should suffer, even if bred for food. Muslims would argue the animal doesn’t suffer, but unless they have had their throat cut and bled to death, they wouldn’t know.

      Religion often gets a free ride and it is about time the world grew up and followed Denmark’s lead.

      Does Denmark do factory farming, or humane farming? If humane, then you’re right. If not, the method of slaughter makes little difference in the overall suffering.

      • In reply to #36 by InYourFaceNewYorker:

        In reply to #1 by PeteGriggs:

        Good for Denmark! No animal should suffer, even if bred for food. Muslims would argue the animal doesn’t suffer, but unless they have had their throat cut and bled to death, they wouldn’t know.

        Humans have for a very long time consumed meat. Unlike less intelligent animals, we dispatch the prey before consumption. Unlike halal or kosher methods, humane slaughter with bolt guns renders the animal instantly unaware it is being killed.

        Of course, there is always the possibilty of things not working 100% every time.

  2. Heaven forfend that I should ever be pedantic, but I think it’s animal welfare which trumps religion.

    In any case it’s better to hear squeals and howls emitting from their customary source, religious mouths, than from those of terrified animals.

    • Uncanny. You should keep an eye on Andrew Brown’s blog. You might be entitled to a fee.

      In reply to #3 by Katy Cordeth:

      There’s an interesting article in Thursday’s Graun about this. I say interesting – I made the exact, and I mean exact, same argument several days ago on this very site.

      Do I have a byline in a national left-leaning newspaper, though? Do I fairycakes. There’s no justice, RDnetters; none at all.

      De…

      • In reply to #4 by Marktony:

        Uncanny. You should keep an eye on Andrew Brown’s blog. You might be entitled to a fee.

        In reply to #3 by Katy Cordeth:

        There’s an interesting article in Thursday’s Graun about this. I say interesting – I made the exact, and I mean exact, same argument several days ago on this very site.

        Do I ha…

        Well… I don’t care about a fee. Some acknowledgment would be nice though. A shout out if this Brown cat gets a Pulitzer for instance.

        • In reply to #5 by Katy Cordeth:

          In reply to #4 by Marktony:

          Uncanny. You should keep an eye on Andrew Brown’s blog. You might be entitled to a fee.

          In reply to #3 by Katy Cordeth:

          There’s an interesting article in Thursday’s Graun about this. I say interesting – I made the exact, and I mean exact, same argument several days ag…

          OK so I understand you said something that someone else publish later that was very clever but I’ve read the post and I still don’t know what side of what issue you are on. To save me the trouble of reading the second source article could you just be clear on this thread.

          Thanks.

    • In reply to #3 by Katy Cordeth:

      There’s an interesting article in Thursday’s Graun about this. I say interesting – I made the exact, and I mean exact, same argument several days ago on this very site.

      But there’s no inconsistency in objecting both to intensive factory farming and to religious slaughter. Getting rid of at least one such evil is a step forward for civilization.

      I suppose if I cared enough I’d say the logical answer to animal suffering is probably vegetarianism, but I’m a happy carnivore.

      P.S. It will be a cold day in a non-existent hell before Andrew Brown gets a Pulitzer!

      • In reply to #18 by Stevehill:

        In reply to #3 by Katy Cordeth:

        There’s an interesting article in Thursday’s Graun about this. I say interesting – I made the exact, and I mean exact, same argument several days ago on this very site.

        But there’s no inconsistency in objecting both to intensive factory farming and to religious slaughter. Getting rid of at least one such evil is a step forward for civilization.

        Perhaps Denmark’s next step will be banning the barbaric practice of hunting hooded klopfers. Poor little things.

        I suppose if I cared enough I’d say the logical answer to animal suffering is probably vegetarianism, but I’m a happy carnivore.

        The operation was a success but the patient died. I’m not sure how good vegetarianism would be for those critters we find delicious in terms of species survival. Let’s say some of the more paranoid elements on this site got their wish and Islam took over the world. Would pigs still exist a couple hundred years after this occurred? Or it became possible to synthesize a meat substitute which didn’t make you want to gag (shudders) and curse God for having given you taste buds, and was less expensive to produce than actual meat. I can’t see cows, chickens and other animals which are brought into existence purely so they can end up in our tummies making a go of it if they were suddenly to be released from captivity.

        P.S. It will be a cold day in a non-existent hell before Andrew Brown gets a Pulitzer!

        I’ve instructed my solicitors to commence legal proceedings against Mr Brown for his plagiarism, so I’m not allowed to talk about that until the matter is resolved.

        • In reply to #26 by Katy Cordeth:

          The operation was a success but the patient died. I’m not sure how good vegetarianism would be for those critters we find delicious in terms of species survival.

          This is the sort of muddled thinking I used to use. The issue is suffering, not how many cows exist. I couldn’t care less if cows and pigs eventually go extinct. What I do care about is the vast amount of suffering by sentient beings involved in modern factory farms. If you can live with that just to satiate your lust for animal flesh then that’s on you.

  3. In reply to #6 by alaskansee:

    In reply to #5 by Katy Cordeth:

    In reply to #4 by Marktony:

    Uncanny. You should keep an eye on Andrew Brown’s blog. You might be entitled to a fee.

    In reply to #3 by Katy Cordeth:

    There’s an interesting article in Thursday’s Graun about this. I say interesting – I made the exact, and I mean exac…

    Alrighty. Since all kosher meat in Denmark has for the past ten years been imported from abroad, I think these proscriptions against religious methods of animal slaughter may be more about Danish authorities’ pandering to racist elements in that country and have less to do with concerns for animal welfare.

    Apart from Hans Christian Anderson, delicious pastries and weak lager, what is Denmark famous for? That’s right: this stuff.

    A nation whose economy is heavily reliant on the wholesale slaughter of our porcine pals is enacting legislation to ban cruelty which doesn’t even occur there?

    Træk den anden, er det fik klokker på.

    • In reply to #7 by Katy Cordeth:

      In reply to #6 by alaskansee:

      thanks Katy for the clarification!

      A nation whose economy is heavily reliant on the wholesale slaughter of our porcine pals is enacting legislation to ban cruelty which doesn’t even occur there

      A nation deciding to symbolically ban behaviour that is already outlawed in their country sounds perfectly acceptable to me and not without precedent. While I can offer no defense of mass animal farming I can certainly see at least 1 more problem with deliberate and unnecessary cruelty in mass animal farming.

      Is your argument that they are not good enough themselves to ask others to behave better (as good as themselves)? I cannot see a reasonable argument for not listening to someone advocating less cruelty. If you are killing animals, trying to minimise the suffering is a reasonable position. Expecting them to stop killing the animals seems less reasonable and missing the point – breakfast.

      There are legions of animal welfare organisations and good people working everyday to ensure the least suffering possible within the reality of our meat eating lifestyles. What do you suggest?

    • In reply to #7 by Katy Cordeth:

      In reply to #6 by alaskansee:

      In reply to #5 by Katy Cordeth:

      In reply to #4 by Marktony:

      Uncanny. You should keep an eye on Andrew Brown’s blog. You might be entitled to a fee.

      In reply to #3 by Katy Cordeth:

      There’s an interesting article in Thursday’s Graun about this. I say interesting – I…

      Sooooo, your argument is….it’s antisemitism?

    • In reply to #7 by Katy Cordeth:

      Alrighty. Since all kosher meat in Denmark has for the past ten years been imported from abroad, I think these proscriptions against religious methods of animal slaughter may be more about Danish authorities’ pandering to racist elements in that country and have less to do with concerns for animal welfare.

