Denmark’s ban on ritual slaughter is not kosher

20 February 2014

Fey metropolitan ponce that am I, I love nothing better than curling up on the sofa with my partner to watch a Scandinavian drama. Borgen, The Killing; we haven’t got around to watching The Bridge, but only because I’m so busy walking around with a baby in a Kari-me or actually lactating milk, so European and progressive am I.

Part of the fun of these Scandi dramas is that the assumed leftism is so ingrained as to be almost comedic; each episode of Borgen features the statsminister having some moral dilemma because her coalition can’t sell hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of windpower to a former Soviet state because of its human rights record (in real life of course former Soviet states are keen users of expensive Scandinavian green energy rather than the lakes of cheap oil near them). It normally ends with her principles compromised because of the powers that be, whether financial, military or politics (not because the ideas don’t work in practice).

Claim your gift

So just as the British Left sees Scandinavia as a sort of mystical liberal paradise in which social inequality and sexism have been eliminated, I obviously have an insatiable appetite for any stories which show them to be crushed by debt, warped by their weird sexual politics, riddled with crime or learning the lesson that you can have equality or diversity but not both.

But the latest news from Denmark is just depressing, the country having banned kosher and halal slaughter because ‘animal rights trump religious freedom’. What a strange and perverted set of priorities to have. The argument over ethics is hypocritical to start with, since a great deal of non-religious slaughter is equally bad if not worse, and there are ways of regulating kosher and halal to make it less cruel. But even if it is cruel – they’re animals! Muslims and Jews are people. For the sake of animal rights they’re prepared to create an atmosphere of tension and even fear among religious minorities? If people care about animal rights, they should campaign to make meat-eating illegal; if animal rights really mattered, then ethically the pig-holocaust state of Denmark would be down there with North Korea.

I don’t for one minute believe that the people who make such laws are driven by hostility to Muslims or Jews; quite the contrary, they’re fairly standard Left-liberals in the throes of late modern decadence which pretends that animal rights trump ancient liberties. They are also supported by many who are alarmed by the growth of Islam in Europe but, being from the secularist Left, are scared of appearing nativist, and losing trusted moderate supporters and gaining some unsavoury ones. But if people were just honest about discussing their difficulties with Islam, rather than pretending it was about ‘religion’ in general or animal rights, we’d actually end up with a more reasoned and liberal response. There are some minority cultural or religious practices that are barbaric – female genital mutilation, for one – but this is one of those instances where western decadence is to blame for inter-cultural conflict.

Banning ritual slaughter is just cruel to people. Still, at least I have another thing to rant at the telly about when the statsminister is giving a lecture about Denmark being a haven of social justice.

Give the perfect gift this Christmas. Buy a subscription for a friend for just £75 and you’ll receive a free gift too. Buy now.

Show comments
  • goodman

    I’m Marsha Goodman, and I’m a Mortgage Loan Officer committed to
    helping all of my clients fully explore their home loan options and
    feel confident about their choices. In my 35 years of experience
    working with third party affordable housing assistance programs,
    conventional conforming and “jumbo loans”, government loans, home
    equity lines of credit and investment property loans and more, I’ve
    been able to share my knowledge of the mortgage industry and
    especially the Peartrees City market. My website offers resources and
    calculators for your convenience, and I’m available to assist you at
    any point along the way toward meeting your
    home loan goals.Email

  • goodman

    Business & Personal Loans from $10,000 – $10,000,000 00. Get your no obligation FREE quote now! Repayments up to 54 Months. No Collateral, Money paid into your account within 24 hours after approval.For more information contact us today?

  • goodman

    I am a certified and a registered financial service lender i give out loan of all kinds in a very fast and easy way, Home financial service , Student financial service , Business financial service , Investor financial service etc.i offer financial service to every individuals, firms, and company that are in need of financial assistance i in a low interest rate of 3%. Dear readers you should note that this offer is for serious minded individual, firms and companies.Do not let this opportunity pass you by.get your finances to solve your financial

  • Daniel Maris

    Just been looking into the history of the concept of “Islamophobia”. It is something strongly promoted by the Runnymede Trust in the UK – they claim 8 characteristics (my comments in square brackets):

    The Runnymede report contrasted “open” and “closed” views of Islam, and
    stated that the following eight “closed” views are equated with

    1. Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change.

    [Typical taqiyya! Islam is not a monolithic bloc and it is not unresponsive to change. However, the same could be said about Fascism.]

    2. It is seen as separate and “other.” It does not have values in common with
    other cultures, is not affected by them and does not influence them.

    [It is separate by choice. No Muslim woman may marry a non-Muslim man according to Sharia. It is true that Islam’s values are generally opposed to the values of the modern world – whether it be secular, Christian, Jewish, Hindu or Buddhist. Proof? Only the Muslim world has attempted to produce a rival human rights declaration, opposed to the UN declaration.]

    3. It is seen as inferior to the West. It is seen as barbaric, irrational,
    primitive, and sexist.

    [LOL it’s not sexist? Under Islam a woman’s testimony is equal to only half a man’s! It has many barbaric aspects including amputation as punishment, persecution of gays. It is very primitive in its rejection of evolution and our modern understanding of cosmology.]

