Pork is the latest front in Europe's culture wars

First topic message reminder :

Pork is the latest front in Europe's culture wars
The far right is fixated on pork and is using it as an excuse to target yet another aspect of Muslim life



Following its significant gains in last month's local elections, the French Front National leader, Marine Le Pen, swiftly announced that school cafeterias would no longer serve non-pork substitution meals to children living in towns won by FN candidates. Targeting Muslims for another ritual round of public humiliation, while also excluding Jewish children, Le Pen declared: "There is no reason for religion to enter the public sphere."

While Le Pen framed this fixation on the dietary requirements of her fellow citizens as a defence of state secularism, the FN mayor of the south-western town of Arveyres, Benoit Gheysens, suggested the move was simply to cut costs and to prevent "staff being distressed" by excessive food waste. This mix of environmental concern and secular commitment illustrates just how eclectic the far right can be in its defence of order, and Le Pen's conversion to republican values is shaped by this strategic elasticity.

As recently as 2011, Le Pen was threatened with prosecution for describing Muslims praying in the streets as comparable to the Nazi occupation of France, rather than opting to oppose it as an assault on the neutrality of public space. Her subsequent cultivation of a rightwing defence of secularism is based on the realisation that the supposedly universal values of the republic can be appropriated as a productive front in the struggle for national identity.

The prime reason for this conversion, of course, is that it provides a fertile opportunity for consistently reproducing public controversies regarding the "Muslim problem" and its threat to national identity.

As Arun Kundnani says in his newbook, The Muslims are Coming, the social and political construction of racism in the post-9/11 period has relied in part on translating "cultural markers associated with Muslimness (forms of dress, rituals, languages) … into racial signifiers".

This constant manufacture of controversy is a ritual whereby yet another dimension of Muslim life can be stereotyped, held up for public scrutiny and marked out as a problem that requires resolute political intervention. Symbols can be endlessly generated, leaving every cultural marker to be labelled as yet more evidence of the excessive demands of eternal foreigners on an overly tolerant "host".

Much of this pig-whistle politics, which is becoming more prevalent across western Europe, is opportunistic. Heinz-Christian Strache of the Austrian Freedom party, for instance, who in 2012 posted an antisemitic caricature on his Facebook page, also circulated a picture of himself with a roast suckling pig and the caption "Isst du Schwein, darfst du rein" (If you eat pork you can come in).

The Danish People's party, fully invested in a culture war over Danish values, was an early adopter of animal welfare in order to campaign against halal meat and has long sought to politicise the provision of halal options in nurseries as the "forced adoption" of Muslim tradition.

When it was reported last summer that some Copenhagen kindergartens, in consultation with parents, had stopped serving pork products, the DPP complained of discrimination against Danish food culture. The intensity of the resulting debate – and of the charge that only the DPP spoke for the silent majority victimised by overly indulged minorities – prompted the Social Democrat prime minister, Helle Thorning-Schmidt, into the absurd public affirmation of the importance of meatballs to Danish culture and identity.

That a centre-left politician competitively declares her fidelity to a meat product is a predictable effect of the European politics of integration of the last decade. Integration, for all its suggestion of a weighty national project, is in practice a series of public demands: they must do this, they shouldn't do that. Integration politics responds to the social anxieties of the neoliberal era by producing symbolic problems that can be politically addressed through cost-free symbolic action.

Yet, they are never cost-free for those racialised as the problem. It is, for instance, in this context that a sinister genre of direct action has developed around symbolically and physically imposing pork products on Muslims. The French "anti-white racism" group Bloc Identitaire has occupied mosques and tried to organise a march to kick back against the "racist refusal" of Muslims to eat pork.

In what it later, predictably, described as a joke, the Flemish Vlaams Belang stormed a food festival at a school in Schoten and reportedly forced pork sausages into the mouths of some children. When some enterprising young people in Helsinki wanted to humiliate an Afghan asylum seeker on hunger strike for 30 days in front of the Finnish parliament, they made a video of themselves inviting him to warm his hands on a fire before cooking sausages on it.

Pork has become a racist meme, endlessly adapted through practices of harassment: mosques in Europe have had pig's heads nailed to their doors, pork-filled envelopes sent in the mail,slices of ham rubbed on door handles, bacon slices slipped in the shoes of worshippers as they prayed.