      Yeah, because the Social Democrats are totally known for pandering to racists… You don’t know a whole lot about Danish politics, do you?

      Apart from Hans Christian Anderson, delicious pastries and weak lager, what is Denmark famous for?

      Lego? Niels Bohr? Tycho Brahe? Being the first country to recognize same-sex unions and generally being awesome in regards to tolerance and protecting minorities?

      A nation whose economy is heavily reliant on the wholesale slaughter of our porcine pals is enacting legislation to ban cruelty which doesn’t even occur there?

      Uhh… We do slaughter cows too, you know? How would that be a problem though? Shouldn’t we ban all cruelty regardless of whether it occurs?

      Træk den anden, er det fik klokker på.

      Google translate? It’s unintelligible.

      • In reply to #17 by Serdan:

        Lego…

        Also, the soma cube. Fun puzzle to work with.

        “Danish” pastries have their origins from a baker’s pay-wage strike . Austrian pastry chefs brought their own recipes to fill the niche in the interim. Danes loved them, and voila, a “danish” is born.

        “Husker du” Dak ham? Yuk.

  4. Does anyone REALLY think cutting the throat and letting it bleed to death is less painful than rendering it instantly unconscious? If so, please look at some of the halal videos on line…

    Andrew Brown is arguing a different issue- correctly, but the issue of suffering pre- slaughter should also be dealt with. Makes no difference to the kosher/halal cruelty. Should be banned universally as should religious ‘pandering’.

    • In reply to #8 by ErnieH:

      Does anyone REALLY think cutting the throat and letting it bleed to death is less painful than rendering it instantly unconscious?

      Just two anecdotes.

      1-Someone (Muslim) was explaining to me that the animal doesn’t suffer when it’s killed by having its throat cut. So I suggested that maybe that was a great way to euthanize their old sick parents if they should eventually be suffering too much. Ha Ha.

      2-I saw the ritual slaughter of a sheep (for an Aïd celebration) as a small kid. Disgusting and barbaric.The animal was slipping, for a too long while, on both the blood and the urine it was releasing as it was losing its life. I still don’t understand to this day the charms of animal sacrifice.

      • In reply to #22 by Fouad Boussetta:

        In reply to #8 by ErnieH:

        Does anyone REALLY think cutting the throat and letting it bleed to death is less painful than rendering it instantly unconscious?

        Just two anecdotes.

        1-Someone (Muslim) was explaining to me that the animal doesn’t suffer when it’s killed by having its throat cut. So I s…

        Here is an excerpt (though I recommend you read the entire thing) from a 2012 New Statesman article Halal Hysteria by Medhi Hasan:

        …Opponents of ritual slaughter cite a raft of scientific studies that condemn the practice as painful and abusive. In a much-discussed report published in 2003, the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC), an independent body that advised the UK government until its dissolution last year, argued that ritual methods of slaughter resulted in “significant pain and distress” for the animal and recommended that Muslims and Jews be banned from slaughtering livestock without stunning the animals first.

        The FAWC’s findings were backed by a major EU-funded study “on issues of religious slaughter”, which concluded in 2010: “. . . it can be stated with the utmost probability that animals feel pain during the throat cut without prior stunning”.

        Case closed? Not quite. Ruksana Shain, of the Muslim consumer group Behalal.org, says the scientific evidence against halal slaughter “isn’t conclusive”. But she would say that, wouldn’t she? OK. Well, consider the verdict of Joe Regenstein, professor of food science at Cornell University in the United States, who leads the university’s Kosher and Halal Food Initiative.

        “Many of those attacking religious slaughter have no clue as to what is happening,” he tells me. “It is more of an Islamophobic issue, not an animal well-being issue.” Compared to modern, secular methods of slaughter, he says, “the traditional or Prophetic method might actually be equal or possibly superior” because the initial pain of the throat cut results “in the animal releasing large quantities of endorphins, putting it in a state of euphoria and numbness”. The cut thus serves as its own stun. The scientific evidence against halal slaughter, Regenstein says, “is extremely weak and has often been done poorly with an agenda driving a desired outcome”.

        Missing defence
        To pretend that Muslims do not care about animal welfare is unfair. There are several Quranic verses and sayings of the Prophet warning Muslims not to harm livestock; mistreatment of animals is considered a sin by the vast majority of Islamic scholars. In fact, advocates of halal slaughter can call on their own slew of scientific studies for support.

        In 1978, research led by Wilhelm Schulze of the University of Veterinary Medicine Hanover showed that “the slaughter in the form of a ritual cut is, if carried out properly, painless in sheep and calves according to EEG [electroencephalography] recordings and the missing defensive actions [of the animals]”. The German Federal Constitutional Court based its 2002 verdict permitting ritual slaughter on this study.

        Then there are the writings and research of Temple Grandin, professor of animal sciences at Colorado State University and one of America’s leading experts on the humane treatment and slaughter of livestock. She sees no difference between stunned and non-stunned slaughter if both are conducted properly and professionally. When a ritual slaughter is “done really right”, Grandin has said, “the animal seemed to act like it didn’t even feel it – if I walked up to that animal and put my hand in its face I would have got a much bigger reaction than I observed from the cut, and that was something which really surprised me”.

        Remember, the “secular ways of slaughter”, as Regenstein points out, also have their downsides: “If the public were to discover that animals were subject to a pre-slaughter intervention – like having their skull cracked open, [being] electrocuted, or put in a gas chamber – they might not really like that either.” Shouldn’t consumers have a right to know which of these methods were used? Shouldn’t they be told about the danger of “mis-stunning”, which leaves the animal conscious and in pain, and occurs “relatively frequently”, according to a 2004 report by the European Food Safety Authority? Why not label all meat with detailed explanations of how exactly the animal in question was killed, and let consumers decide? “Why only pick on halal?” Ruksana Shain asks…

        (I believe Phil is familiar with Temple Grandin.)

  5. The ‘final’ ban was introduced to close all loopholes for exception. As the Danish Food Minister exlained last week.
    The point was to stop applications continuing for exception to current laws. Already halal and kosher barbarism was de facto illegal.
    Once the outright cruel practices of slaugher are stopped then, hopefully, the new agriculture minister will continue in cleaning up the barbaric pig-rearing practices in Denmark.

    p.s. If you are disturbed by halal/kosher slaughter then you should not be buying Danish bacon made from pigs which when babies have their testicles, teeth and tails removed without anæsthesia contrary to EU and Danish law, and must spend their life on steel rails and concrete.

    • In reply to #10 by unholywarlord:

      The ‘final’ ban was introduced to close all loopholes for exception. As the Danish Food Minister exlained last week.
      The point was to stop applications continuing for exception to current laws. Already halal and kosher barbarism was de facto illegal.
      Once the outright cruel practices of slaugher are…

      I, too, urge everyone in the UK to stop buying Danish pig products. Their standards are indeed lamentable.

      • In reply to #11 by phil rimmer:

        I, too, urge everyone in the UK to stop buying Danish pig products. Their standards are indeed lamentable.

        I’m not sure where you get this information, but the Danish standards are one of (if not the) highest in the world.

        • In reply to #77 by PeterLF:

          In reply to #11 by phil rimmer:

          I, too, urge everyone in the UK to stop buying Danish pig products. Their standards are indeed lamentable.