    4. It is seen as violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism, and engaged in a clash of civilizations.

    [There is only one religion which has had 25,000 terrorist acts committed in its name since 2000 and that’s Islam.]

    5. It is seen as a political ideology, used for political or military

    [Er – yes. That’s what every believing Muslim and every Muslim preacher thinks it is.]

    6. Criticisms made of “the West” by Muslims are rejected out of hand.

    [Well only a fool would do that. That’s obviously a straw man gambit from the Runnymede people.]

    7. Hostility towards Islam is used to justify discriminatory practices towards
    Muslims and exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society.

    [Well this charge only has force if you believe Islam is a matter of private devotion – which is given the lie to by the perhaps 2 million or more Sharia courts operating across the globe. What does the Runnymede think these courts are ruling on? The efficacy of your prayers?]

    8. Anti-Muslim hostility is seen as natural and normal.[49]

    [Well chosen Taqiyya words from the Runnymede folk… “natural and normal” – why not try “rational and realistic”? More to the point.]

  • greggf

    “…..banning ritual slaughter is just cruel to people…..ancient liberties?”

    What on earth are you talking about Ed?
    Do you realize how daft you sound?

    “Discussing our difficulties” with difficult people is a British pastime which in my memory rarely succeeds and inevitably leads to conflict. Usually such conflict seems necessary to settle something.

  • tjamesjones

    Look, this is a generous post, but I also understand why Danes don’t feel that they need to maintain a muslim practice in their country. This is the 6th European country to ban the practice, others from memory are poland, sweden, estonia? and 2 others.

    • Daniel Maris

      Time we joined up.

  • Fergus Pickering

    Wait a minute. The Danes are not suggesting the slaughter of Jews and/or Muslims. They are suggesting they be put to mild inconvenience.

  • Blazenka Hudson-trograncic

    Since ‘god’ spoke, or whatever, the ‘fridge has been invented. Before the ‘fridge you had to see the animal alive and then killed to show it hadn’t died and was starting to ‘go off’. Even worse for Pork in the desert. Get over it.
    Ideally we will stop killing animals for food soon as well,: though what a hodja or rabbi thinks of stem cells is not clear.

  • The Elderking

    If people are cruel to animals then its OK to be “cruel” to them.

    However it is ridiculous to compare an animal having its throat cut and being allowed to thrash to death as its life blood spews out to expecting people to desist to such an activity when it is completely unnecessary in this modern age.

    Why is killing animals by Halal or Kosher slaughter OK and killing a bull by dog baiting not?

    Why ban the swift killing of a few thousand old and sick foxes with dogs and allow millions of animals to be killed by transporting them, and queuing them up whilst slitting their throats?

    These people have a choice – the animal doesn’t.

    This kind of slaughter is barbaric.It should be banned across the Western world.

    Jews and Muslims can choose.

    Shape up or ship out.

    • tastemylogos

      you see, I find your position abhorrent. But at least you are honest. You simply don’t want them here. I think most of these activists agree with you, but they pretend otherwise and try and wriggle out of admitting it.

      • The Elderking

        I no way do I say I don’t want them here – what they need to do is get with the real world and not practice stone age desert rituals. The cultural/religious arguments are just fatuous. They had a place in their time but the world has moved on. So should they. If not they should have no place in our society.

        Clinging to such barbaric and unnecessary practices places them beyond the Pale of civilised society.

        • tastemylogos

          > I no way do I say I don’t want them here

          Did not ay you did. I made clear it would be unintentional, but it would still be the consequence, and you don’t seem to have an answer to it beyond, no doubt, ‘it would be alryte on the nyte, luv’.

          > they need to do is get with the real world and not practice stone age desert rituals.

          1) Your perception of the real world is not share by everyone, why is this still so difficult to acknowledge? This is the same argument used by Bush to invade Iraq. It stinks.

          2) No, Just because it was the British stone age when it came about, the Jews had a thriving bronze age culture in the Levante.

          > If not they should have no place in our society.

          Fine, you admit. As long as we are clear what the goal is. How this much fits into the ‘Diversity’ nonsense spouted by many of those radicals who support such policies, I really do not know.

          > Clinging to such barbaric and unnecessary practices places them beyond the Pale of civilised society.

          They have been a civilisation for a far longer period though, have they not? They have survived for longer so much be doing something right. But again, this neo-colonial attitude of ‘educate the barbarian’ is what took the European to Africa/India in the first place. It seems that lessons are very rarely learned.

  • Cyril Sneer

    Well done Denmark.

    Over here you can now end up buying religiously slaughtered meat and not know if it had been cruelly slaughtered rather than the more humane western method – which just shows how far this country has fallen.

    It is against my human rights to sell me meat where the animal has suffered unnecessarily due to religion and to not make it clear on the packaging that this meat has been religiously slaughtered. I object, I’m offended, and I boycott any shop that sells such things.

