What's new

French debate: First it was burqas, now burgers

Some people just think that Halaal meat is simply slitting the throat and waiting for the animal to die.

In fact, it is the jugular that is slit, blood is drained out to avoid solidification of various proteins and amino acids and all in all many many studies have shown this method results in a more hygienic meat package than other methods.

Stun meat on the other hand actually involves inflicting paint upon the animal. The stunning isn't done by giving the cow a Valium and waiting for it to sleep. They take a bullet like bolt, shoot the cow on the head, rendering it unconscious or brain damaged and then chopping the animal off.

Also note, that the cutting of the jugular in fact does render you unconscious without inflicting pain. The Halaal method INSTRUCTS you to use the sharpest blade you can get, so that you get a clean cut. Clean cuts take some time to register as pain in the brain. Within seconds the animal goes into a state of sleep and then passes out.

Several studies have shown this to be true by taking EEGs and ECGs showing more spikes with the stunning method as compared to zero or little spikes compared to the Halaal method.

The Capacitive Stun Gun is also the main reason of Mad Cow disease being transferred to humans through food since it destroys brain tissue allowing it to enter the blood circulation and be transported to other parts of the body allowing the disease to spread without people having to eat the brain...............
 
Why is it cruel?

Some people just think that Halaal meat is simply slitting the throat and waiting for the animal to die.....

Quoting from the Farm Animal Welfare Report
"Report on the Welfare of Farmed Animals at Slaughter or Killing – Part Two: White Meat Animals."
dated May 2009

Slaughter without pre-stunning

200. On the basis of the available evidence, veterinarians, scientists, and enforcement and animal protection groups worldwide consider that animals should be stunned before slaughter. In EU and British legislation, there are exemptions from the legal requirement to stun an animal before slaughter when it is killed by the Jewish or Muslim method for the food of Jews or Muslims. The number of poultry killed by various methods is no longer collected or published by the MHS.

201. We visited processing plants in which poultry were not stunned prior to slaughter. Here we saw chickens processed individually at low throughput speeds by methods where prestunning was not practised. We also saw high-throughput slaughter systems for chickens for Halal meat, in which recoverable electrical stunning was used. We were told during our study
that controlled atmosphere systems for poultry have been certified for producing Halal meat in Sweden, Denmark, France and Germany.

202. In low-throughput plants, we observed careful handling and presentation of individual birds to the slaughterman prior to slaughter. At a processing rate of around 350 birds per hour to each slaughterman there was little time pressure on the slaughter process.

203. The time to loss of consciousness is a critical measurement since this is the period in which birds may experience pain and distress. One study measured the time to brain death in broilers, indicated by the EEG and somatosensory evoked potentials. Brain death was reached in 2 minutes when both carotid arteries were cut and up to 4 minutes if only one artery was cut.
These birds were anaesthetised and respirated artificially. More recent research undertaken in Australia has used various indicators of the time to loss of consciousness; i.e. loss of eye response (by 15 s), loss of posture (8-26 s), onset of muscular contractions (5-23 s) and time to loss of 60% of free blood (21-45 s). Further research, including measurement of the ECG and
EEG, is required to confirm conclusively the time to loss of consciousness when poultry are slaughtered without pre-stunning. The evidence gathered so far indicates that many birds are likely to be conscious for 20 s or more after the neck cut is made.

Recommendation

204. Further studies, including measurement of the ECG and EEG, are required to confirm the length of time to loss of consciousness, during which pain and distress could be experienced, for birds slaughtered without pre-stunning.

205. When a transverse incision is made across the neck of a bird, a number of sensitive tissues are transected including skin, muscle, trachea, oesophagus, carotid arteries, jugular veins, major nerve trunks and numerous minor nerves. Such a large cut will inevitably trigger sensory input to pain centres in the brain. Our conclusions from the evidence reviewed are that such an injury would result in significant pain and distress in the period before insensibility supervenes.
206. Little behavioural reaction was seen when the neck of poultry was cut without stunning. Manual restraint may partly explain this. Manipulation of the neck cut cannot avoid stimulating nerves and would therefore be painful. Rubbing on the surface of the cone used to restrain birds during bleed out would also cause a noxious nociceptive stimulus in a conscious bird.

207. FAWC is concerned about the pain and distress experienced by conscious birds, in particular that likely to be generated by a neck cut and, where practised, subsequent manipulation of the wound. Following consideration of the available evidence, FAWC is in agreement with the prevailing international scientific consensus that slaughter without pre-stunning causes pain and distress. On the basis that this is avoidable and in the interests of welfare, FAWC concludes
that all birds should be pre-stunned before slaughter.

208. FAWC is mindful that for certain sections of British society, the method of slaughter of animals for food is part of religious faith and an associated way of life. We welcome the EU-sponsored project on religious slaughter aimed at improving knowledge and expertise through dialogue and debate on the welfare, legislative and socio-economic aspects (Welcome to the DIALREL project). We also recognise the difficulties of reconciling scientific findings with matters of faith. We urge Government to continue to engage with the religious communities
to enable progress to be made.

Recommendations

209. Slaughter of poultry without pre-stunning causes significant avoidable pain and distress. Government should engage with the appropriate communities to ensure that avoidable pain and distress is prevented.

210. Where poultry are not insensible to pain or distress during slaughter, manipulation of wound surfaces of the neck should not take place.

Farm Animal Welfare Council is an independent body established by the British Government.

There is no best method of slaughter. However based on the evidence, stunning and slaughtering is considered a more humane method of preparing an animal for food.

