Why do we accept the cruelty of non-stunned halal?

Where do you stand on non-stunned halal meat?
Where do you stand on non-stunned halal meat?

I note that the issue of non-stunned halal meat supplies to schools is to be further discussed by Lancashire County Council, in a week when we learn that electric dog collars are under scrutiny, there are plans to stop puppy sales from pet shops, and a petition is doing the rounds to allow dogs into motorway services so that there is no need to leave them in potentially hot cars.

We are, quite rightly, a nation of animal lovers, and over the years, many steps have been taken to improve conditions in both agriculture and domestic animal care.

We employ (and as taxpayers pay for) many DEFRA staff to ensure animal welfare, and regularly cases come to court involving cruelty to pets.

While I have never visited a slaughter house, I suspect I can imagine the production line process.

I enjoy my chicken dinner, a lamb chop, and a nice steak, if I can afford it, content that minimal suffering has taken place due to the stunning of the animals.

What I do find odd is how we as a nation would be up in arms if we saw an animal mistreated in the street, yet are content to accept the practice of halal slaughter where the animals are hung upside down and bled to death, generally in full view of those whose fate is yet to come.

Perhaps it’s a case of what the eye doesn’t see, or perhaps it’s deemed racist to object to such cruelty.

It’s good to see that some council members are prepared to take a stand on this issue, and hopefully more can be persuaded to do so.

John Wood

Via email