    • Baron

      Cyril, you may not know before the animals are slaughtered the ‘halal’ way they are first stunned. They suffer as much as those killed differently after stunning.

      • gerontius

        You will have to forgive my scepticism Baron, but I doubt that those who work in halal slaughterhouses are concerned with minimising the suffering of the animals they slaughter.

        • tastemylogos

          > , but I doubt that those who work in halal slaughterhouses are concerned with minimising the suffering of the animals they slaughter.

          what b******. so you are prejudiced as well? Where as capitalist, penny pinching supermarkets will ‘do their best’?

          Your position is so intellectually dishonest, it is beyond parody.

        • Baron

          gerontius, Baron has never been in a slaughterhouse, has no intention ever entering such a place. However, he knew a butcher from Poland, a country that supplies alot of halal meat. The guy may have lied, but there was no reason for him to do so because his views of the third branch of the Abrahamic faith are unprintable. The animals are stunned perhaps not so much because the butchering crews love animals, more because of the safety to the butchers.

    • gerontius

      “Over here you can now end up buying religiously slaughtered meat and not
      know if it had been cruelly slaughtered rather than the more humane
      western method”

      Indeed, I stopped buying meat from Waitrose after that store reluctantly admitted that a large proportion of it’s meat was halal slaugthered, though not labelled as such. At the risk of sounding naive, I was surprised by this, as Waitrose had always traded on a reputation for high quality and honest trading.

      I now buy from my local farmer’s market, where the farmer will happily give you chapter and verse on how and where his animals are grown and slaughtered.

  • Paul Owen

    Actually they’re right. Just because some people have stupid irrational superstitions should not trump animal rights. Our own rules on Halal and Kosher meat are a fudge, a classic example of moral relativism. In a sane world the way we slaughter our meat, which few of us see anyway, would not matter a jot. The only way to create that sane world is to draw a line and refuse to cross it. Congratulations to the Danes for doing that.

  • Robert Ford

    yeah, this was a misguided column. i assume you’ve watched halal and kosher slaughter and then watched an animal being slaughtered using a bolt gun? there’s no comparison. we’re talking about averages – if you were a cow and had to choose between a muslim country or one in the west to be slaughtered, which would you choose? australia has banned exports to some muslim countries for this reason.
    Denmark is setting modern standards and showing that everyone has to adhere to them. this is instead of giving religious exemptions to humane slaughter laws like we do in the US. you don’t seem like the type to sit and watch hundreds of videos of animals being slaughtered but i have so i’m pretty sure i’ll have to say this column was not good and makes no sense. it also assumes that we, for some reason, should value retarded humans (who are unnecessarily cruel to animals) more than animals. i don’t. go watch some animals being killed

  • Swanky

    “Your partner”? Oh bejaysus. Your partner in crime? I sure hope not. Your partner in business? Boresville. Your partner in bed? We don’t want to know. Your partner in life? That’s a wife, ain’t it?

    Why are people so weird about language? And I thought you were Catholic?

    I have had several loves of various kinds in my life (except lesbian), but I have never never ever had a “partner” and I never ever will. : )

  • bwims

    Oh dear, Ed, you’ve got it wrong this time. Eating animals does not mean that you have to be cruel to them. We are not allowed to castrate pork boars anymore, unfortunately, because it hurts them, I say unfortunately because people with sensitive noses and palates such as I are repelled by the stink known as “boar taint”.

    If we are going to be cruel to animals “because the are animals” and “we are humans”, then let’s bring back intensive factory farming, battery hens, and squeezing shampoo bottles into rabbits eyes.

    Religious sensitivities are not a good reason for cruelty. We have highly specific slaughterhouse regulations that should apply to all animals, regardless of the superstitions of the consumer.

    People with crazy food fad religions have three choices: 1) stay in your country of origin; 2) adapt to the culture you are emigrating to; 3) become vegetarian.

    The rest of us poor atheists are being hammered on all sides by the Marxists telling us to be vegetarians; why should meat eating non-Christians be pandered to?

    • Swanky

      Hear hear and darn right! ‘Superstitions of the customer’ indeed! I might have a neighbour that thinks his ‘religion’ or the voices in his head demand that everyone within 20 houses of his own should have their little fingers cut off. We would put that person in a mental institution; we don’t let him walk around with loppers. Why do we tolerate the baseless cruelty of anyone else?

  • Kennybhoy

    Any excuse to use that picture of Birgitte Hjort Sorensen! :-)

  • Jabez Foodbotham

    “actually lactating milk” It’d be hard to lactate anything else, but so what.

  • Aesop Jones

    This is where Ed and I disagree. Kosher and Halal are barbaric, and like circumcision, are foreign rituals which have no place in Western society. Also, just because some factory farming methods are cruel, does not mean that Kosher and Halal are okay — this is an argument for stricter standards on the meat industry, not the legalization of barbaric foreign rituals. Furthermore, Kosher and Halal processing receive government subsidies and are forced on the populations at large, which overwhelmingly do not practice these religions.

