Meanwhile in Britain, the government has allowed an exemption to the law on animal cruelty in the cases of Islamic and Jewish slaughter.
Thus we all must show due diligence to avoid unnecessary suffering of animals unless the animal is killed for Jewish or Islamic sacrifice. This is absolutely outrageous imo and makes me wonder if there is any point in continuing being a member of the Labour party.
Its the same with Muslim Halal butchery.
"causing instantaneous death with no pain to the animal." - anybody ask the animal ? i certainly am no vegan, but i find it hard to believe that slaughter of an animal can be completely painless. hbg
hamburger wrote:"causing instantaneous death with no pain to the animal." - anybody ask the animal ? i certainly am no vegan, but i find it hard to believe that slaughter of an animal can be completely painless. hbg
I was thinking the same thing.
Just how happy are clams? Hwe happy is a pig in...?
Well, as said already above, both Jews and Muslims claim that there method is not cruel.
Actually, any butcher (and hunter [Mrs. Steve as 41oo will know that :wink: ) says so.
I deliberately said religious sacrifice because that's where this barbarous practice comes from, although I was refering specifically to halal and kosher meat production.
The British government has decided to drop any proposals to outlaw this method of killing animals.
from
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2977086.stm
Quote:Halal and Kosher slaughter 'must end'
The method of animal slaughter used by Jews and Muslims should be banned immediately, according to an independent advisory group.
The Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC), which advises the government on how to avoid cruelty to livestock, says the way Kosher and Halal meat is produced causes severe suffering to animals.
The Humanists movement, which has previously called for the abolition of ritual slaughter, said ethical values should be put above religious ones.
"There is no imperative for Muslims or Judaists to eat meat produced in this manner," said spokesman Roy Saich.
"There is no reason why they should not simply abstain from eating meat altogether if they do not wish to eat the same meat as the rest of us."
....but of course we don't want to upset the Muslims do we?
I suppose the next move will be to forbid the killing of animals for food or possibly to forbid the eating of meat and fish as well since you can not remove the pain from animal slaughter no matter what the method. I think that we should be more concerned about the killing of people and rise up against those nations engaged in it.
I agree. All in favour of regime change in the US?
au1929 wrote:I think that we should be more concerned about the killing of people and rise up against those nations engaged in it.
I'm really glad, au, you joined us finally!!!
the killing of animals by any method may not necessarily be "cruel" , but it likely still involves pain. (my dentist is certainly not cruel, but a visit to his practice might still involve plenty of pain). i am NOT saying that either the jewish or muslim method of killing animals should be banned, but fail to understand how we could call it painless. hbg
Girl's head scarf fuels debate on religious freedom
Thursday, April 1, 2004 Posted: 12:48 PM EST (1748 GMT)
(CNN) -- The U.S. Justice Department this week backed a Muslim girl's legal battle against an Oklahoma school district over the right to wear a head scarf in a public school.
Nashala Hearn, 12, was suspended twice last year from the Benjamin Franklin Science Academy in Muskogee, Oklahoma, for wearing a head scarf, or hijab, which officials said violated the dress code. CNN anchor Heidi Collins spoke Thursday with Hearn, her attorney, Leah Farish, and John Tucker, attorney for the Muskogee Public School District.
COLLINS: Ms. Farish, I want to begin with you. If you could just take us back and tell us a little bit about what happened to Nashala.
Why did the school tell her that she was not able to wear the head scarf anymore? I know that she was able to for the first month or so.
HEARN: Right. She had been wearing it without incident for a few weeks, and on September 11, she was reprimanded for wearing something that looked like a bandanna, they said, which is one of the things forbidden by their dress code. A hijab, or head scarf, is not in that list.
But at that time, she and her parents started discussing this with the school district, and ultimately she was suspended.
She returned again in a hijab and was suspended again, and since then she has been at school, wearing the hijab, under an agreement that the school district says allows them to indefinitely deliberate on whether they are going to make an exception to their dress code or change their dress code.
COLLINS: So then on what grounds are Nashala and her father suing the school?
FARISH: Well, there are several constitutional grounds and state law grounds. But we recently, most recently what triggered the Justice Department's ability to be involved, we found some facts that indicated a violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
COLLINS: Well, in fact, you bring up a point -- Mr. Tucker, actually, I want to get to you.
The Hearns are saying that the school is violating Nashala's religious freedom. We have heard this already. But now the U.S. Justice Department, of course, has issued a statement, as we've just been hearing, [and] filed a motion in support of the Hearns.
We want to go ahead and put that on the screen for our viewers. It says: "No student should be forced to choose between following her faith and enjoying the benefits of a public education."
School district lawyer John Tucker
What's your response to that?
TUCKER: It's twofold. No. 1, the school district has a dress code which is not a religious-based dress code. This is not a religious issue. For the school, this is about the safety and welfare of the students. A dress code is to ensure that all students are treated equally. The United States Department of Education sets guidelines for dress codes.
In 1955, after Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the United States Department of Education specifically authorized an exception to dress codes and directed schools that yarmulkes and head scarves would be appropriate if worn for religious purpose as a part of a student's religious beliefs.
However, in 1998, those regulations were changed by the United States government because the Supreme Court declared that Religious Freedom Restoration Act to be unconstitutional. That exception for yarmulkes and head scarves was removed.
The Muskogee school district wants a dress code that applies consistently to all students. And head wear is not permitted because of the opportunities to use head wear to present signs of things that would be considered inappropriate and might lead to gang behavior.
COLLINS: Nashala, I want to get to you, if I could.
Talk to us just for a moment about how this has felt for you, at the center of quite a controversy here.
Have your friends been helping you out? Have they been supportive to you?
HEARN: Yes.
COLLINS: How so?
HEARN: They just told me that I'm doing a good job in keeping up the work and stuff. And they support me and stuff.
COLLINS: How does it feel, Nashala, to walk through the school, the doors of the school, with your hijab on right now?
HEARN: It feels great for people to know that like they can't -- they can suspend me, but I'm going to just come back on doing my job.
\It seems that those people only respond to tyrants such as Saddam. Treating those people with a velvet glove rather than a mailed fist does not seem to work.
Hobbitbob
By those people I meant the Iraqi's.
.
au1929 wrote:Hobbitbob
By those people I meant the Iraqi's.
.
I'm not surprised you missed the fact that the Imams had condemned the mutilations. Instead you continue with the bigtry. Quelle surprise!
Hobbitbob
No I did not miss it. Does that negate what they had done. Why do they need the Imman's to tell them not to act like wild beasts and when did it become bigotry to state the truth.