This is the political context in which Le Pen's pig-whistle politics seeks a register, for all its lofty appeals to the conceits of the republic. And when the pork has been exhausted, a new affront, or burning source of resentment, will be produced.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/15/le-pen-pig-whistle-politics

On top of all that, the treatment of pigs to produce pork in Denmark is a disgrace.  I love pork, but I always make sure I never buy Danish pork, would rather go hungry.

So you are saying that euthanising a suffering animal is wrong??????

FFS man, you are seriously one sad sicko....

victorisnotamused wrote:So you are saying that euthanising a suffering animal is wrong??????

FFS man, you are seriously one sad sicko....

I never said it was wrong, I said you have a choice do you not, but as seen you only are clutching onto this point which again is hypocritical, because you happily and think that is not suffering to kill animals by hunting them.

Behave you just got another spanking, again you fucked up your whole argument by claiming the animals have no right to live, and this was based off your own self serving babble

You call me a sicko and you hunt animals, get a grip if I was you, as you clearly get pleasure out of killing things, but that view point never enter that massive space in your head. If I was you I would go back to college and learn to fill it up with some sense

quote didge [Arguing now from a view point where the animal is dying has just made me PMSL, it is thus dying anyway, and would die, thus you still deny its right to life, by talking that life, even out of what you feel is the right thing to do.

Seriously that made me laugh and now this is your view to kill animals off the back of ones dying, one moment]


NO yopu idiot, I'm not trying to justify anythiong off the back of anything...I'm trying to pin you down to some PROPER debate not this round and round waffle....


you are too scared to answer the two questions I gave you previously directly...for the reasons I gave.

now a third......are we right in killing an irretreivably suffering animal...yes or no? no ifs but or maybe's, no ridiculous assumptions of what i might or might not mean....just yes or no....

you do realise that YOUR whole argument is built on a foundation of sand didge??
it is predicated on the singular notion that the act of killing per se is inhumane.....(rather than the means)
which has NO support anywhere outside of the nuttier animal rights groups. EVEN those religions which decry killing animals...like the Jains...consider it to be "spiritually wrong"...as opposed to inhumane.

You cannot sustain such an argument when the concept itself has no philosophical grounding.

there ARE times when killing itself could be considered inhumane...but not to the animal DIRECTLY killed.
for instance I would consider it inhumane to kill a female fox at this time of year as she will be nursing cubs. The inhumane treatment is then that of leaving the cubs to starve...

Seriously never known you to be so desperate.


Right does an animal have the choice to how it dies?

No, so asking me on a view point to how I would die is irrelevant because the animal has no choice, what is has is something decided by human choice, yet one that denies its existence, which the humane thing would be to not take its life in the first place.

Your second question was utterly absurd also, because again the method has been mooted by the fact you have denied the right of the animal to live, thus rendering any such daft questions on how it dies, is of no importance, because the most humane thing is for the animal the right to exist.

Thus each question has no relevance, because once you deny the animal any rights as you have done, how it is killed has no meaning what so ever, because you have denied its right to exist, hence why I said you needed to think about your questions in the first place. You fail to understand the high morally view point is for the animal to exist, thus any method over its death is rendered moot by this point

Last of all using a dying animal to justify killing animals for food is also moot, by the point the animal is dying anyway, where as an animal has no need to die, when it is to serve your own selfish need


You really are a dumb arse Victor

Didge wrote:Seriously never known you to be so desperate.


Right does an animal have the choice to how it dies?

No, so asking me on a view point to how I would die is irrelevant because the animal has no choice, You dont you see the point didge....at some point you will have NO CHOICE, You WILL die...as we all do....now what way do you want to go(would prefer to go)? (personally I want to live to be 100, then get shot whilst in the act by the jealous husband of a 20 year old but hey ho...). what is has is something decided by human choice, yet one that denies its existence, which the humane thing would be to not take its life in the first place.

Your second question was utterly absurd also, because again the method has been mooted by the fact you have denied the right of the animal to live, thus rendering any such daft questions on how it dies, is of no importance, because the most humane thing is for the animal the right to exist....

so you dare not answer the question directly? but dodge and waffle???