    • Swanky

      Circumcision is an abomination and a bizarre cruelty to have been so readily accepted for so long by Americans. I support IntactAmerica,

  • Ron Todd

    Any body suggesting similar in this country will be shouted down by cries of islamaphobia. Anybody just wanting clear labels will be shouted down by cries of islamaphobia. the liberals the socialists and the BBC/Guardian axis will be marching with pitchforks and flaming torches against the enemies of the religion of peace.

  • tastemylogos

    The idea that you are for ‘animal rights’ but don’t see an issue with the breeding of animals with a view to murdering them, is so bludy stupid, I can’t believe the hypocrisy isn’t pointed out more.

    Either, animals have rights or they don’t. And if they do then, surely the right to life would be pretty bludy central to it.

    We know what this really about. A spiteful campaign to put those who believe in something the persecutor does not share, in their place. It is spiteful, mean, nasty and down right vindictive.

    • Cyril Sneer

      Do you find it hard to walk and breathe at the same time?

      • tastemylogos

        your so full of intellectual musings, cecil. So persuasive to the unafilliated that read it. Whataguy.

    • gerontius

      tastemylogos, if you religion requires you to inflict suffering on animal just because it says so in some wretched little holy book then I suggest that you find a more civilised religion to follow.

      • tastemylogos

        but you don’t mind slaughtering them? So is ‘suffering’ a matter of degree?

  • AndrewMelville

    The Muslim and Jewish animal killing is I humane. But I find it hard to care much. The real answer is proper labelling so everyone can choose The price of kosher and halal meat would soar b

  • Tom Tom

    Denmark’s dominant product is pork comprising 42% agricultural exports. Denmark slaughters 20 million pigs/year Germany 28 million. I should think most other meats are imported so this ban is probably more for effect than effective

  • ADW

    So, Ed, can we bring back blood sports, including bear baiting and hare coursing, since real animals mean nothing next to people’s imaginary friends?

    • tastemylogos

      Oh dear. Can anybody be bothered to respond to that?

      • ADW

        To make it easier for you:

        1. Ed seems to think that religious preferences trump any notion of animal rights. If so, then it’s hard to see why someone who claims to enjoy hunting like Roger Scruton should miss out on his fun because of any concern for the fox.

        2. More to the point, if people’s beliefs are enough, then what about the more cruel blood sports previously (and IMHO correctly) banned like those I mentioned? I’m sure you could dredge up some knuckle draggers who think dog fighting is a good thing, and should therefore be legalised.

        • tastemylogos

          The instant segue into fox hunting is not only bizarre but rather revealing. Standaard tactic. Could script it.

          > I’m sure you could dredge up some knuckle draggers who think dog fighting is a good thing, and should therefore be legalised.

          Are you incapable of deferring from non sequitur? This is far removed from demanding a 3000 year old culture to change its dietary habits (the very core of that culture) because YOU don’t like it. Who do you think you are? All most of us see is a self-righteous, judgmental, smug and ignorant prat.

          If you wish to discuss Kashrut ON ITS MERIT and not seek to bizarrely bring bear baiting into the conversation then I will be happy to continue. You sound unreasonable and rather foolish.

          • ADW

            And you sound rather grumpy, to say the least.

            You can’t just claim something is part of a culture and assume that places it beyond criticism, or is even an argument in favour of it. Sexism in all kinds of forms, fgms, murders of apostates and any number of other vile acts can be (and often are) defended on the basis that they are “part of a culture” but not all of us find that convincing.

            Read roger scruton on hunting and you will see why I mentioned it. Your unreasoned response doesn’t take things much further.

            • bwims

              I recommend not feeding a troll

              • tastemylogos

                no you recommend a refusal to engage in discussion. My points go beyond your rather childish ‘w@nker’ comments. 12 comments you mad with the wit of a derelict.

                • Cyril Sneer

                  You should read, then maybe you can learn to begin your posts with a capital letter you f ape.

                  Oh and the ‘bigot’ label come out – yawn.

                  My spit on your face.

                • tastemylogos

                  > You should read, then maybe you can learn to begin your posts with a capital letter you f ape.


                  sorry fuhrer.

            • tastemylogos

              criticism? Don;t conflate criticism with wishing it to be banned merely because you disagree with it. That sums up the fatuous nature of the debate.

              If you were merely criticising I would not mind. In the slightest.

              I know Roger Scruton’s writings very well and have watched him engage in debate on youtube too. Whether he is right or wrong, He is very persuasive. Indeed more persuasive than any arguments I hear from ‘animal rights’ campaigners. Very intelligent man.

              • ADW

                Ignoring your insults, there is a simple point here. You cannot defend a mode of slaughtering animals just by saying that it is part of someone’s “culture” or “religion”. So too are many other practices that are objectionable at best and totally unacceptable at worst. Foxhunting had a venerable tradition in Britain and was at the heart of the way of life of thousands of people – certainly not just landed toffs – some of whom actually earned their living from it. Nevertheless it was banned, because (rightly or wrongly) the government of the day thought it involved unnecessary cruelty.

                Scruton argued that his experience of hunting was akin to a religious belief and should be protected in the same way, but that didn’t wash.