          I’m not sure where you get this information, but the Danish standards are one of (if not the) highest in the world.

          Here.

          (Perhaps I should have more clearly directed my purchasing advice of those in the UK towards British products. In Germany or the Netherlands, Danish may be a step up! In the UK, on most supermarket shelves, we have the choice of British and Danish and some Dutch pig products.) Edited many times.

  6. The new order is a clear interference in religious freedom and limits the Muslims and Jews’ rights to practice their religion in Denmark

    Well, of course it … limits the Muslims and Jews’ rights to practice their religion in Denmark if such practice leads the right of animals to avoid pain and sufferring. If part of a religion’s doctrine involved inflicting pain and suffering on human animals, then that should be interfered with, too. Oh, wait a minute, at least one of the Abrahamic religions does preach pain and suffering on human animals who disagree with its doctrines!! It occurs to me also, that Judaism and Islam have so much in common – why are they at such odds with each other?

  7. A reminder that if you do anything to antagonise the Jewish community you get branded anti-Semitic. Which in this case proves that they do not have a reasoned argument for their practice, so you are branded effectively a nazi.

  8. The “antisemitism” song was inevitable, and now it’s being sung to all of Europe. That wolf has certainly been cried to death.

    Myself, I am anti-kosher-slaughter and, after hearing that old song for so long, I am also anti-antisemitic-criers.

  9. In reply to #3 by Katy Cordeth:

    Do I have a byline in a national left-leaning newspaper, though? Do I fairycakes. There’s no justice, RDnetters; none at all.

    I urge you to apply for his job. Brown is duller than his name, witless and has all the satirical pizzazz of an undercooked pork chop. You’d triple his readership, easy.

  10. I suggest Deputy Minister Rabbi Eli Ben Dahan and others of the islam persuasion with similar complaints about their religious freedoms being trampled upon, return to the stone ages when these edicts were enacted by giving up ALL modern conveniences (and I’ll be generous), after the year 700.

    These guys are all cherry picking again, not realizing attitudes and technology are dynamic. IF they really hold their ancient beliefs to be inviolable then by all means do live in the past with all its drawbacks, in your own little enclave, but don’t be hypocrites about it and insist on modern medicines and technology while still fostering and foisting upon others your cave man mentality. jcw

  11. In reply to #17 by Serdan:

    In reply to #7 by Katy Cordeth:

    Alrighty. Since all kosher meat in Denmark has for the past ten years been imported from abroad, I think these proscriptions against religious methods of animal slaughter may be more about Danish authorities’ pandering to racist elements in that country and have less to do with concerns for animal welfare.

    Yeah, because the Social Democrats are totally known for pandering to racists… You don’t know a whole lot about Danish politics, do you?

    I know very little about Danish politics. If it’s like other Scandiwegian countries such as Norway it will have its vocal far-right groups. These Social Democrats, do they only care if other Social Democrats vote for them? No, I didn’t think so.

    Apart from Hans Christian Anderson, delicious pastries and weak lager, what is Denmark famous for?

    Lego? Niels Bohr? Tycho Brahe? Being the first country to recognize same-sex unions and generally being awesome in regards to tolerance and protecting minorities?

    Don’t forget her. I’m very happy to hear about Denmark’s awesomeness when it comes to tolerance and the protection of minorities, and don’t now feel required to google “Denmark racism” to see what comes up.

    A nation whose economy is heavily reliant on the wholesale slaughter of our porcine pals is enacting legislation to ban cruelty which doesn’t even occur there?

    Uhh… We do slaughter cows too, you know? How would that be a problem though?

    I’m not sure what you’re getting at here, or who ‘we’ refers to. Are you a Dane?

    Shouldn’t we ban all cruelty regardless of whether it occurs?

    From some of the other comments on this thread I get the impression that for all its liberalism when it comes to humans, the treatment meted out to animals in Denmark may be less than stellar. I keep coming back to the fact that all meat prepared to kosher/halal standards comes from outside the country. Not a single animal will benefit from this legislation, so why introduce it? Alaskansee in comment no. 9 says it’s perfectly acceptable for a government to symbolically ban behavior that doesn’t even occur; I however don’t see the point. It reminds me of those places in the US which have outlawed sharia even though that doesn’t exist there.

    Træk den anden, er det fik klokker på.

    Google translate? It’s unintelligible.

    It works on my Google translate, more or less: Pull the other [one], it’s got bells on.

  12. In reply to #28 by Skeptic:

    In reply to #26 by Katy Cordeth:

    I suppose if I cared enough I’d say the logical answer to animal suffering is probably vegetarianism, but I’m a happy carnivore.

    The operation was a success but the patient died. I’m not sure how good vegetarianism would be for those critters we find delicious in terms of species survival.

    This is the sort of muddled thinking I used to use. The issue is suffering, not how many cows exist. I couldn’t care less if cows and pigs eventually go extinct. What I do care about is the vast amount of suffering by sentient beings involved in modern factory farms. If you can live with that just to satiate your lust for animal flesh then that’s on you.

    Hello again, Skeptic. I’ve included the bit of Steve Hill’s post I was responding to in my reply to your own comment, in the interests of clarity. I was simply pointing out the possible logical consequences of vegetarianism.

    I find it sad that you don’t care about extinction. A species’ extirpation doesn’t occur in a vacuum: it creates ripples that can spread who knows how far. [Removed by moderator to bring within Terms of Use]

  13. In reply to #26 by Katy Cordeth:
    [Removed by moderator to bring within Terms of Use]

    I keep coming back to the fact that all meat prepared to kosher/halal standards comes from outside the country. Not a single animal will benefit from this legislation, so why introduce it? Alaskansee in comment no. 9 says it’s perfectly acceptable for a government to symbolically ban behavior that doesn’t even occur; I however don’t see the point. It reminds me of those places in the US which have outlawed sharia even though that doesn’t exist there.

    The point of placing such laws is to prevent and inhibit such activities from taking place!
    It’s amazing how you can get so passionate about the deluded rituals of people who adore a pedophile war criminal, named Muhammed, but end up throwing tantrums the moment someone dare speak on human rights or animal rights!

    • In reply to #30 by Terra Watt:

      In reply to #26 by Katy Cordeth:

      I have found that you vegetarians aren’t always the most logical of people. It might have something to do with a deficiency of iron in your diet.

      You are such a foul ignoramus!

      I actually know quite a lot about poultry, Terra.

      • In reply to #32 by Katy Cordeth:

        In reply to #30 by Terra Watt:

        In reply to #26 by Katy Cordeth:
        I actually know quite a lot about poultry, Terra.

        You probably do but what I was referring was to your sheer ignorance about vegetarian and vegan diets!

        In reply to #33 by Katy Cordeth:
        I don’t think I’m the one throwing a tantrum on this thread, Terra.

        Really? Was it someone else that posted in outcry against the Danish government?
        Especially with accusations of racist agendas and then going on to copy paste “studies”
        defending the throat slitting of animals?
        Nope, it clearly was you.

        • In reply to #34 by Terra Watt:

          In reply to #32 by Katy Cordeth:

          In reply to #30 by Terra Watt:

          In reply to #26 by Katy Cordeth:
          I actually know quite a lot about poultry, Terra.

          You probably do but what I was referring was to your sheer ignorance about vegetarian and vegan diets!

          In reply to #33 by Katy Cordeth:
          I don’t think…

          I do intend to reply to this, Terra. I’m just going to wait until your 1 hour editing window has closed.