Thus each question has no relevance, because once you deny the animal any rights as you have done, how it is killed has no meaning what so ever,

Sorry didge...that is just so wrong I pity you for not being able to see it

because you have denied its right to exist, hence why I said you needed to think about your questions in the first place. You fail to understand the high morally view point is for the animal to exist, thus any method over its death is rendered moot by this point


You are so concerned with winning some theroetical "high moral argument" you mire yourself in immorality when it comes to the reality of things


You really are a dumb arse Victor

No didge YOU are the dumb arse

lets look at this idea of inhumane


inhumane
Line breaks: in|hu¦mane
Pronunciation: /ɪnhjʊˈmeɪn /
ADJECTIVE

Without compassion for misery or suffering; cruel:


now....considering that the dead animal cant look back and think oi...I was alive till you bastard killed me
AND considering that untill I shoot it it doesnt know its going to die
AND as long as I do the deed properly and cleanly

Its dead...done

so it does not suffer.
it is not made miserable
and ergo it is not cruel

so you are arguing the wrong thing....KILLING per se is NOT inhumane..

You MAY consider it "unfair"
You may consider it "not nice"
you may consider it "wrong"

and for many reasons, some of which I may even concede may have some validity, however inhumanity is not one of those arguments.

lack of existence is not a state of suffering....is it.....

All babble and irrelevant, if you accept the animal has no right to live, then any view point over how it dies is utter balderdash as seen.

Your questions as seen were also utterly pathetic, because not only does the animal have no choice over its death, but it clearly would choose to live, as would any living species. Evolution shows survival of the fittest and thus essentially all animals live to further survive and you do not need to kill animals to survive.
We though have advanced to a position where we do not even need meat to sustain ourselves, thus any view point to kill animals for our own needs is selfish. Thus claiming a right over an animal you have no requirement to kill other than gluttony is absurd. Thus rendering any view how you kill it as also absurd, as you have denied that animal the right to exist.

Thus to deny the existence of something you do not need to kill is inhumane, because as you have no need to kill the animal it is thus cruel to deny it its existence.

Something you cannot sadly grasp

sadly didge...i think it is you that cannot grasp the point....

you fail to be able to understand english....
read the definition of inhumane....

as opposed to "unfair" wrong" or whatever other argument you may have

You also fail to understand the difference between free choice and inevitability

and there is no "as seen" about it....
only your poor and vicious opinion.....
you have made NO valid argument ...just your poor "opinion" used to justify cruelty
not one part of yout diatribe has been anywhere close to anyones understanding of these issues...just more "the world according to didge"

next time you want a thourough thrashing...just ask
bye sweetie....BBL......

I showed you it is inhumane to kill animals for the simple fact we do not need to, thus it is cruel to deny the existence of anything we do not need to kill, thus rendering the act of killing an animal as crue, when that act is selfish to our own needs, of which we do not need to.

I see you now only resort to points on me and then claim free will?

 ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: 

The fact is the animal has no need to die, its need to be killed is off the selfish requirement of the human, showing that is immoral.

Well I guess you are not able to refute this point based upon the last poor view points. Unlike animals who kill other animals for food, we have a choice. They kill from necessity. We do so for pleasure. There is a huge moral difference between killing from necessity and killing for pleasure. When we have plentiful access to plant-based food options, and a choice between sparing life or taking it, there is nothing remotely humane about rejecting compassion and choosing violence and death for others just because we like the taste of their flesh, and because they cannot fight back. Might does not equal right.

Omg how long are you two going to go on for???
It's inhumane to my ears!!!
I feel like slaughtering myself!!!

Give it up guys.   

eddie wrote:Omg how long are you two going to go on for???
It's inhumane to my ears!!!
I feel like slaughtering myself!!!

Give it up guys.   

And spoil my fun?

Okay Eddie, I really have things to do so have a good evening and as I keep getting drawn back


Night
x

Didge wrote:

eddie wrote:Omg how long are you two going to go on for???
It's inhumane to my ears!!!
I feel like slaughtering myself!!!

Give it up guys.   

And spoil my fun?

Okay Eddie, I really have things to do so have a good evening and as I keep getting drawn back


Night
x

 :askissas: 

Didge wrote:I showed you it is inhumane to kill animals for the simple fact we do not need to, thus it is cruel to deny the existence of anything we do not need to kill, thus rendering the act of killing an animal as crue, when that act is selfish to our own needs, of which we do not need to.

I see you now only resort to points on me and then claim free will?

 ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: 

The fact is the animal has no need to die, its need to be killed is off the selfish requirement of the human, showing that is immoral.

Well I guess you are not able to refute this point based upon the last poor view points. Unlike animals who kill other animals for food, we have a choice. They kill from necessity. We do so for pleasure. There is a huge moral difference between killing from necessity and killing for pleasure. When we have plentiful access to plant-based food options, and a choice between sparing life or taking it, there is nothing remotely humane about rejecting compassion and choosing violence and death for others just because we like the taste of their flesh, and because they cannot fight back. Might does not equal right.