                Exactly the same applies to Kosher/Halal. If the state deems the procedure to involve unnecessary cruelty, and therefore offensive to the norms, values and beliefs of our society, then it should ban it.

                It’s the same for any number of practices said to be grounded in religion. The old Hindu religious customs of Suttee and Thuggee (strangling travellers in sacrifice to the Goddess Kali) were banned, for example, under British rule in India, and their religious provenance was correctly deemed not a sufficient reason to allow them.

                Now, do you want to give a reasoned answer, or not?

                • tastemylogos

                  > Ignoring your insults

                  To say my reply to you was insulting, is just silly. Cmon. Read it back and you should really apologise for being precious.

                  > You cannot defend a mode of slaughtering animals just by saying that it is part of someone’s “culture” or “religion”.

                  I’m sorry, but unless you are of the Ayn Rand school of utilatarianism (are you?) then yes you can. And this is the point. That position is an anathema to you. Completely.

                  > Foxhunting had a venerable tradition in Britain and was at the heart of the way of life of thousands of people

                  You keep invloving this point of utter non-sequitur.

                  2 things:

                  1) There is a clear difference in that you can curtail the number of foxes (“hich do need to be controlled) through other methods than hunting them with hounds. Can you not?

                  There is one way a Jew can eat his meat and unless you are radical (and Judaism has survived because even if born out of radicalism it seeks to preserve in its very nature) then this cannot be changed unless you (an ‘ignorant’ – not in the insulting sense – ‘outsider’) is arrogant enough to tell them to.

                  2) Fox hunting is not interwoven with British culture. It has been around as a practice for no more than 150 years – the Victorian age. Kashrut is the very essence of Judaic dietary commandments and has been for 3000 years. It is central to its ‘differentiation’ with ‘others’. You may not find that important, but people do and they will be vociferous in defending their right to maintain a culture handed down to them through millenia. You have to be incredibly arrogant to demand an an outlawing of it.

                  > Scruton argued that his experience of hunting was akin to a religious belief and should be protected in the same way, but that didn’t wash.

                  This is conflation and you know it.

                  > then it should ban it.

                  You do realise that Jews would dimply leave. Is that what you want? Judenrein? Obviously unintentional but nonetheless, the same effect.

                  > under British rule in India

                  Using British colonial arrogance as an example of how to lay the law down own on other cultures deemed ‘less sophisticated’ is not exactly enamoring me to your position.

                  But is intriguing in the arrogance and utterly disgusting ignorance of this position.

                • ADW

                  1. If 150 years is not enough, how many do they have to clock up before it will count for anything in your book?

                  2. Should “British colonial arrogance” have ignored the suttee then? Would it be ok to ban something equivalent here, or would that be persecuting a minority?

                  3. “Ayn Rand school of utilitarianism”???? Rand detested utiltarianism, and her philosophy was totally opposite. Try reading philosophers before you try quoting them.

                • tastemylogos

                  > If 150 years is not enough, how many do they have to clock up before it will count for anything in your book?

                  no cut off point. It would have to be a central tenet of its culture, from its genesis, I would say. If the British – as a civilisation – was around for 150 years, only then would it be analogous. Otherwise it is no more than a ‘fad’.

                  > Should “British colonial arrogance” have ignored the suttee then? Would it be ok to ban something equivalent here, or would that be persecuting a minority?

                  I am deeply uncomforable will Europeans telling others how they should or should not behave especially when they have made themselves uninvited conquerers.. No one forces ‘Suti’ by the way. It is still practiced by the Madya and Rajput today and you have a misunderstanding of what it entails, it seems (no surprise). No I despise the British for curtailing a 5000 year practice ‘because we know best’.

                  Again though, this ‘if it was here, would you ban it’ is an attempt at deflection. Stick to the reality, stop bringing in rather nonsensical hypothetical.

                  > Ayn Rand – objectivist. For somebody who studied philosophy at York!!!! That was as embarrassing as being recommended to read Scruton. Could have said, Mill, Hume, Sigwick. You get the point. I have no idea where that came from.

                  Point still stands even if advocate is misrepresented.

                • Cyril Sneer

                  “I am deeply uncomforable will Europeans telling others how they should
                  or should not behave especially when they have made themselves uninvited

                  So you’re an anti-white racist.

                  This moron blames people for what their ancestors might have done a long time ago. You’re a freak, a moron and if I heard you in the street I’d walk up to you and spit in your face. SCUM!

                • tastemylogos

                  > So you’re an anti-white racist.

                  you’re a nutter. herr von sneer is just so erudite.

                • tastemylogos

                  ok herr von cyril. I’ll bite. Find me on facebook. Paul West. Come on, jump out from behind your keyboard you spineless little toad.. Come and meet us

                  Message me with your N@zi musings and we’ll arrange somewhere for me to tattoo a swastika into that scummy forehead of yours. I will probably refrain from slitting your neck like a goat, but you’ll finish with a limp and a scar, I promise you that.

                  Chop chop, I’m waiting tough guy. Paul West. Bring some boys if I was you, too. The more N@zi scum we can cut up, the better.

