DEFRA brushes off public objections to ritual animal slaughter

People are writing in to DEFRA objecting to the exemptions allowed under UK law permitting ritual animal slaughter.

Here is the letter sent by one lady:

Dear Ms Grist,

Thank you for your message today.

I appreciate that there’s nothing Defra can do if the Government of the day doesn’t wish to change the law. Therefore, of course, I do not hold you responsible. I have expressed my views to the relevant MP’s and will continue to do so.

I cannot accept that it is fine for animals to suffer because of some centuries old, foreign barbaric beliefs in my own Christian country. As I’ve said before, whatever religion you happen to be, it should never condone and encourage inflicting unimaginable pain and fear on helpless creatures. Basic human compassion demands that we do not treat animals this way.

I will not write to you again because there is no point but I will continue to lobby anyone who I think stands a chance of changing this situation.

Yours sincerely
Mrs J Carter

And here is the reply she received:

Dear Mrs Carter,

RELIGIOUS SLAUGHTER

Thank you for your further email about religious slaughter.

Your comments have been noted, however, there is nothing further we can add to our previous correspondence.

As I have already outlined, we appreciate you have strongly held views about religious slaughter but in our multi cultural society there are others who strongly defend their right to live in accordance with their religious beliefs.

Despite its wish to see all animals stunned before slaughter, the government believes it is important to defend the fundamental right to religious freedom.

I appreciate that this is not the answer you were hoping for.

Yours sincerely,
Emma Grist
Customer Contact Unit
Defra

This is a shocking reply from this person on behalf of DEFRA (and I don’t mean because she doesn’t know that “multiculturalism” is all one word). It affirms beyond any doubt Labour’s devotion to the misguided ideology of multiculturalism, even when those cultural practices are barbaric.

Labour’s message: Come to Britain, and don’t expect to have to bend to us – we’ll bend our law to you.

We should note that the government are also utterly inconsistent. We do not allow polygamy here in the UK, though it is permitted under Islamic law (we do, however, pay additional benefits to Muslim men who have multiple wives under Islamic law – even though those wives are not UK citizens).

We do not allow female circumcision either, although there are reports that it happens, with “experts” being flown in from abroad to carry out the “operations”.

It’s getting to be a matter of emergency that this government is voted out before it does any more damage to the country, to the fabric of society.

Harold Hillman on ritual animal slaughter

I was recently sent a paper written by Dr Harold Hillman on the subject of ritual animal slaughter in the UK, which is a particularly unpleasant privilege granted to religious people in this country.

Dr Hillman was the Reader of Physiology at the University of Surrey, and Director of the Unity Laboratory of Applied Neurobiology, before he retired in 1995. He carried out research into dying, death and resuscitation on animals and for 40 years, and was Editor-in-Chief of the medical journal, ‘Resuscitation’ from 1970 to 1985. He has credentials then.

The gist of his argument in the paper is that humanists have it all wrong because electrical stunning is just as painful for animals as ritual slaughter. I’m going to produce his paper below because I can’t find it on the Net, and if he wants me to take it down I’ll do so. I will then respond to it (as I have done to the National Secular Society already) below.

Ritual Slaughter of Animals by Harold Hillman | 5 December 2009

Abolition of ritual slaughter?

The movement towards outlawing the ritual methods of slaughter, called halal by the Moslems and shechita by the Jews, is gathering pace. Many people believe that slaughtering conscious animals without stunning them is more cruel than ’stunning’ them first, There is a strange meeting of views between vegetarians and humanists, the former because they dislike cruelty to animals, the latter because they are hostile to the religious origins of ritual slaughter.

“Kill it, cook it, eat it”

Last year there was a programme on television entitled, “Kin it, Cook it, Eat it.” An audience was invited to see the slaughter of cows, pigs and sheep, then watch the meat being cooked and, finally, to eat it, About 800,000,000 animals are slaughtered for food, and thousands of tons of fish are caught every year in Britain. The largest majority of the animals are ’stunned’ electrically, before their throats are cut and they are drained of blood. Most of the television observers of the slaughter, other than the vegetarians, were quite satisfied that the animals were slaughtered humanely and quickly. They saw electric tongs applied to the animals’ heads. The animals were ’stunned’ instantaneously. They fell down rapidly. They were lifted by hooks stuck into their hind limbs, their throats were cut, and they were skinned and gutted.