Right ho didge.....

NOW...drop out of this argument for a while...

I think I can actually see where we are at odds with this...

you are arguing from the stand point of "pure morals" , the "ideal world" scenario, and as you have admitted your are, by your own arguments a hypocrite....well the real world does that to us all.

I live soley in the real world (generally.....unless I'm off playing WoW  :::grouch:: )

yes i agree we could...theoretically ....live of plants alone....but in reality this would totally destroy the ecosystem....unless you proposed culling something like 90% of the population so not practicable

again Yes, i suppose given the choice i suppose any amimal would choose to live, but again in reality...they neither have that choice nor, as far as anyone can show are they of sufficient mental capacity to understand such a choice....(though nocive behavior may speak otherwise  ::dunno:: )

even if morality is defeated by practicality when it comes to the right of existance, surely THAT does not defeat what you correctly define as a lesser morality, that of a clean and swift death. At least...if we ARE going to kill, we should do so as decently as possible....(and THAT applies to all...even humans....)

beleive me I can see your point, but it cannot be applied in the real world.

as to halal...again I think you misunderstand my point......

i find halal (or at least the claims for it ) dubious: that is MY opinion
the Muslim finds halal a "requirement" (though indeed like most of these things it isnt, if the choice isnt there) that is HIS opinion....

NOW...I'm not suggesting banning halal...unless there is no other reasonable choice
what I DO suggest.....which is "the other reasonable choice" is that it be properly and identifiably labelled...
then the Muslim can follow his "opinion"
and I can follow mine.....

and then we have that magic situation of ....equality...both our opinions are satisfied....

victor,that was well "put" and well thought out!!

Bravo Victor in regards to the halal in particular.

victorisnotamused wrote:

Didge wrote:I showed you it is inhumane to kill animals for the simple fact we do not need to, thus it is cruel to deny the existence of anything we do not need to kill, thus rendering the act of killing an animal as crue, when that act is selfish to our own needs, of which we do not need to.

I see you now only resort to points on me and then claim free will?

 ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: 

The fact is the animal has no need to die, its need to be killed is off the selfish requirement of the human, showing that is immoral.

Well I guess you are not able to refute this point based upon the last poor view points. Unlike animals who kill other animals for food, we have a choice. They kill from necessity. We do so for pleasure. There is a huge moral difference between killing from necessity and killing for pleasure. When we have plentiful access to plant-based food options, and a choice between sparing life or taking it, there is nothing remotely humane about rejecting compassion and choosing violence and death for others just because we like the taste of their flesh, and because they cannot fight back. Might does not equal right.

Right ho didge.....

NOW...drop out of this argument for a while...

I think I can actually see where we are at odds with this...

you are arguing from the stand point of "pure morals" , the "ideal world" scenario, and as you have admitted your are, by your own arguments a hypocrite....well the real world does that to us all.

I live soley in the real world (generally.....unless I'm off playing WoW  :::grouch:: )

yes i agree we could...theoretically ....live of plants alone....but in reality this would totally destroy the ecosystem....unless you proposed culling something like 90% of the population so not practicable

again Yes, i suppose given the choice i suppose any amimal would choose to live, but again in reality...they neither have that choice nor, as far as anyone can show are they of sufficient mental capacity to understand such a choice....(though nocive behavior may speak otherwise  ::dunno:: )

even if morality is defeated by practicality when it comes to the right of existance, surely THAT does not defeat what you correctly define as a lesser morality, that of a clean and swift death. At least...if we ARE going to kill, we should do so as decently as possible....(and THAT applies to all...even humans....)

beleive me I can see your point, but it cannot be applied in the real world.

as to halal...again I think you misunderstand my point......

i find halal (or at least the claims for it ) dubious: that is MY opinion
the Muslim finds halal a "requirement" (though indeed like most of these things it isnt, if the choice isnt there)  that is HIS opinion....

NOW...I'm not suggesting banning halal...unless there is no other reasonable choice
what I DO suggest.....which is "the other reasonable choice" is that it be properly and identifiably labelled...
then the Muslim can follow his "opinion"
and I can follow mine.....

and then we have that magic situation of ....equality...both our opinions are satisfied....

  

didge,last time I went shooting I was attacked by a crowd of wood pigeons,they were joined by dozens of rabid rabbits.i thought my time had come,I fired till my gun was red hot,i survived though I was badly injured.I will never shoot again!!!     

victorisnotamused wrote:

Didge wrote:I showed you it is inhumane to kill animals for the simple fact we do not need to, thus it is cruel to deny the existence of anything we do not need to kill, thus rendering the act of killing an animal as crue, when that act is selfish to our own needs, of which we do not need to.