          Edit: It’s the convention if you amend your comment to include an addendum in which you make mention of it, as I’ve just done. Here. Just now.

          • In reply to #36 by InYourFaceNewYorker:

            In reply to #1 by PeteGriggs:

            If not, the method of slaughter makes little difference in the overall suffering.

            This banning makes a very strong stance which is that Animal rights are to be placed
            before religion! This is a very strong message and would likely help make way for even more
            laws concerning animal rights and human rights for that matter!

            Its a step in the right direction.

            In reply to #35 by Katy Cordeth:

            In reply to #34 by Terra Watt:

            In reply to #32 by Katy Cordeth:
            I do intend to reply to this, Terra. I’m just going to wait until the 1 hour editing window has closed.
            Edit: It’s the convention if you amend your comment to include an addendum in which you make mention of it, as I’ve just done. Here. Right now.

            Make your point with regards to the subject matter if you have one, I don’t have time for your drama.

        • In reply to #34 by Terra Watt:

          In reply to #32 by Katy Cordeth:

          In reply to #30 by Terra Watt:

          In reply to #26 by Katy Cordeth:

          I actually know quite a lot about poultry, Terra.

          You probably do but what I was referring was to your sheer ignorance about vegetarian and vegan diets!

          I didn’t know that was what we were talking about. For the record the only thing I know about galliformes is that when cooked they tend to be delicious.

          In reply to #33 by Katy Cordeth:

          I don’t think I’m the one throwing a tantrum on this thread, Terra.

          Really? Was it someone else that posted in outcry against the Danish government? Especially with accusations of racist agendas and then going on to copy paste “studies” defending the throat slitting of animals? Nope, it clearly was you.

          I didn’t post in outcry about anything. All I’ve done is question why it was necessary for Denmark to outlaw a practice which doesn’t even occur within its boundaries. I didn’t copy paste anything either; what I did was provide a link to an article about this issue which you happen not to agree with. Did you even read Medhi Hasan’s essay?

    • In reply to #30 (edited) by Terra Watt:

      In reply to #26 by Katy Cordeth:

      I have found that you vegetarians aren’t always the most logical of people. It might have something to do with a deficiency of iron in your diet.

      You are such a ignoramus!

      I keep coming back to the fact that all meat prepared to kosher/halal standards comes from outside the country. Not a single animal will benefit from this legislation, so why introduce it? Alaskansee in comment no. 9 says it’s perfectly acceptable for a government to symbolically ban behavior that doesn’t even occur; I however don’t see the point. It reminds me of those places in the US which have outlawed sharia even though that doesn’t exist there.

      The point of placing such laws is to prevent and inhibit such activities from taking place! It’s amazing how you can get so passionate about the deluded rituals of people who adore a pedophile war criminal, named Muhammed, but end up throwing tantrums the moment someone dare speak on human rights or animal rights!

      I don’t think I’m the one throwing a tantrum on this thread, Terra.

  14. If the danish government is so concerned why don’t they go the whole hog, pun intended, and ban imported kosher meat. I can’t see the logic in this, to me they are just making a statment aimed at muslims. I can’t see this leading to any further reduction in cruelty or leading to any further legislation reducing animal cruelty. I bet you can still import fois gras. They only possible advantage is people can cry foul, pun intended, on the inconsistancy and use it as a lever, good luck with them on that one.

    • In reply to #40 by jjbircham:

      If the danish government is so concerned why don’t they go the whole hog, pun intended, and ban imported kosher meat. I can’t see the logic in this, to me they are just making a statment aimed at muslims.

      Halal slaughter does not preclude pre-stunning (the basic humane requirement of European abattoirs). Halal requires that an imam say a prayer for the animal at the moment of slaughter, as a mark of respect for and thanks to the animal.

      90% of halal meat consumed in Britain is pre-stunned. It meets the humane requirements of any non-halal meat sold here.

      Kosher slaughter is, unfortunately, the problem.

      • *In reply to #41 by Stevehil

        Halal slaughter does not preclude pre-stunning (the basic human…

        So why then are they banning Halal meat? The article makes no distinction.
        Not that I agree that stunning is any more “humane”, unless humane is used in the planet of th apes sense of the word, but that is doubtless a result of my iron deficiency. (Katy :) )

    • In reply to #40 by jjbircham:

      If the danish government is so concerned why don’t they go the whole hog

      As Katy has hinted this may well be, at least partly, gestural. Denmark has created a middle class paradise at considerable cost. (I am a great supporter of most that it has done in maximising the potential of its citizens.) The total average tax burden per person, though, is an eye watering 78% of income….This expensive, bijoux, heaven on earth has been bought at some cultural cost too. There is a notable homogenising of the culture that has become inevitably (?), self protective and change phobic. They see a large influx of outsiders taking an “unfair” proportion of there substantial long term investment.

      The situation is competently exploited by the Danish People’s Party (sic) who are driving some scary and draconian anti immigration policies. Though not in power those that are are trying to find ways of distracting attention from the DPP (much as the tories here try and steal enough of UKIP’s clothes to win back voters.) Gestures like this ban with little practical significance are ideal. (Me, I like the gesture. If only their terrible pig welfare standards suggested they gave an actual damn.)

      If this is the case, the gesture is aimed at Hallal more than Kosher. It is only Muslim immigration that exercises the DPP here. The fact that Hallal could be possibly be compliant (given its substantial pre-stun compliance in the UK) does make it look like both sides squaring up over the symbolic nature of it.

      (My source for the Danish political and cultural stuff came from two excellent BBC radio docs recently. I’ll try and find links. At least decent, upstanding, tax paying Britishers could access them….)

      • In reply to #44 by phil rimmer:

        If you could Phil that would be great.

        BBC radio documentaries are usually worth a listen, even radio 5 managed to do a great one on Lance Armstrong and doping in cycling, i say even because it’s not their forte but they excelled themselves with that one.

        As regards to the gesture, I don’t like it because it is dishonest. in fact it is worse than dishonest it is underhand.
        By that I mean it is not a knee jerk reaction it is calculated.

        • In reply to #45 by jjbircham:

          Looking now…

          As regards to the gesture, I don’t like it because it is dishonest.

          I didn’t phrase my support conditionally enough. The gesture is ideal for their purposes. If there was a part aimed genuinely at reducing suffering I’m for it, was all I intended to say there. (I must respond to Katy’s good evidence from Temple Grandin on this, though.)

          Gesture politics is a dangerous, and as you say, dishonest game and mostly counterproductive in the long run.

          Europe. Driving on the Right.. The culture one eludes me at the moment though It might be about a fortnight ago….about 11am.

          Edit ….Looking for the wrong thing.

          It was Book of the Week now sadly elapsed.

          More edits above.

      • In reply to #44 by phil rimmer:

        Can non-Danes stop commenting about Denmark, showing they know nothing about the country. Sadly, BBC is not a good source nor is watching Broen or Forbrydelsen. WTF is Scandiwegian ? A disparaging remark made by an ignorant Canmerixian ?

        • In reply to #53 by unholywarlord:

          In reply to #44 by phil rimmer:

          Can non-Danes stop commenting about Denmark,

          Well, no. This is a place for discussion.

          showing they know nothing about the country. Sadly, BBC is not a good source nor is watching Broen or Forbrydelsen.