What does ’stunning’ mean?

Stunning means two things — rendering the animals unconscious, and paralysing them. Most people believe that the electric current passing through the brain makes the animal lose consciousness instantaneously. This is simply not true. Small electric currents cause tingling. Larger currents cause bums under the electrodes, accompanied by severe burns. They are extremely painful. This is evident, not only from the fact that an electric shock from the mains causes the person a painful burn, but also because stun guns, which police use to paralyse dangerous suspects, are very painful, as the subjects fall down. However, the most cogent evidence that electric currents cause pain is the fact that they are widely used to torture people in South America, the Middle East, China, and other regions. They are used on conscious prisoners, and Amnesty International has collected voluminous evidence that they cause pain. This is irrefutable evidence from people who have experienced it.

Normal reaction to pain is masked

The usual reaction of a normal healthy person or animal to pain is to thrash around and cry out. However, the large electric currents paralyse all the muscles, including those of the limbs and vocal cords. When electricity is used to torture people, they are usually tied down. The paralysis and restraint means that they are unable to move their limbs violently, make sounds or shout, This failure to show the normal reactions of a conscious person or an animal to pain, causes bystanders to think that the animals do not suffer severe pains as a result of electric ’stunning’, American courts, which used to execute prisoners with the electric chair, have now realised that the electric chair is a “cruel and unusual punishment”, and have abandoned it in most states,

Use of electricity for torture

A prisoner tortured with electric current suffers severe pain until he (or she) loses consciousness. Paralysis prevents escape from the source of the agony. There is absolutely no reason to believe that the electrically stunned animal, like the prisoner, cannot feel the electric burn. An animal which is stunned is electrically tortured, without being able to react normally to it, until the current is removed, when its limbs can often be seen to flail around violently. It may well feel the hook going into its hind leg, and the cutting of its throat. It will only lose sensation, either due to severe pain, or due to collapse of its blood pressure as a consequence of blood loss; this takes several seconds.

Electric stunning causes torture before slaughter

An animal which is electrically ’stunned,’ is tortured while paralysed, before blood loss kills it. An animal which is slaughtered by a ritual method suffered distress and pain when its throat is cut, but is not tortured electrically beforehand. It is sad to see vegetarians and humanists rejoicing at the prospects that all animals may be ’stunned’ before slaughter soon, because the physiology of the events is not clearly understood.

Dr Hillman is an atheist who has researched for Amnesty International, but it is interesting to note that he is also in some respects a maverick scientist whose findings have in the past been controversial with by his peers. What concerns me about his piece above is that it runs the risk of suggesting that there is really no problem at all with ritual slaughter without pre-stunning.

As it turns out, one does not need to have a PHD in neuroscience to see that there are a few problems with the article:

1. It fails to mention that in fact only a small percentage of cattle per year are stunned electrically. Most are stunned by captive bolt instead, and to quote Dr Hillman himself on captive bolt stunning:
   

   “Instant unconsciousness occurs if the aim is accurate, the animal is still, and the device works.”

2. Chickens are often electrically stunned in water but the FAWC is concerned about methods used and is looking to impose constant current stunning to ensure all receive the ideal voltage to kill them as soon as possible.
3. He mixes his comparisons, it seems to me. I do not have the voltages to hand, but I dare say the police use a much lower voltage in stun guns, and a lower voltage is typically used in torture, than is used to stun these farm animals. He claims elsewhere that the same voltage is used, but I would like to see evidence. The FAWC advises a “stun to kill” policy.

At least in pre-stunning efforts are made to minimise suffering for humane reasons. Ritual slaughter, by contrast, is not practiced because scientific findings have led to it but because of religious custom. I find Dr Hillman’s points interesting but so far unconvincing and I would be interested to hear other scientists’ (e.g. those of the FAWC or Sam Harris’) opinion of them.