I see you now only resort to points on me and then claim free will?

 ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: 

The fact is the animal has no need to die, its need to be killed is off the selfish requirement of the human, showing that is immoral.

Well I guess you are not able to refute this point based upon the last poor view points. Unlike animals who kill other animals for food, we have a choice. They kill from necessity. We do so for pleasure. There is a huge moral difference between killing from necessity and killing for pleasure. When we have plentiful access to plant-based food options, and a choice between sparing life or taking it, there is nothing remotely humane about rejecting compassion and choosing violence and death for others just because we like the taste of their flesh, and because they cannot fight back. Might does not equal right.

Right ho didge.....

NOW...drop out of this argument for a while...

I think I can actually see where we are at odds with this...

you are arguing from the stand point of "pure morals" , the "ideal world" scenario, and as you have admitted your are, by your own arguments a hypocrite....well the real world does that to us all.

I live soley in the real world (generally.....unless I'm off playing WoW  :::grouch:: )

yes i agree we could...theoretically ....live of plants alone....but in reality this would totally destroy the ecosystem....unless you proposed culling something like 90% of the population so not practicable

again Yes, i suppose given the choice i suppose any amimal would choose to live, but again in reality...they neither have that choice nor, as far as anyone can show are they of sufficient mental capacity to understand such a choice....(though nocive behavior may speak otherwise  ::dunno:: )

even if morality is defeated by practicality when it comes to the right of existance, surely THAT does not defeat what you correctly define as a lesser morality, that of a clean and swift death. At least...if we ARE going to kill, we should do so as decently as possible....(and THAT applies to all...even humans....)

beleive me I can see your point, but it cannot be applied in the real world.

as to halal...again I think you misunderstand my point......

i find halal (or at least the claims for it ) dubious: that is MY opinion
the Muslim finds halal a "requirement" (though indeed like most of these things it isnt, if the choice isnt there)  that is HIS opinion....

NOW...I'm not suggesting banning halal...unless there is no other reasonable choice
what I DO suggest.....which is "the other reasonable choice" is that it be properly and identifiably labelled...
then the Muslim can follow his "opinion"
and I can follow mine.....

and then we have that magic situation of ....equality...both our opinions are satisfied....

At last you have stopped being silly and have answered with some sense.
As to being applied it could of course if we pulled resources together to do so, it is more viable and profitable though to use many crops for fuel though, so I disagree it is not achieve able.

I have never had an issue with Halal being labelled, I have issue with lame arguments that it should be labeled over claims to humane treatment of animals, which has always been my point. To me they are nothing more than copout answers. So I have no issue with your points they are fair

Thank you for a counter which is not about each other and may it long continue

nicko wrote:didge,last time I went shooting I was attacked by a crowd of wood pigeons,they were joined by dozens of rabid rabbits.i thought my time had come,I fired till my gun was red hot,i survived though I was badly injured.I will never shoot again!!!      

Interesting, but you do have reservations of lives you have taken, which you have freely admitted yourself if it will affect you if there is an afterlife have you not?
As I said to me fighting for a nation's is to me one of the most noble things you can do, but even I could not challenge Quill's view points on it still being morally wrong to kill.
So if you want to mock the view of killing be my guest, by you are the one that has to live with that and your conscience.

didge,it was ment as a joke ,wheres your sense of humour gone?

There is no need for halal as muslems guide book tells them that it is ok for them to eat the food of Christians.



But if it should be available, then it should only be available to those who really require it, not dished up to anyone else without their knowledge or consent as we have had here in UK.


It was mentioned earlier how intending to give non halal food to muslems, "symbolically and physically" was in some way "an attack", so why is the giving of halal to non Muslims not seen as an attack too?

Tommy Monk wrote:There is no need for halal as muslems guide book tells them that it is ok for them to eat the food of Christians.



But if it should be available, then it should only be available to those who really require it, not dished up to anyone else without their knowledge or consent as we have had here in UK.


It was mentioned earlier how intending to give non halal food to muslems, "symbolically and physically" was in some way "an attack", so why is the giving of halal to non Muslims not seen as an attack too?

Who cares if they want to eat halal anyway? It's their choice. I'd eat it and have no problem with it.
My only beef (pardon the pun) is that it's not always labelled.