---------- Post added at 09:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:31 PM ----------

The Capacitive Stun Gun is also the main reason of Mad Cow disease being transferred to humans through food since it destroys brain tissue allowing it to enter the blood circulation and be transported to other parts of the body allowing the disease to spread without people having to eat the brain...............

Interesting.
 
The French people take secularism very seriously almost to the point as a religion. France is more hostile toward religion than any other European nation. The following is an article by BBC from 2004. I don't think much relevance has changed since the time the article first appeared.

The deep roots of French secularism
By Henri Astier
BBC News Online
Last Updated: Wednesday, 1 September, 2004, 14:39 GMT 15:39 UK


France is not the only Western country to insist on the separation of church and state - but it does so more militantly than any other.Secularism is the closest thing the French have to a state religion. It underpinned the French Revolution and has been a basic tenet of the country's progressive thought since the 18th Century.

To this day, anything that smacks of official recognition of a religion - such as allowing Islamic headscarves in schools - is anathema to many French people.Even those who oppose a headscarf ban do so in the name of a more modern, flexible form of secularism.

This tradition can be seen as a by-product of French Catholicism, as progressives have always seen the pulpit as an enemy, rather than a platform, unlike in some Protestant countries.French Enlightenment thinkers such Voltaire, Diderot and Montesquieu regarded religion as divisive, benighted and intolerant.

On the ropes

The French Revolution brought about a head-on clash between church and state. Church assets were confiscated and priests made to swear allegiance to the republic.Both during the revolution and its imperial aftermath, the Vatican resisted the republican order Paris was trying to impose across Europe.

The French responded by marching on Rome twice - in 1798 and 1809 - and abducting recalcitrant Popes.Napoleon Bonaparte reached a peace of sorts with the church, which was brought under state tutelage, but left alone as long as it confined itself to spiritual matters.

The arrangement, known as the Concordat, lasted a century. In 1905, amid renewed anti-clerical militancy, the Third Republic decreed the separation of church and state.

Individual citizens


The law of separation meant strict official neutrality in religious affairs.The French state could not allow any proselytizing in public buildings - least of all schools, where the citizens of tomorrow were being taught.

The insistence on schools as religion-free zones goes to the heart of the French idea of citizenship.The Republic has always recognised individuals, rather than groups: a French citizen owes allegiance to the nation, and has no officially sanctioned ethnic or religious identity.

Although it can be carried to extremes - such as colonial subjects being taught that their ancestors were Gauls - this view of citizenship is fundamentally non-discriminatory and inclusive.

School bans must be viewed in this context and are nothing new.In 1937, the education minister of the day instructed head teachers to keep all religious signs out of their establishments.
This was not controversial - but then the state was confronted with a weak opponent in an overwhelmingly secular society.

Generation gap

In the 1960s and 1970s, mass immigration from former north African colonies brought a new challenge. This did not lead to an immediate questioning of secularism. The first immigrants had no desire to find in France the mullahs they had left behind.

Many of these older migrants are now shocked to see their children adopt conservative Islamic practices, and are at the forefront of moves to ban headscarves from schools.But younger second or third-generation immigrants see things differently.They have lived only in France, mostly in deprived areas. For many, militancy and headscarves are a way of expressing anger and forging an identity.

No one knows exactly how many French Muslims there are - the oft-quoted figure of five million is probably an exaggeration. But recent elections to their representative body suggest young, anti-secular and at times, radical Muslims speak much louder than older and more moderate community leaders.

Split

Faced with this unprecedented challenge, the French establishment is divided.Traditionalists argue that the Republic must uphold its secular principles as firmly as it did against divine-right monarchists in centuries past.

Headscarves in particular, it is argued, cannot be tolerated in schools, because they are instruments of propaganda for an intolerant version of Islam and symbols of the oppression of women.

The modernisers, on the other hand, say a ban would only strengthen the militants, and point out that the principles of secularism are not set in stone and can accommodate exceptions.For instance, the eastern provinces of Alsace and Lorraine - which were German when the church was weaned off the state in 1905 - have kept the Concordat system which allows clergy to receive government salaries.

The legal status of the headscarf in schools remained unclear for many years, but a parliamentary vote in February 2004 finally decided the matter.

Backed by French President Jacques Chirac, ministers approved a law that will come into effect in September, banning all obvious religious symbols from schools - including headscarves, Christian crosses and Jewish skullcaps.It is not yet clear whether this will achieve the aim of helping to unite the country or - as some have suggested - divide it more than ever.

Link:

BBC NEWS | Europe | The deep roots of French secularism
 
Last edited:
Quoting from the Farm Animal Welfare Report
"Report on the Welfare of Farmed Animals at Slaughter or Killing – Part Two: White Meat Animals."
dated May 2009



Farm Animal Welfare Council is an independent body established by the British Government.

There is no best method of slaughter. However based on the evidence, stunning and slaughtering is considered a more humane method of preparing an animal for food.

Truth be told, a lot of people just freak out seeing that blood drain out. Medically speaking the cutting of the jugular does a better job of desensitizing the animal than the stunning does.
 
Truth be told, a lot of people just freak out seeing that blood drain out. Medically speaking the cutting of the jugular does a better job of desensitizing the animal than the stunning does.

Stun Guns often give a concussion that is not severe enough to cause the animal to lose sensation, making the whole concept of the Capacitive Stun Gun redundant.
 
Second one of your flags indicates you might be shakahari

What makes you think all, or even majority of the population of India is vegetarian or shakahari? Infact India has more nonvegetarians than where you live.
 

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom