Sadiq Khan MP replies on ritual animal slaughter

I have finally received a reply from Sadiq Khan, my local MP, to my report detailing government appeasement on ritual animal slaughter.

It took Mr Khan six months to reply. It seems he “overlooked” the report when it arrived, but my December letter has prompted him to finally respond. Maybe Pat Condell’s latest link, increasing its profile, helped prompt some action too.

You can see Mr Khan’s reply and an attachment enclosed, here:

Response from Sadiq Khan MP (PDF, 540.52 KB) — Downloaded 70 times

This is, predictably, a very mealy-mouthed non-reply. Mr Khan is at pains to disagree with me while at the same time trying to make it look as though he agrees with me. Let’s have a look in detail at what he says:

“I appreciate the points you raise.”

“Appreciate” is an an ambiguous word. It can mean “understand”, but it doesn’t necessarily mean “agree”. He does go on to say:

“I agree it may be preferable to [sic] for all animals to be stunned before slaughter to avoid their suffering…”

This essentially says nothing. He might as well have said “may not be preferable”.

“..yet I also accept that religious groups have a right to eat meat in accordance with their beliefs.”

“Accept” is a much stronger word, of course. And indeed they have a “right”? This is a strong assertion indeed. Anyway, Khan’s point here is called begging the question (in the old, correct use of the phrase): he is taking for granted exactly what my report, with bountiful evidence, is questioning, and he is refusing to address the arguments brought to the table.

Mr Khan then says something about a loosely proposed labelling system and has the cheek to enclose the government’s stock response to this matter, photocopied. I have already been sent this by DEFRA, as is everyone who writes to them on this matter. It is a non-reply again.

He then proceeds to tell me some basic information which I have already told him in much greater detail in my report.

At this point it becomes obvious he has probably not even read the report. In fact I’d put money on it (after all he says himself that merely “looked at” it).

Mr Khan next says:

“Please don’t hesitate to make contact if there are any other concerns that you would like to raise with me on this or any other matter, or if you would like me to make further representations to the Government on your behalf.”

This stock sentence is inserted (in a slightly different font size) despite the fact I had specifically asked him in my letter to:

1. Clearly state his position on the topic of ritual animal slaughter
2. Raise the topic in parliament on my behalf

He has done neither of these things.

What I would like him to do (as I have already told him) is point out that the law is inconsistent on this matter, and that the lack of labelling is an urgent problem which needs addressing immediately. How dare he, you might well wonder, ask if he can be of any more help when he as pointedly been of no help at all in the first place?

Well, of course, Sadiq Khan’s seat in parliament is safe. Just take a drive down Tooting High Street to see why. He doesn’t want to rock the boat. But what he should do is stand up for what is right: a consistent law for all, with no exemptions for ritual slaughter which causes animals unnecessary pain. Also labelling clearly showing whether animals have been barbarically butchered. Indeed, you might just not want to eat meat that an imam has been praying over – at the moment you don’t even have the right to know about it.

Our society is changing around us. It’s fragmenting. Civilisation seems in many ways to be going into reverse.

What can you do about this?

• Read my report
• Write to Mr Khan
• Write to your own MP
• Vote Labour out

If you live in the Tooting area this means you vote for Mark Clarke or anyone else but Mr Khan. I’m not to the point of voting for the BNP, though Labour seem hell-bent on pushing everyone in that direction. I will probably vote UKIP or Conservative. I suggest you do the same.