They care, although dodge keeps trying to tell us it's all the same, which it isn't otherwise there wouldn't be such a fuss from muslems or the people opposed.



If they want it then that is up to them, but I don't and in many cases my rights to choose are ignored.

Tommy Monk wrote:They care, although dodge keeps trying to tell us it's all the same, which it isn't otherwise there wouldn't be such a fuss from muslems or the people opposed.



If they want it then that is up to them, but I don't and in many cases my rights to choose are ignored.

So you do not want to eat an animal slaughtered with its throat slit, but eat an animal which has also had its throat slit and you want to choose off humane reasons?


 ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: 


Behave, your choice is nothing more grounded from a prejudice view you have of a people, nothing more and I am sure you do not or have not given a second thought to the plight of animals before.

The only person who has come out with a valid point was Victor, which is not what you stated Twatti

Didge wrote:

nicko wrote:didge,last time I went shooting I was attacked by a crowd of wood pigeons,they were joined by dozens of rabid rabbits.i thought my time had come,I fired till my gun was red hot,i survived though I was badly injured.I will never shoot again!!!      

Interesting, but you do have reservations of lives you have taken, which you have freely admitted yourself if it will affect you if there is an afterlife have you not?
As I said to me fighting for a nation's is to me one of the most noble things you can do, but even I could not challenge Quill's view points on it still being morally wrong to kill.
So if you want to mock the view of killing be my guest, by you are the one that has to live with that and your conscience.

yet you kill the carrot with out sympathy         

Life is Life, does it matter that it can not give voice to it suffering, that it can not scream in pain and terror and take on the face of suffering, as you slice it's flesh or boil it alive?

Didge wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:They care, although dodge keeps trying to tell us it's all the same, which it isn't otherwise there wouldn't be such a fuss from muslems or the people opposed.
If they want it then that is up to them, but I don't and in many cases my rights to choose are ignored.

So you do not want to eat an animal slaughtered with its throat slit, but eat an animal which has also had its throat slit and you want to choose off humane reasons?
 ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: 
Behave, your choice is nothing more grounded from a prejudice view you have of a people, nothing more and I am sure you do not or have not given a second thought to the plight of animals before.
The only person who has come out with a valid point was Victor, which is not what you stated Twatti

If it's all the same then let's do it all the UK law way, supported by the BVA and the overwhelming majority of the British people, and let the minority of a minority put up with it instead of the other way round.


Their muslem guide book already tells them that our food is good enough for them to eat, so shouldn't be a problem.



IT's not like we're planning to feed them bacon sandwiches or anything, so I don't see why this would be a problem for them, or why their minority of a minority wants are deemed more important than those of the rest of the country or the additional pain and suffering of an animal during slaughter which would otherwise be avoided through stunning techniques, rendering the animal unconscious during the dispatch process.


Why don't you behave, and stop trying to justify what is widely considered to be a barbaric method of religious slaughter, and the imposition of this minority of a minority required practice onto majority of others against their wishes and beliefs and knowledge in many cases.

nicko wrote:didge,it was ment as a joke ,wheres your sense of humour gone?

didge has no sense of humor

he is far too serious and lives for the argumnet

Tommy Monk wrote:

Didge wrote:
So you do not want to eat an animal slaughtered with its throat slit, but eat an animal which has also had its throat slit and you want to choose off humane reasons?
 ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: 
Behave, your choice is nothing more grounded from a prejudice view you have of a people, nothing more and I am sure you do not or have not given a second thought to the plight of animals before.
The only person who has come out with a valid point was Victor, which is not what you stated Twatti

If it's all the same then let's do it all the UK law way, supported by the BVA and the overwhelming majority of the British people, and let the minority of a minority put up with it instead of the other way round.


Their muslem guide book already tells them that our food is good enough for them to eat, so shouldn't be a problem.



IT's not like we're planning to feed them bacon sandwiches or anything, so I don't see why this would be a problem for them, or why their minority of a minority wants are deemed more important than those of the rest of the country or the additional pain and suffering of an animal during slaughter which would otherwise be avoided through stunning techniques, rendering the animal unconscious during the dispatch process.


Why don't you behave, and stop trying to justify what is widely considered to be a barbaric method of religious slaughter, and the imposition of this minority of a minority required practice onto majority of others against their wishes and beliefs and knowledge in many cases.

Dear me, contradiction alert, all methods of animal slaughter are barbaric, because you deny the animal the right to live, showing you are thus a hypocrite

I agree with the BVA.