                  Chop chop big boy, Waiting.

                  Let us see your minerals.

                • tastemylogos

                  ok herr von cyril. I’ll bite. Think you’re a big guy, hiding behind your keyboard, do you? Threatening me? Why not find me on facebook then, ey? Paul West, Hendon. Come on, jump out from behind your keyboard you spineless little toad.. Come and meet us. Let us see how far you can spit blood.

                  Message me with your N@zi musings and we’ll arrange somewhere for someone to tattoo a swastika into that scummy forehead of yours. I will probably refrain from slitting your neck like a goat, but you’ll finish with a limp and a scar, I promise you that.

                  Time to put your threats into action. I’ll enjoy every crack, every squeal, every smash

                  Chop chop big boy, We are Waiting. Bring a shank, bring a piece. Whatever. It won’t end good for yaz.

                  fking, spineless charlatan

                • ADW

                  I think you both need a chill pill somehow. Not that I’m terribly interested, but I can’t help wondering why you are so frenetically worked up. You would have done yourself a lot more credit in your argument with Cyril Sneer had you adopted a different tone. But that’s just my opinion, feel free to disagree.

                • tastemylogos

                  I do want you to answer this point: Which is kind of central to the debate, I would say.

                  > then it should ban it.

                  What do you think weill happen here? They will happily change their 3000 year history on a whim? You do realise that Jews would dimply leave. Is that what you want? Judenrein? Obviously unintentional but nonetheless, the same effect.

                • ADW

                  I don’t have anything against Jews or Muslims per se. But any faith group has to move with the times, as indeed most have. If you had told members of _any_ church fifty years ago that homosexual marriage would be legal (or even homosexual relations), they would have hit the roof. But most churches have grumbled along with it, although they’re still having issues with equality issues. And hence the case of the registrar going to court to avoid having to do civil ceremonies (she lost).

                  They’re not being asked to change things on a whim. They are being asked to modify their culture as everyone else has to from time to time to take account of a shift in public morality.

                  You will note that I haven’t expressed my own view on halal/kosher, because it isn’t relevant to the debate. The point is, if Parliament decides to ban it because our obligations of animal husbandry requires such a step, then that’s how things work in a democracy. Whether they should in this instance is another question, just as it was for foxhunting (which you have dismissed out of hand, but Prof Scruton would help you understand better, in terms of the history and meaning it had for the community concerned).

                  Now try answering my three points above.

                • tastemylogos

                  Most churches have not ‘grumbled along’ with it. What we have in this country are a load of elites including the leading priesthood of the church who are completely removed from their congregation. They are idealists, forcing change on a mainly (small c) conservative people.

                  > shift in public morality.

                  This shift is only coming from above. There is no organic demand for this outside of the liberal guardian reading/militant atheist/militant animal rights circles.

                  > then that’s how things work in a democracy.

                  They do work like this and it would be respected, but they will leave. If you’re comfortable with that then so be it. But be honest.

                  > Now try answering my three points above.

                  To be fair, I have answered all of your questions head on, surely. Whether you agree with my answers is a different matter. You haven’t answered any of the questions I put to you. Reread them and maybe you could reciprocate?

                • ADW

                  I sent a long reply which for some reason fell foul of the moderators. In short, think of all th ridiculous things in the Old Testament that were once sacred but quietly abandoned over the years. I suspect this would be no different.

                  The human race is about a hundred thousand years old, so in that context three thousand years doesn’t seem so long (this was your point regarding fox hunting).

                • tastemylogos

                  > The human race is about a hundred thousand years old, so in that context three thousand years doesn’t seem so long

                  I’m sorry but that is desperate. I think you would admit that. Not all the human race has the same culture or traditions, hence ‘sub groups’ or ‘civilisations’. The Jews have only been around for 3000 years so its practices are only relevent for that long.

                  > In short, think of all th ridiculous things in the Old Testament that were once sacred but quietly abandoned over the years. I suspect this would be no different.

                  You are so ignorant.I’m sorry. I respect that you have engaged with me and not been fatuous until now… but y’know, ultimately your arrogance is astonishing.

                  Believe you me, if you ban this they will not ‘change’ for you. They will leave. I have asked you whether that would be tolerable and despite me being fair and answering your questions DIRECTLY, you have not afforded me the same courtesy:

                  1) Would Britain being Jew free be fair game? I do not wish to tar you with the anti-semite label. ok? But you would have unsavoury allies.

                  2) You do not mind a bolt being shot through a baby lambs head, but you do mind its throat being slit, correct? So inhumanity is a matter of degree, I take it? It certainly is not absolute by your reckoning.

                • ADW

                  Look it’s up to people whether they stay or go. But you can’t ask for an exemption from the criminal law on the ground of religion or culture. One law for all is a pretty fundamental principle, I’m afraid. And given that most Jews ignore substantial chunks of the Old Testament, a point you don’t seem to want to engage with, I doubt they’d react in the fashion you claim.

                  Btw Hume was not a utilitarian either. Try again (third time lucky?)