Quite apart from all of this, too, there should be consistent law in the country for all people, whether it insists upon pre-stunning or not (and I continue to believe that it should).

Letter to Sadiq Khan MP

“Dear Mr Khan,

Thank you for your letter, a circular, received yesterday.

I was surprised to receive it, however, and to see you inviting comment from me, when I have still not received any reply to the letter I sent you on 14^th August.

Here is a link to that letter and the report I enclosed: http://tinyurl.com/prestunning

I hope you will take the time to explain your position on this matter, as requested in the letter. I realise that as a Muslim this may be difficult, but we should all surely answer to scientific findings, and you to your constituents. Public interest in this issue is certainly picking up (as is evidenced by this Facebook group: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=11046310427).

Many thanks.

Best regards,

Gavin Orland”

Halal meat used “as standard” by mainstream caterer

I bring you today a real life case of dhimmitude at the highest levels:

De Vere is a hospitality company which has the current contract to provide catering and accommodation for the National School of Government in the UK, among other large clients.

The National School of Government is a government department whose aim is to help people and organisations operating in the whole of the public service system. They provide courses and advice for civil servants. More than 30,000 customers pass through their doors each year and they have a think-tank of 50 top academics, called the Sunningdale Institute. This is the kind of place, then, that should be listening to scientific research and should be firmly against slaughter without pre-stunning.

I have received information, further to my report, that De Vere uses halal meat “as standard” for all customers, so as not to offend Muslims. All of their customers have to eat halal meat, whether they like it or not (unless they’re vegetarians, of course). This doesn’t usually cause any problem for De Vere, because they never officially announced the policy and until recently staff had no idea they were eating meat of animals that had had their throats slit and been bled to death while fully conscious.

Recently, however, the truth came to light and the staff were understandably very angry about the situation. So presumably the management apologised? Not in the UK. I have been told that they treated the objection as a non-issue and stated that:

“Information should not be provided to students to inform them in advance of the status of the meat in the canteen.”

I am told that De Vere claim that provision of  exclusively halal meat is now standard practice in the catering industry in the UK – it’s just that no-one knows about it. I expect they are right about this. Since the government are such utter dhimmis it is hardly surprising this disgraceful practice is first coming to light in the public sector (albeit via a PFI) but it is thought by the FAWC that much halal meat finds its way into “alternative markets” (that’s us). The calculation has clearly been made that:

1. It’s less costly to just get one kind of meat from one provider.
2. While people who care about humane slaughter might get a bit annoyed, we don’t have to tell them.
3. Muslims/Jews who only have the option of eating non-halal meat are likely to get far more annoyed. They might even take us to court for “discrimination”.

So never mind doing the right thing, then. Do what will make the most money and cause the least fuss. Well there’s one factor in there they haven’t counted on, and that is that when people do care about humane slaughter do get to hear about this, they’re going to be extremely angry, and they’re not going to stand for it. They’re going to write articles like this one, they’re going to expose companies like De Vere and they are, hopefully, going to boycott them.

It is worth asking whether the meat you are eating is halal or not. If it is halal and that is the only option, you should object. Believe it or not there is no legal obligation for halal or kosher meat to be labelled as such. We don’t have the legal right to know. So write to your MP to object about this too.

It is getting to the point whereby people who object to things like this are risking their jobs, and even their lives, in the UK. This is totally unacceptable. It needs stamping out right now. Assert your values now, while they are still the majority view. In other words, while you still can.

Letter to the NSS

“Dear Sir,

A drive through pretty much any London suburb these days will reveal dozens of halal take-aways, restaurants and butchers. You might be driving through Kilburn, Hounslow, or Whitechapel and it’s really quite striking now – especially at night. Shop after halal shop.

All part of the “glory of multiculturalism” (as Paul Goodman MP put it), the more left-inclined among us might think. But when one reminds oneself that multiple scientific studies have shown beyond any reasonable doubt that ritual slaughter without pre-stunning causes considerable suffering for animals, multiculturalism starts to lose a little of its shine.