          Yes, but I don’t know that until corrected. The BBC journalist and the book author seemed utterly non-partisan. I think the general view of Denmark is very favourable indeed. I’m sure you are not claiming that Denmark is not without some faults at least?

          Why don’t you correct the errors? None of us know that information given in good faith by a generally reliable source may be wrong until we try to use it. If we didn’t try to use it we would remain unwittingly wrong, which I propose to you is worse for all.

          I have used “Scandiwegian” before. I considered it an affectionate term.

          • In reply to #55 by phil rimmer:

            In reply to #53 by unholywarlord:

            In reply to #44 by phil rimmer:

            Can non-Danes stop commenting about Denmark,

            Well, no. This is a place for discussion.

            showing they know nothing about the country. Sadly, BBC is not a good source nor is watching Broen or Forbrydelsen.

            Yes, but I don’t know that…
            Ad hominem tactics are generally frowned upon as unworthy. In this case..’ad nationem’, maybe. Wierder still, people are so desperate to write something that they go after the onees who have just gone some way to removing religious influence on civil life.
            The bbc source you use is from 2011. Times and politics change and 3 years is rather longer than a week.There was a book read on bbc recently you may also think of. It was a personal view of Denmark. Is Bill Bryson giving an accurate picture of UK?

          • In reply to #63 by unholywarlord:

            I resent the imputation of malice in my observations. It is un-evidenced. Google-search my name and this site (and the old one) and you will find plenty of evidence of great admiration of Denmark. (“The American dream is alive and well and living in Denmark.”) Indeed, I took care to illustrate my support for the county in the initial post.

            I also took great care to research the DPP before posting and found nothing to contradict the analysis in the program.

            The rest of my observations were drawn from the book you identified. I linked to it in a supplementary post.

            The problems it is having are the problems we are having here (as stated in the posts). For Denmark, being at the cutting edge of egalitarianism for its citizens, it is interesting how this can create problems amongst the inevitable presence of those with right wing sentiments. This is a problem that greatly exercises me and I write here a lot about the importance of carrying them with you from the outset.

            Denmark is not attacked by a truth, nor is it attacked by an erroneous observation made in good faith. Good friends tell each other if they think they have spinach stuck in their teeth.

          • In reply to #67 by phil rimmer:

            In reply to #63 by unholywarlord:

            I resent the imputation of malice in my observations. It is un-evidenced. Google-search my name and this site (and the old one) and you will find plenty of evidence of great admiration of Denmark. (“The American dream is alive and well and living in Denmark.”) Inde…

            Malice ? No, misinformed comment. You have a lot of spinach in your teeth. A single point for your information: the DF are no longer in the government and have not been in the government since 2011. Obviously Google is not enough for ‘research’.’Nuff said.

            A more interesting development is that some Israeli MPs now call Danmark for the ‘most anti-semitic land in Europe’ because of the ban. The racist card is obviously to be played when their religious special treatment is curtailed. Denmark is the country which saved 99% of its Jewish population from the Nazis and has generally had good relations with the small Jewish community.
            Muslim lands are also complaining that a boycott should be implemented against Danish meat but not in language so colourful as the Israeli MPs.

          • In reply to #86 by unholywarlord:

            You may have forgotten or not noticed that I was in favour of the ban for animal welfare reasons. I questioned the reasons for its timing and appearance, though we have subsequently discovered thanks to PeterLF a little more on that*. I specifically pointed to the politics in the UK where the governing party is looking to adopt some of the policies of the more racist and xenophobic parties (I was specifically aligning UKIP with the DPP here) to deplete their sway with the electorate and wondered if these same principles applied in Denmark. Denmark’s (very charitably) mediocre animal welfare performance, rather made the publicity surrounding this ban look at best gestural and at worst, to some, religio-racist, which is a huge and inappropriate pity. The bitter reward is the Jewish religious backlash you mention.

            *PeterLF’s account was that it was a mere formalisation of a pre-existing state of affairs. Had it been done quietly we may have avoided all this fuss.

          • In reply to #56 by jjbircham:

            In reply to #53 by unholywarlord:

            perhaps you could enlighten me on why animal rights only apply to muslims/ jews in your country.
            It is because animal rights apply to everyone that the legal loophole has been closed…………

        • In reply to #53 by unholywarlord:

          In reply to #44 by phil rimmer:

          …WTF is Scandiwegian ? A disparaging remark made by an ignorant Canmerixian?

          An old nautical term, apparently:

          Scandiwegian

          Naval. The general maritime slang name for a man or ship from Norway, Sweden or Denmark. Sometimes ‘Scowegian’ or ‘Scandihoovian’.

          • In reply to #69 by Katy Cordeth:

            In reply to #53 by unholywarlord:

            In reply to #44 by phil rimmer:

            …WTF is Scandiwegian ? A disparaging remark made by an ignorant Canmerixian?

            An old nautical term, apparently:

            Scandiwegian

            That’s why my dad always used it! (He used to work for the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company.)

          • In reply to #71 by phil rimmer:

            In reply to #69 by Katy Cordeth:

            In reply to #53 by unholywarlord:

            In reply to #44 by phil rimmer:

            …WTF is Scandiwegian ? A disparaging remark made by an ignorant Canmerixian?

            An old nautical term, apparently:

            Scandiwegian

            That’s why my dad always used it! (He used to work for the Mersey Doc…

            I first heard it used by Stephen Fry on an edition of Just a Minute. He was challenged, by Paul Merton I think, and Nicholas allowed the challenge! A warning that cravats are not conducive to rational thought, perhaps; counterintuitive as that may seem.

  15. General comment and…

    In reply to #28 by Skeptic:

    In reply to #26 by Katy Cordeth:

    The issue is suffering,

    We agree.

    I couldn’t care less if cows and pigs eventually go extinct.

    But not on this

    Hypothetical-

    If an animal could choose between a natural environment, the savannah, say, or a catered holiday complex with a protective fence around it. Which might they choose?

    What if, after a life equal to their natural environment lifespan, whilst still fit and healthy, parasite-, disease- and predator-free, they died in their sleep?

    I’m trying to get to the nub of what different people object to. Its absolutely clear that different things press different people’s buttons.

    For me the above is an ideal scenario that we are too slowly approaching.

    Fouad Boussetta’s comment at #22 certainly pressed my buttons particularly because of the whole social context and the lack of…a necessary kind of….”investment” in and commitment to the animal. I’m struggling to frame what I intend here.

    For the record I eat British meat products of the highest welfare status available. I don’t eat Lamb and haven’t done for a long time. If I could have higher welfare meat at a price I would buy it.

    • In reply to #42 by phil rimmer:

      General comment and…

      For the record I eat British meat products of the highest welfare status available. I don’t eat Lamb and haven’t done for a long time. If I could have higher welfare meat at a price I would buy it.

      I agree with you, I was simply trying to make a point that the issue for me isn’t the number of domesticated animals that are living, but the number that are suffering. I wouldn’t be so opposed to eating meat if the animals were treated humanely. Unfortunately that’s very difficult to find in the U.S. so it’s much easier just to not eat it. Now I don’t crave it at all and wouldn’t eat it regardless.

  16. As an Animal lover I wish our Government could ban this practice in Britain. We are so up the arse hole of Muslims that our Government prefer animals to suffer then not pander to Muslims and those practicing a fairystory for adults. I loath all religions. I hope one day they will cease to exist.

      • In reply to #48 by phil rimmer:

        In reply to #47 by ikinmoore:

        As an Animal lover I wish our Government could ban this practice in Britain.