                • tastemylogos

                  1) It would be civil law

                  2) There is no exemption because there is no law. You are looking to create one.

                  > And given that most Jews ignore substantial chunks of the Old Testament

                  I’ve told you before, your ignorance is shocking. Jews do not take their laws from the Old Testament, indeed it would be heresy; they take it from the Talmud (which is followed strictly). Despite this ignorance you have decided that you are qualified enough to mqke judgement. It is arrogant beyond belief.

                  But at least we are clear. In order for you to impose this zealotry on othes, you’d be willing to see Judenrein.

                  > Hume was not a utilitarian either. Try again (third time lucky?)

                  I am afraid David Hume was. Along with logical positivism.


                  I notice you do not answer all my questions. Indeed I have asked you two, three times,and I am still waiting for the second one to be rebutted.

                • ADW

                  Your manners are atrocious, as others have observed. Name calling and abuse does not help your cause. You whine and whine and whine about everyone else’s “shocking” “arrogance” and “ignorance” whilst displaying copious amounts yourself.

                  You keep imputing to me views I do not hold as well – I have said nothing about whether I personally agree with a ban on kosher or halal slaughter. I am arguing the general principle, which you seem not to understand.

                  Hume is a better effort than your first laughable example of Rand (who absolutely despised utilitarianism – admit you made total shocker with that, displaying ignorance aplenty of the type you freely accuse others – you have clearly never read Rand, have you – admit it!!) but you’d be better off mentioning Bentham or Mill.

                  The point about the old testament is a simple one. Lots of things previously thought sacrosanct in many religions have been modified or abandoned over the years. That, indeed, is one of the key points here.

                  Ultimately, morality changes over the years, you might not like it, lots of people don’t. When the first dogs home was introduced in London it enraged the Spectator, for eg, on the ground that it was clearly inconsistent with Biblical teaching on animals. I doubt you’d get that argument from many religious authorities in the UK today.

                  As to civil/criminal law, it would depend how the ban was made in this country – breach of slaughter regulations might well entail a criminal sanction (fine or even imprisonment depending on how the ban was introduced – fox hunting (the point about which you totally misunderstood, and again used abuse not argument) was made a criminal offence, for example. More arrogance and ignorance on YOUR part.

                  Try and answer without abuse this time, if you’re capable of it – though your posts suggest otherwise. And that’s not abuse, it is a justified rebuke.

                • tastemylogos

                  > You whine and whine and whine about everyone else’s “shocking” “arrogance” and “ignorance”

                  If you are going to continue stating that Jews take their laws from the Old Testament, what are you if not ignorant? Do explain. I find it irritating that you hold such passionate views when so ill informed.

                  > I have said nothing about whether I personally agree with a ban on kosher or halal slaughter.

                  The topic of this debate. You seem to be agreeing with the principle of banning it. If not, what actually is your point?

                  > Hume is a better effort than your first laughable example of Rand (who absolutely despised utilitarianism – admit you made total shocker with that,

                  Never mind a ‘better effort’, he was a utilatarian. Period.

                  Ayn Rand, I admitted it was silly. I messed up. This was about 6 posts ago.

                  > The point about the old testament is a simple one.

                  And utterly irrelevent. Jews do not take their laws from it and read it as a book of legend with diktats that the Talmud interprets. Judaic tradition is extremely conservative and has not been changed since Babylonian times- so again – it is irrelevent.

                  > (the point about which you totally misunderstood, and again used abuse not argument)

                  Again with the abuse. I have not abused yu=ou. Cease being so preicious will you. Good grief. Trying to deflect the discussion away from your own bizarre argument which has found to be flawed.

                  > Try and answer without abuse this time, if you’re capable of it – though your posts suggest otherwise. And that’s not abuse, it is a justified rebuke.

                  You haven’t actually asked me anything here. All you have done is Complain with precious entitlement, instead of answering my question. You’re losing ground here. (Is this offensive too? I’m not sure anymore).

                  You have not followed up on any rebuke and you continue to ignore my question on where your principle stretches to. Instead you write 6 paragraphs complaining or wandering into new territory. Bizarre. Answer it or don’t reply.

                • gerontius

                  We just require that you cease to inflict unneccessary suffering on animals. Ok?

                • tastemylogos

                  but you don’t mind slaughtering them? OK. At least you don’t seem confused.

                • Fergus Pickering

                  I don’t think they would leave. I think they would buy imported stuff at twice the price. Or ten times. I mean money can be no object when it’s religion, innit?

                • Cyril Sneer

                  ‘British colonial arrogance’

                  Oh do one you inbred gutter piece of trash.

                  Those three words that you wrote reveal so much about you. Get on the next plane and leave. I despise people like you. Scum you are.

                • tastemylogos

                  inbred? hahahahahaha

                  any more cecil? isn’t that your fuhrer calling you in the background? 😉

                • Fergus Pickering

                  Jews and Muslims are guests in our country. They should behave like guests.

          • bwims

            S-N-O-R-E boring insulting troll alert

            • tastemylogos

              The lobby is out ttday. My point is clear. If you wish to talk about the merits of religious preperation of meat, fine.