Further to the NSS’s work on this issue, I have researched it in detail and written to my MP Sadiq Khan about it. He didn’t even reply. Why would he? It’s only his duty as an MP, but if he bides his time then those who object as I do will eventually become a minority in the UK. Other politicians did reply though, and I thought Newsline readers might like to acquaint themselves with the whole picture here.

The situation in summary is that successive governments have been advised for 24 years that slaughter without pre-stunning should be banned (as it is in Denmark) – but they have constantly appeased. They are afraid to do the right thing. Animal rights groups are frightened too, with the RSPCA saying “The RSPCA recognises that religious beliefs and practices should be respected” and Viva! saying “Viva! of course, supports the principle of multiculturalism and deplores racism”, while both being opposed to the practice. Patently not all religious beliefs and practices should be respected and this issue has nothing to do with racism, but such is the nature of political correctness in the country currently.

Those who wish to be better informed about this issue are welcome to read my report. It’s not perfect, and I could probably produce a better version now (and might) but I am told it is helping the shadow cabinet formulate policy.

It seems to me that ritual slaughter is one religious privilege that is currently very much going under the radar, yet it causes extreme suffering for no good reason. Supermarkets don’t care – they are expanding their halal sales. If you care, you can join like-minded people and pressure your MP and your local supermarket and anybody else. We should stand up for the values ushered in by the Enlightenment rather than let our culture slip back into the dark ages, led by religion.

Note: Before someone says it is not only the Muslims but the Jews too, yes it is. Actually the Jews are typically more insistent on no pre-stunning, however approximately 50 times more animals are thought to be slaughtered per year for halal than for kosher. We don’t know for sure because the government currently does not even bother to keep any figures.“

Second response from Conservatives to my report on ritual slaughter

Martin Tunstall, a researcher for the Shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Nick Herbert, has sent me a nice e-mail following his last, regarding my report on ritual slaughter:

“Dear Mr Orland,

I’m sorry to have left it a while to get back to you – I just wanted to update you on where we are on this issue.

We are currently in the process of meeting relevant bodies where we are discussing farm animal welfare, including the RSPCA, FAWC, religious groups and industry. Your briefing is proving extremely useful in preparing for these meetings.

I will, of course, keep you updated.

Kind regards.

MARTIN TUNSTALL”

This is welcome news.  It follows my last e-mail, which read thus:

“Dear Mr Tunstall,

I do appreciate that you will need to liaise with other teams and co-ordinate a clear position, however this is overdue as there has been ample opportunity for all parties to do this during the last 24 years since the first relevant FAWC report. Hopefully there will not be much you need to discuss as it is obvious that ritual slaughter causes unnecessary suffering which a civilised society must not tolerate, and that consumers should be able to choose whether they buy halal food (i.e. there should be clear labelling).

Nonetheless I know you will need to formalise your policy before announcing it. I only hope it will not be one of continued appeasement, as in the long run this will bad for everyone. The Enlightenment ushered in new values which I would like to see upheld, we don’t want to go into reverse instead, and we don’t want multiple laws in the land, some for some people, others for others.

On a wider note I would say that the Conservatives (and all parties) should state what they know to be right, not what they think people want. Ultimately this gains more respect. Due to Labour’s duplicity and constant appeasement, the BNP are picking up votes in the UK. It will be disastrous if this continues. But currently I can only see UKiP as an alternative, as I have no idea what the Conservatives think about issues like this (or on yob culture or on the overly generous benefits system). As it stands, therefore, the party will not be receiving my vote at the next election.

For a Conservative who sees clearly what is going on in this country I cannot recommend highly enough Theodore Dalyrmple:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1566637953/

I look forward to learning the Conservatives’ position as soon as you have decided on it.

Regards,

Gavin Orland”

The Atheist & the Bishop

I managed to catch an episode of The Atheist & the Bishop on Radio 4 this evening. I thought that atheist philosopher Julian Baggini did not put a foot wrong, except when he seemed to think that moral conduct today was the same as it ever was. I rather agree with Theodore Dalrymple that it has declined, but also maintain that religion need play no role in its recovery.