        To repeat Stevehill’s important fact- 90% of UK hallal animals are pre-stunned.

        But from a legal point of view this could be 100 percent, it is only the muslims who ensure it is 10percent. why are we
        always pandering to our government?

        • In reply to #49 by jjbircham:

          In reply to #48 by phil rimmer:

          To repeat Stevehill’s important fact- 90% of UK halal animals are pre-stunned.

          But from a legal point of view this could be 0 percent,

          I don’t know why this is not 0% (100%). Nor what indifference or what non-compliance with standards or recommendations are at the root of this partial figure.

          Perhaps Stevehill can enllighten us more?

          I think the point is there seems to be no principle that it can’t be 0% and still remain halal.

        • In reply to #49 by jjbircham:

          Britain has opted (no doubt partly out of misplaced “muliticultural sensitivity”) to take a softly softly approach and see what can be done by voluntary, non-legislative change. And if it works, that’s great. I am pretty confident that the 90% figure will creep up. The mainstream meat trade is pretty much onside and we are left (forgive the lazy stereotyping here) with ignorant and usually relatively recent immigrants doing DIY kitchen table slaughter for the most part.

          Personally I would legislate, but I am also happy to give credit to the large majority of British Muslims who are no longer part of the problem.

          On this one, I am afraid, Muslims can justifiably claim the moral high ground over Jews.

    • In reply to #47 by ikinmoore:

      I loath all religions. I hope one day they will cease to exist.

      In Britain or Denmark?

      Do you also oppose vaccination for Danish children?

      Don’t you have enough problems with Xian fairy stories in Britain already, before seeking to reform society in Denmark?

  17. The real test by which we may come to a more humane method of murdering animals is by asking ourselves, which method may we prefer when given a choice to die such that our carcass may quench the hunger of another animal. Answering this question would, perhaps lead to the correct method of murder. To me it seems that I would prefer being put unconscious very quickly before being cut into small pieces. Bronze age desert people may think otherwise.

    • In reply to #57 by md1039:

      To me it seems that I would prefer being put unconscious very quickly before being cut into small pieces.

      Given the need to simply lose consciousness straight away I think the most reliable termination (if I can’t just be made to not wake up without any prior knowledge of the fact) would be to dissociate all my neurons in a time below that of normal neural processes. Rather than the guillotine with its fearful prospect of continued consciousness I would elect for a head squashing by a great weight dropped from a sufficient height. 16 tons is traditional here. Having been knocked unconscious and noting that all memories from short term memory including any pain at the time are now quite absent, I would settle for some lesser blow to the head in substitute.

      Cut into small or large pieces, finds me more or less indifferent, but I would be very happy to become cat food. Pets are a grave CO2 contributor with their requirement for meat. I would be delighted after my death to donate my body to to the Whiskas mincing machine. Pets are important for the lonely and they need to be fed. More realistically being cut up by medical students seems a worthy end, though why the two can’t be combined, I’m not sure.

      • In reply to #59 by phil rimmer:

        In reply to #57 by md1039:

        …Rather than the guillotine with its fearful prospect of continued consciousness I would elect for a head squashing by a great weight dropped from a sufficient height. 16 tons is traditional here.

        I’ve tried buying stuff from Acme™ too, Phil. The company doesn’t exist. The Geococcyx problem in my neck of the woods is intolerable.

        All you ever hear is “Meep.”

        • In reply to #68 by Katy Cordeth:

          In reply to #59 by phil rimmer:

          I’ve tried buying stuff from Acme™ too…

          I think I got my love of physics from Chuck Jones. Its the comic inevitability of the stuff…

          Heat death of the Universe. LoL.

  18. I grew up on a British farm and I have actually witnessed slaughter using a captive bolt pistol ( No it is not the same as a nail gun ).Put it this way, when it is time for me to depart this life I hope I die as quick as that. The animal drops to the floor instantly and thats it, out for the count. On the other hand I have seen some videos on Youtube featuring Halal slaughter, Now whether they deliberately targeted some ‘bad’ slaughterhouses or not I can’t say but from what I saw it looks totally horrific. The animals seemed to be in a lot of distress and some were even crying out in agony. The sooner we can follow Denmark’s example, the better I say.

    • In reply to #65 by Haymaker:

      I grew up on a British farm and I have actually witnessed slaughter using a captive bolt pistol ( No it is not the same as a nail gun ).Put it this way, when it is time for me to depart this life I hope I die as quick as that. The animal drops to the floor instantly and thats it, out for the count….

      This is my understanding and expectation.

      Katy’s quote from Temple Grandin, I’m sure, is reliable also (the throat-slit animal acted as if stunned), but I think the technique cannot be relied upon to be consistent. It is a technique far more likely to depend on skill which may be absent. We have biological mechanisms to confer immobility whilst still conscious. Nor can we trust to purely Skinnerian observations of behaviours when it is internal feelings that actually concern us. Only brain scanning could resolve the question of distress.

      • I can’t help but suspect that many here who criticize Denmark’s decision on grounds of racism etc,
        are simply intimidated by the non-negotiable stances made by certain religions and cultures, like Islam and Judaism.
        What such individuals need to ask themselves is this, which is more reasonable?
        Maintaining a non-negotiable mindset with regards to things like fundamental human and animal rights?
        Or compromising those rights and concerns in advance of the ritualistic obsessions of the religious.

        Personally, it’s those fundamental rights that should be protected and made non-negotiable.
        To tolerate the petty tantrums of the religious and the multiculturalists is to compromise on important ethics.

        Keep in mind that there was a time where even babies were thought to feel no real pain,
        and surgery without anesthetics was justified by reasoning that the brain is able to flood chemicals that dull the extreme pain. In cases dealing with possible risk of afflicting intense pain or injury, one needs to stand on the side of caution
        and not on the side of arrogant presumptions. Like with those who claim there to be minimal pain resulting from throat slitting.

        Now, making such clear cut ethical calls on an important surgery or painful cancer treatment would be tough.

        However, in this case Danish law at large, is pressured and asked to compromise on the grounds of a stubborn group
        obsessed with petty religious ritual. It is simply ludicrous to assert the behaviour of those groups as being the stance that is non-negotiable!

        More power to Denmark for standing up against these religions!
        This would also hopefully give them the strength to make a decisive stance against non-consensual circumcision.


        -edit- addition

        In reply to #44 by phil rimmer:

        There is a notable homogenising that has become inevitably (?), self protective and change phobic. They see a large influx of outsiders taking an “unfair” proportion of there substantial long term investment.

        There’s nothing wrong with homogenizing a society as long as the forces that shape the culture, have fundamental human and animal rights as its cause! Being self protective and change phobic against cultures and religions that have potential to threaten society’s well being is reasonable.

        The situation is competently exploited by the Danish People’s Party (sic) who are driving some scary and draconian anti immigration policies.

        I doubt that they are as scary as you suggest.
        Can you give some examples?

        • In reply to #89 by Terra Watt:

          There’s nothing wrong with homogenizing a society as long as the forces that shape the culture, have fundamental human and animal rights as its cause!

          Too often homogenization can lead to Geert Wilders type “change phobia”. Healthy societies have a wide diversity of individuals with differing tastes and happy to witness the evolution of their own society. I was reflecting on the opinion expressed by Michael Booth. The section on Denmark was read here

          I doubt that they are as scary as you suggest. Can you give some examples?

