Russell Brand on the halal tabloid hysteria

Post Reply New Topic

Fantastically articulate as usual

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZYGJOhD0cY[/youtube]

I'm not eating it but then I don't eat Subway anyway.

If Subway want to cater to Muslim customers by having halal-only shops, I don't mind. As long as people know first, I'm happy with it.

The Quran doesn't mind if non-halal food is eaten and it seems that 'halal' is used as a big marketing ploy by Muslims to cater to their own. As long as they don't have a BLT, they're golden.

Personally, I normally like bacon or black pudding with my breakfast but this morning I will go for müesli.

What do people object to re halal? I mean, from the tone of the reporting, I understand it's in some way meant to be a bad thing, but I was ust wondering what the particular objection is.

For Sikhs it is against their religion to kill the animal in that way.

I think it a question of being aware.

Although debatable, some may view a particular method of killing animal more (in)humane.

In supermarkets there is marked halal meat, so why have unmarked halal as were most don't expect their meat to have had an Islamic prayer as the throat is cut, and the animal allowed to bleed out as it dies? Most other forms of slaughter, the focus is on killing the animal before bleeding it out.

I know right? Apparently thats how islamification works. One minute you're tucking into a donner kebab. Next thing you know you're assembling improvised explosive devices in a madrassa in Afghanistan.

Oh thats just splitting hairs now. As Brand points out in the video, its not as if anyone makes a song and dance about the arguably far worse conditions that animals are treated to in western factory farms operated by nefarious larger companies like KFC.

It is not my argument. However is important to some.

People don't agree on what is more humane, but have their opinions.

I think if people buy an organic meat product, the are making a conscious choice, they may well care about the welfare of the animal. They may not consider halal humane form of slaughter.

I do take your point that some are taking issue, simply becuase. But isn't most choice subjective? However there are still issues of conscious.

I think people should be able to know bout the provenance, and process that goes into their food.

It is a commercial decision to hire an Islamic slaughteman. just like a Jewish one But IMO, a lot of the time it is not because they anticipate a demand in the niche it will end up, it is becuase the whole distribution process is so opaque and fraught that it can happen like that.

Muslims don't eat the halal meat that is not marked as halal, they only eat the halal meat that is known to be halal. Also regardless of if it is slaughtered as halal, if it distributed with non-halal, it is haram according to most Muslims.

It is also very possible that some of the halal marked meat isn't halal.

In my town numerous non-Muslims are buying halal meat. They say it is cheaper and tastes better than what supermarkets are selling, especially the lamb.

That is absolutely fine.

A lot of people say it's the animal welfare thing, but that's not really my problem with it.

My problem is that when it's use as the default type of meat in schools, hospitals and other public buildings, then Sikhs (and no, I'm not a Sikh) can't eat it. To cater for one minority, they are excluding another. It's not a massive thing that I get worked up about or something that really bothers me much - but I don't like it, nonetheless.

Also halal meat is usually cheaper than 'conventional' meat - and that makes me suspicious. They must be cutting costs somewhere.

I've heard nightmare stories about the halal (and kosher) slaughter method when stunning isn't but as I understand it, only 10% of the time is stunning not used in halal (it's never used in kosher.) Still that 10% does worry me (and yes I realise that it is more important that the animal has a better standard of life that if it is killed in a certain way, but that doesn't stop it from being a concern.)

Another problem with halal meat becoming almost the default is that it ensures that jobs in the slaughtering industry are ringfenced for Muslims only. I don't like that - but again, it's not something that keeps me awake at night.

As a result of all these things - I am mildly irritated by the ubiquity of unlabelled halal meat and have been for some time (none of this is news to me,] but I refuse to be as outraged as the newspapers would like me to be.

I also basically hate the Abrahamic God (I hate it more than I disbelieve in it) and am annoyed by any of the big 3 religions having an influence on society - but this is still a minor thing in my opinion.

Well an Orthodox Sikh would not know if any meat was killed correctly in the school lunches, unless confirmed. It must go clean through the spine and neck in one blow, with the intention of minimal suffering, and cannot be killed in a ritualistic manner.

So back on point is more a case of if you cater for one group you need to cater to everyone, there is a limit, and impracticability in doing this, and someone has to cater to the costs.

There's a reason most countries have laws regarding slaughter. Besides, why force such religious food on other people? Why would they have to accept kosher or halal food? Just like muslims should be able to not eat pork, non-muslims should be able to avoid halal food especially when it concerns extra animal suffering. (vegetarian myself)

My own impression - given to cynicism as I am - is that the British public are not particularly outraged over animal-as-food welfare standards, but rather that Muslims have somehow gotten away with, well, something. In the same sense that people who otherwise would have little interest in feminism or gay rights or, indeed, human rights suddenly found themselves concerned with (and experts on) such things post-9/11, though usually only in regard to whatever a Muslim (or Islamic country) has done or Islam (apparently) demands.

I am a vegetarian and a casual animal rights activist, so this (and Kosher meat) does concern me. Personally I'm opposed to the whole meat industry. If it has to exist, then slaughtering should be as humane as possible, and I am worried that killing without stunning could be inhumane.

I think I remember reading that 94% of halal meat and 70%+ of Kosher meat is pre-stunned. Certainly Halal is more likely to be stunned than Kosher, and both are much more likely than not - but I don't think that's good enough.

I don't really understand why you wouldn't label it though - how are Jews or Muslims supposed to know that it is safe?

because-as its been eloquently been pointed out- most non-muslims have no quarrel with eating produce from factory farms where the animals have usual died under far worse conditions. When you juxtapose the slaughter of animals in halal factories and for example battery chickens, we see that this has less to do with animal welfare and more to do with being mean to johnny foreigner.

But isn't there also a 'right' to not having 'religious' food as the default food? People should keep heir religion to themselves, and nothing's more intimate than food and what you eat. People should be able to choose whether or not they want to consume mohammedan products?