Having been impressed, therefore, I was disappointed to see that Baggini seems to group all of the so-called “new atheist” writers into one and dismiss them all as negative. A big mistake. The fact is they all bring something different to the table and most (if not all, actually) are extremely positive – especially Richard Dawkins, who in particular offers a real world full of wonder as an alternative to religious delusion.

Not to worry, though – the BBC were right back on form following this brief lapse in political correctness: the next programme up was about ethnic minority MPs in the UK and was presented (with the most stunted reading I have ever heard on Radio 4) by none other than my local MP Sadiq Khan. That’s right: he who has completely failed to reply to my recent report highlighting the suffering inflicted on animals by ritual slaughter methods in the UK.

He hasn’t heard the end of the matter.

Update: Many thanks to Dan from anti-theist.co.uk for sending me the first two episodes of this programme. I agree with him the episode 2 was especially good, with A.C. Grayling speaking excellently, as usual. I have fond and grateful memories of Grayling’s book during my undergraduate study of Philosophy. In the programme he even got a indoctrinated schoolgirl to admit that if she had been born into a different faith she would have believed that one instead – which pretty much said it all. Well, children can be more direct than adults.

Responses to my report on ritual animal slaughter

Responses to my report on ritual animal slaughter have been coming in, slowly.

I’m posting them here as PDFs. You should be able to open the files if you have Adobe Acrobat Reader.

The report was sent out on 7th August 2009.

Response from the FAWC (PDF, 290.07 KB) — Downloaded 18 times

Response from UKIP (PDF, 253.64 KB) — Downloaded 20 times

Response from DEFRA (PDF, 485.18 KB) — Downloaded 16 times

The Tories responded as follows, by e-mail on 9th September:

Mr Orland,

Thank you for writing to Mr Herbert enclosing your report on pre-stunning animals.  We have read your report with great interest and will make good use of it as we consider this issue in the future.  Mr Herbert will most likely write to you shortly with a fuller response and our initial thoughts.

Kind regards.

MARTIN TUNSTALL
Office of Nick Herbert MP
MP for Arundel & South Downs
& Shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

I’m looking forward to the “fuller response” as I still have no idea where the Tories stand on this issue, but guess it is in the area of appeasement.

Only one who has failed to even acknowledge the report so far: Sadiq Khan MP – my local MP and the principal addressee (the only one who was really obliged to reply!). This, despite the following statement on his website:

“I endeavour to respond promptly to every letter sent to me by my constituents.”

- Sadiq Khan MP

It looks like he’s just not “endeavouring” hard enough. Maybe it’s difficult to “endeavour” when you can’t find an answer – so you just ignore your constituent instead.

Update: Second reply from Conservatives

Letter to NSS Newsline

“Two weeks ago Graham Davis wrote to Newsline suggesting that the NSS might like to focus more on the problem of Islam in the UK (yes, I did say the “problem” of Islam), and on encouraging people to take direct action with their MPs, as I have done. (I recently researched and wrote a 6,000 word report on the legal exemptions granted for ritual animal slaughter without pre-stunning and this has now gone to the government.)

As I read the responses to Graham’s mail (especially that by Dan Bye) I had to remind myself that I was reading a newsletter of the NSS, because the content seemed completely befitting of a Muslim Council of Britain press release instead.

I would like to know what kind of reading these people have done so that they can still take such a rosy view of Islam. Have they, like me, read: The End of Faith by Sam Harris; While Europe Slept by Bruce Bawer; Londonistan by Melanie Phillips; America Alone by Mark Steyn; Surrender by Bruce Bawer; Infidel by Ayaan Hirsi-Ali; and of course, The Qur’an & Hadith themselves?

So, have they done the requisite reading? Or are all of these simply to be dismissed as scare-mongering without even being read (and the Qur’an “not relevant to Islam” as I have even laughably heard)? If they have done this reading I do not understand how they can remain so ignorant and complacent. Islam is underpinned in its texts by instruction to self-segregation, submission and imperialism. Let’s start you off with these quotes. And the trouble is, this intolerant faith is on the rise.

In my opinion the appeasers in our midst are much more of an enemy than the backward religion of Islam itself. They are described perfectly by Pat Condell in this video.