          The account here at 14.00 was depressing.

          To repeat I am a huge fan of the Danish success story. The risks it runs, with such high level so personal, citizen investment, as a result, are almost inevitable, which is why they need urgent flagging.

        • In reply to #89 by Terra Watt:

          I can’t help but suspect that many here who criticize Denmark’s decision on grounds of racism etc, are simply intimidated by the non-negotiable stances made by certain religions and cultures, like Islam and Judaism.

          I can only speak for myself, but I’m not intimidated by anything vis-à-vis this issue. I tend to think the shoe is very much on the other foot and it’s those who have a knee-jerk positive reaction any time measures are introduced which impact negatively on these particular religions or their followers without stopping to question the reasons behind it who are displaying evidence of being intimidated.

          What such individuals need to ask themselves is this, which is more reasonable? Maintaining a non-negotiable mindset with regards to things like fundamental human and animal rights? Or compromising those rights and concerns in advance of the ritualistic obsessions of the religious.

          If you adopt the same attitude as those with whom you disagree, i.e. one of complete non-negotiation, how is progress ever going to come about? Intransigence is the hallmark of the weak-minded; smart people know that flexibility is the key to getting what you want and the only thing standing in the way of atrophy.
          Stubbornness is a characteristic of lower animals such as mules and goats; admirable in its own way in humans too, but only if it can be supported. Simply parroting “no negotiation, no surrender,” does no one any credit.

          Personally, it’s those fundamental rights that should be protected and made non-negotiable. To tolerate the petty tantrums of the religious and the multiculturalists is to compromise on important ethics.

          Ah, the dread word multiculturalism. Those who utter it in an online discussion might as well be wearing a button reading “Go Home Anyone Who Doesn’t Think What I’ve been Raised to Think.”

          Keep in mind that there was a time where even babies were thought to feel no real pain, and surgery without anesthetics was justified by reasoning that the brain is able to flood chemicals that dull the extreme pain.

          Citations, please.

          In cases dealing with possible risk of afflicting intense pain or injury, one needs to stand on the side of caution and not on the side of arrogant presumptions. Like with those who claim there to be minimal pain resulting from throat slitting.

          May I direct you again to Medhi Hasan’s article Halal Hysteria, with particular reference to the following:

          Then there are the writings and research of Temple Grandin, professor of animal sciences at Colorado State University and one of America’s leading experts on the humane treatment and slaughter of livestock. She sees no difference between stunned and non-stunned slaughter if both are conducted properly and professionally. When a ritual slaughter is “done really right”, Grandin has said, “the animal seemed to act like it didn’t even feel it – if I walked up to that animal and put my hand in its face I would have got a much bigger reaction than I observed from the cut, and that was something which really surprised me”.

          Professor Grandin would hardly seem to fit the category of ‘arrogantly presumptive’. Perhaps she like me is just given to throwing tantrums.

          Now, making such clear cut ethical calls on an important surgery or painful cancer treatment would be tough.

          However, in this case Danish law at large, is pressured and asked to compromise on the grounds of a stubborn group obsessed with petty religious ritual. It is simply ludicrous to assert the behaviour of those groups as being the stance that is non-negotiable!

          More power to Denmark for standing up against these religions! This would also hopefully give them the strength to make a decisive stance against non-consensual circumcision.

          How many times does it need to be said that all kosher and halal meat comes from outside Denmark’s borders and not a single animal will benefit from this law? Would it make a difference if I put it in bold, or in italics, or in BLOCK CAPITALS?

          You’re applauding the country for its uncompromising attitude on a non-existent issue, and have the temerity to suggest that those of us who question this are somehow intimidated by religious elements. We’re not: we’re just baffled by irrelevant legislation and suspect an ulterior motive.

    • In reply to #74 by Katy Cordeth:

      Could we get a new thread, maybe?I’m so sick of seeing that veal when I come to the main page that all sympathy I might have had for veals is in danger of disappearing.

      The lady in charge of posting new articles, is no longer. Hence, irregular posting of current topics :(


      In ‘Babette’s Feast’, an ominous feeling was visited upon one sister after observing a live turtle and cow’s head in their kitchen. Alas, drinking wine brought about a general friendliness, and an appreciative consumption of the supper.

    • In reply to #74 by Katy Cordeth:

      Could we get a new thread, maybe? I’m so sick of seeing that veal when I come to the main page that all sympathy I might have had for veals is in danger of disappearing.

      I thought it had to be in a box before it could be “veal”. ;-)

      Steve

  19. A couple of things (from someone who’s been following this debate in Denmark for some time)… Must confess I haven’t read through all the comments, but certain things that caught my eye as well as in the article above are a bit inaccurate.

    A little summary: In the 1980′s the Muslim society in Denmark said yes to “allow” stunning when slaughtering certified halal – which effectively means that regular moderate muslims have their blessing to purchase any danish-produced meat (within limitations of course) that are produced on industrial scale. Comparably more fundamental Muslims still import meat from other countries, mimicking the way the (very small) Jewish populations do it. So the traditional “dhabiha” method of slaughter has not been an issue here since back then. The “ban” that has gone viral these days is just the removal of a vestigial section in the slaughterhouse regulations which allowed (under strict circumstances) ritual slaughter of the fundamental kind (with no regard to animal welfare) – originally argued from a notion of “rather there than in a basement somewhere”. It was never used, and thus now it was removed.

    • in the article above, the text for the picture (“Kosher rites demand an animal is killed by slitting its throat while its alive and allowing it to bleed to death”) is implying that normal slaughter is done differently. It’s not. Western slaughter practice uses stunguns that may or may not penetrate the brain – but death is not guaranteed before the bleeding. Most animals bleeds out. The difference in “shechita” (Jewish traditional slaughter practice) and dhabiha to normal practice is that the animal is supposed to be “aware” of what is happening – and thus be as close to god as possible in the end. That is obviously not allowed in modern countries – but due to the deal from 1983 it hasn’t been a problem in Denmark since.

    • oh, and don’t pay attention to the Danish jew guy and muslim guy who have been circulating the media. They are nobodies politically and nobody will listen to them. Of course they feel their religious freedoms trespassed upon – but the same is true for things like honor-killings. Actual law comes before religious law in Denmark.

    Other than that: My own biggest personal concern on this is that the publicity surrounding this “ban” will make more Danish Muslims not want to buy Danish meats – and thus causing more animal suffering (albeit elsewhere in the world). Also, the major Danish slaughterhouses carry international halal certification – and if that certification should get withdrawn due to fundamentalist pressure, it would wreak havoc on the Danish meat exports.

    • In reply to #76 by PeterLF:

      A couple of things (from someone who’s been following this debate in Denmark for some time)… Must confess I haven’t read through all the comments, but certain things that caught my eye as well as in the article above are a bit inaccurate.

      A little summary: In the 1980′s the Muslim society in Denm…

      Useful info. Thanks

    • In reply to #76 by PeterLF:

      The “ban” that has gone viral these days is just the removal of a vestigial section in the slaughterhouse regulations which allowed (under strict circumstances) ritual slaughter of the fundamental kind (with no regard to animal welfare) – originally argued from a notion of “rather there than in a basement somewhere”. It was never used, and thus now it was removed.

      Any idea why this thing went viral? Was it for political reasons? Was the religious push back after it went viral?