The responses to Graham Davis were full of straw man arguments, full of an appeasing, “useful idiot” mentality and I was quite frankly amazed and saddened to see them in a newsletter of the National Secular Society at all.

Please, contributors, do the requisite reading before writing to Newsline, otherwise just go as far as the Guardian and no further. No, I am not trying to ban anyone (calm down), merely asking that people properly inform themselves before putting pen to paper to start criticising others who have legitimate concerns about the rise and rise within our borders of a totalitarian faith which is categorically intolerant of apostasy, not to mention many other things. Wake up, wise up, and remember what side you’re on: it’s supposed to be the side of reason.”

Pre-stunning of animals at slaughter in the UK: Government inaction

I have researched and written a 6,000 word report which should be landing on the desks of the following people today:

• Sadiq Khan MP – Member for Tooting ← Took six months to reply
• Hilary Benn MP – Secretary of State for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs
• Nigel Farage MEP – Leader, United Kingdom Independence Party
• Nick Herbert MP – Shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs
• Professor Christopher Wathes – Chairman, Farm Animal Welfare Council

Its subject is blatant government appeasement on animal cruelty in order to satisfy religious groups in the UK, since 1985. I have requested that my local MP, Sadiq Khan, raise the issue in parliament on my behalf at the soonest opportunity.

In short: the government has failed to ban slaughter without pre-stunning in the UK, despite being repeatedly advised to do so by its own appointed experts, the FAWC. Instead it allows two laws in the land: one for Jews and Muslims and another for the rest of us.

The report is carefully researched, comprehensive – and damning. It is copyrighted to me – if you’d like to print or distribute it please contact me first:

Pre-stunning of animals at slaughter in the UK: Government inaction (PDF, 118.46 KB) — Downloaded 191 times

Cover letter to Sadiq Khan MP (PDF, 20.72 KB) — Downloaded 57 times

You might like to pressure your MP on this issue too. You don’t have the right to complain if you don’t do anything about it. Let’s begin fighting back against the constant tide of government appeasement. Let’s make them act.

Update: I have received responses to my report.

The cruelty of Kosher and Halal killing

Jews and Muslims (and Christians, for that matter) don’t decide for themselves what is moral and what is not, instead they take their instruction from their books. Or try to: they don’t always follow them (which is in some ways a fortunate thing). One thing the two faiths have in common is an extremely cruel means of killing animals – Kosher for Judaism and Halal in Islam.

Here is something from the Wikipedia about the Kosher slaughter process (which is very similar to the Halal one):

“Kashrut prohibits slaughter of an unconscious animal, and the slaughtering is done by cutting the front of the throat first. Some animal rights groups object to kosher slaughter, claiming that it can take several minutes for the animal to die and can often cause suffering. Since the spinal cord is not severed completely at the first cut, it is thought that the slaughtered animal’s nervous system continues to function during the initial moments of the slaughter, causing the animal to undergo an agonisingly slow and painful death.

In 2003 in the UK, an independent advisory group – the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) – concluded that the way Kosher (and Halal) meat is produced causes severe suffering to animals and should be banned immediately. Kosher and halal butchers deny their method of killing animals is cruel and expressed anger over the recommendation.^[40]

In April 2008, the Food and Farming minister in the UK, Lord Rooker, stated that Halal and kosher meat should be labelled when it is put on sale, so that the public can decide whether or not they want to buy food from animals that have bled to death. He was quoted as saying, “I object to the method of slaughter … my choice as a customer is that I would want to buy meat that has been looked after and slaughtered in the most humane way possible.”. The RSPCA supported Lord Rooker’s views.” ^[41]

I have seen a video of the kosher slaughter process and it was absolutely horrific. I think this is an under-represented issue in the United Kingdom (because of fear of religious reprisal, as usual). Let’s be clear: what this extract says is that these practices have already been found to be cause severe suffering to animals and should be banned immediately. Yet nothing has happened. Nothing whatsoever. What is the excuse for this? There is none, except appeasement. Well… appeasement was the United Kingdom’s early policy against Hitler. You will recall it didn’t work.