    • In reply to #76 by PeterLF:

      in the article above, the text for the picture (“Kosher rites demand an animal is killed by slitting its throat while its alive and allowing it to bleed to death”) is implying that normal slaughter is done differently. It’s not. Western slaughter practice uses stunguns that may or may not penetrate the brain – but death is not guaranteed before the bleeding.

      The point of the bolt gun and electrocution is to knock the animal unconscious!
      Not kill it instantly. This is so that the animal will not come to experience the lethal wound that ultimately
      kills it and thus physical and psychological suffering is minimized.
      This is what Halal and Kosher object to as they essentially insist on the animal staying conscious to its very death.
      That is barbaric and should rightfully be banned.

      In reply to Stevehill

      It’s not ridiculous. If we were all vegetarians tomorrow, hundreds of domesticated species would become extinct very quickly. These species cannot survive in “the wild” and anyway there is no longer any “wild” for them to go to.

      That’s one of the most frivolous sentiments I’ve ever heard.
      The primary concern with animal well being isn’t extinction but the wellbeing of their conscience!
      If we have morphed animals to the point where they cannot survive on their own anymore, then its
      us that are to be blamed. In such cases, legal pressure should be made to ban people from breeding such breeds.

      Example: Chickens whose breasts grow too large for their legs to support!

      Another example would be dogs who can no longer give birth naturally, since the head of the pup
      is far larger than the vaginal entrance. We have to do C-sections on them!

      As the most intelligent species on earth, we need to better ourselves.

      It was only since 2012 that I myself stopped consuming animal products, like meat, fish, eggs and dairy.
      This isn’t like a religion where you are checked as to whether you really are a virgin.
      This is about instilling educated practical choices to your lifestyle to make things better.

    • In reply to #81 by maria melo:

      We don´t need to say we need to eat animals in order to conserve them, that sounds ridiculous.

      It’s not ridiculous. If we were all vegetarians tomorrow, hundreds of domesticated species would become extinct very quickly. These species cannot survive in “the wild” and anyway there is no longer any “wild” for them to go to.

  20. I wonder if either Jews or Muslims give that much thought as to what the rest of our world think about thier practices. They’re backward savages with no decency. I suspect that if they haven’t learned anything by now that it is unlikely that they’ll learn anything in the near future. To honest I think that…

  21. “It’s not ridiculous. If we were all vegetarians tomorrow, hundreds of domesticated species would become extinct very quickly. These species cannot survive in “the wild” and anyway there is no longer any “wild” for them to go to.”

    In Reply to comment 82 Stevehill

    If there would be any interest in conserving them, of course a solution would always come through some brilliant mind, that wouldn´t even be a difficult thing to do(I guess), but I will not debate the issue The lives animals are living in industrial farms is no life at all, it is not acceptable by no means, and no excuse that we have to eat meat, at least, even people who are not vegetarian or vegans strictly should eat less meat, it is not as healthy as propaganda makes believe. A steak, perhaps once in a month ? Of course that the same people that don´t mind at all about animal welfare are the same that don´t care about poeople too. Milk, was told, had a so high quantity of antibiotics that put at risk public health, meat is so full of hormones that whatever it would be supposed to be, is not healthy anymore. The same for fruit, vegetables, cereals GMO, there is no ethics either, but greed. If people would care more about animal welfare, they´d be concerning about themselves too.

  22. I hope I’m not too late on this but there’s a lot of speculation as to WHY the law was implemented, and sadly not even the Danes commenting are being entirely accurate.
    As I understand it, the reason for the law being changed was that there had been a request for a group, neither jewish nor muslim, to be allowed to slaughter animals without stunning. Furthermore a group of Danish muslims, who did not like the halal-certification that allowed stunning, made their own halal-certification organisation called Danish Halal. The halal guidelines of this group require among other things, that only muslims may butcher the animals(which is ofcourse “racial discrimination”) along with a requirement that the animals aren’t stunned. Said group was looking for partners in Denmark that would follow their guidelines. In other words the status quo was under threat and that threat had to be dealt with.
    And as for not banning the import of meat from animals that hasn’t been stunned… Well it’s supposedly not that simple. I’m no expert on law, neither Danish nor EU, but a lawyer(or whatever you call them in your country) recently wrote a piece on why the requirement to stun is not violating the religious freedom of jews and muslims according to EU law. A really big part of that is that they are allowed to import meat from animals that haven’t been stunned before being killed. Can’t have one without the other apparently.

    kind regards

    • In reply to #93 by Michael Larsen:

      Interesting stuff. Any links for this?

      but a lawyer(or whatever you call them in your country) recently wrote a piece on why the requirement to stun is not violating the religious freedom of jews and muslims according to EU law.

      And any for the above?

  23. kosher and halal slaughter are prohibited and all of a sudden the danes are anti-semitic and anti-muslim..
    well, good on the danes.. when are the rest of our govenrments going to follow suit..??

  24. sorry folks, but as a jewish born atheist i have to side against the danes on this one, and against anyone who associates ‘slaughter’ (which just means ‘killing’, when you get right down to it) w/a guarantee of ‘cruelty’, at least as far as kosher slaughtering goes. the entire point of kosher slaughtering according to ritual is to ensure the animal feels absolutely no pain-it’s a requirement for being certified as ‘kosher’, as is the requirement that the animal be perfectly healthy. the jews, as far as animals go, were pretty much the first culture to codify ‘kindness to animals’ into actual law-there’s also a law in the OT which states that a farmer has to tend to his livestock getting fed before he sits down to eat dinner, heh. (‘though shall not cook the lamb/kid in its mother’s milk’ isn’t just about, and may not at all be about, mixing meat and milk.-it’s a lesson about morality as well, i.e. ‘rubbing salt in a wound’, or ‘adding insult to injury’.). an animal that gets it throat slit completely and cleanlyby a perfect blade in less than 1/10th of a second doesn’t undergo a painfull death. as silly as i think all religions are-this law truly is nothing but ‘reverse prejudice’ by one religious,(predominantly christian) NOT secular group, against others (jews and arabs). (i can’t speak towards hallal slaughter as i’m completely ignorant on that subject).

  25. I just happened upon the following article and thought it might be of interest:

    Denmark: OK to Rape Animals But Not OK to Have Halal and Kosher Meat
    >

    Sheep shagging and other assorted bestiality is legal in Denmark, a country that has recently been marred by controversy over its ban on Halal and Kosher meat slaughter, which is considered “inhumane” by opponents. Minister of agriculture Dan Jørgensen told Denmark’s TV2 that “animal rights come before religion”.

    Interestingly, animal brothels are openly doing business in Denmark where there is a thriving bestiality scene, clients come from such places as Norway, Sweden, Holland and Germany. (h/t: Cliff)

    This is remarkable, I thought these nations were supposed to be all about “choice?” What choice does an animal have in getting banged by a human?

    Animal brothels legal in Denmark

    (ICENEWS)

    Laws in both Denmark and Norway are fairly open when it comes to a person’s legal right to engage in sexual activity with an animal. The law states that doing so is perfectly legal, so long as the animal involved does not suffer. According to the Danish newspaper 24timer, this interesting gap in the law has led to a flourishing business in which people pay in order to have sex with animals.

    On the internet, several Danish animal owners openly advertise their services. The newspaper contacted several such individuals and was told that many of the animals have been engaged in this kind of activity for several years and that the animals crave the sexual stimulation. The newspaper found that the cost charged by the animal owners varied from DKK 500 to 1,000 (USD$85 to $170)…

Leave a Reply