              But talking about dog fighting is just irrelevant. Again, the fanatics might not be able to bring themselves to unknot these quite separate issues but everybody else can.

          • Cyril Sneer

            We’re not demanding anyone change their dietary habits – they don’t have to because they can move and there are a choice of countries out there they can go live for cruelly slaughtered meat.

          • Blazenka Hudson-trograncic

            Only an idiot would eat a fox.
            Kashrut had its time and place, that smoked turkey they sold in Egged bus station cafes would never replace a bacon sandwich.

          • Fergus Pickering

            If the core of that culture is what they bloody eat then it doesn’t seem worth saving, does it?

  • sfin

    I remember once watching a documentary set in a UK slaughterhouse.

    The ‘mainstream’ section was carnage – bawling panicking animals being ‘bolted’ by indifferent slaughter men (one of them killed, at least three sheep as he was talking to the interviewer).

    It then switched to the halal section – where a cow was being led, in ritual calm and prayer, to its yoke. The halal slaughter man whispered to camera that if the animal suffers then he has failed his – to him sacred – duty, and that, to that end the knife must be razor sharp. When the beasts throat was cut, it didn’t even notice and carried on chewing the cud until it toppled over from blood loss.

    I am against any ‘islamification’ in Europe – but on this, at least, I think they got it right.

    • La Fold

      I once worked in a slaughterhouse as a teenager and I confirm what you say as total bolleaux!

      • sfin

        I bow to your experience, but I can only go on what I saw. The public at large buy their meat, cellophane wrapped and have no idea of it’s origin, how the animal was fed, raised and how it was slaughtered. I think this is a mistake which needs rectifying.

        Perhaps you can enlighten us.

        • La Fold

          Generally slaughtrhouses aint the nicest places to work and its definitely not for gentle folks. But for a cash strapped 18/19 year old wanting to spend his summer watching bands they served their purpose.
          For one thing the smell is awful. Not as bad a chicken shed or a fish factory but lordy its atrocious. We all have these visions of animals shreiking and running amok but generally that wasnt the case. Sheep and cows are docile, even servile creatures, in the most part oblivious to whats happening until they are in the kill room away to get stunned. Pigs could make a racket, i dont know if its true they can smell the blood but they would generally make a bit of noise.
          But in summing up, in a well licensed, professional, regulated (the level of regulations and inspections were very high) and properly run slaughterhouse the distress caused to the animals is minimal and the kill method designed to be as humane as possible.
          As for your other point about peoples knowledge of the food they are eating i fully agree having spent a good portion of my life living in a rural/ agricultural area the ignorance of people in regards to farming is shocking. Most a lot of people know about animals comes from disney films or family pets.

          • sfin

            That was interesting reading – thank you.

            I have heard that about pigs – that they “know” – maybe a one size fits all (slaughter) policy for different species doesn’t work?…

            As a hunter who eats his catch, my overriding concern is that the animal is killed instantly – for one thing, adrenaline toughens the meat – and I want the animal that I eat to be calm and “happy” (in the human sense) at the point of death.

            I’m pleased to hear, from your experience, that the documentary I saw wasn’t typical, but in the interest of improvement we need to extend that docility you describe right up until the instant of death. In my view, if that makes meat more expensive, so be it.

    • Muzeli

      “The Australian government has suspended live cattle exports to Indonesia …The move follows an investigation into Indonesian abattoirs by Australia’s ABC broadcaster, which showed graphic footage of animals being mistreated.

      It showed steers being whipped, beaten and slashed repeatedly, and suffering terrible pain before they are slaughtered.”

      “Australia is suspending the export of live cattle to Egypt after video emerged showing extreme cruelty to animals in Egyptian abattoirs.

      The Australian Livestock Exporters’ Council said the footage, released by
      animal rights group Animals Australia, was “horrific”.

      Animals Australia said it had been filmed inside the two abattoirs approved
      to process Australian cattle.

      Exports to Egypt were halted in 2006 for four years over similar

      The Egyptian videos have not been made public, but Animals Australia said
      they showed cattle believed to have come from Australia being treated in a
      “vicious, cruel and clumsy” way.”

      Unfortunetly Australia relies heavily on exporting live cattle and reversed the ban, so for them economics comes first:

      “The government banned exports to Indonesia last month after an outcry over a video that aired in Australia showing animals screaming and writhing as they were slaughtered. The footage also showed cattle being beaten and taking minutes to bleed to death as their throats were repeatedly slashed.”

    • anotherjoeblogs

      It wasn’t on the Islam channel or Peace tv, was it ?

  • David Webb

    The reason for banning kosher and halal should not be animal rights, but because immigrant communities have a responsibility to fit into the host culture. But either way, the law is brilliant, and I hope we introduce it here too.

    • mightymark

      In what sense does a possibly long standing and legally agreed exemption for ritual slaughter mean that “immigrant communities” (Jews have in fact lived in Denmark – quite happily in general – for several hundred years and many Muslims must by now be Danish born) are reneging on their responsibility to fit in? The article gives sufficient examples of the ways in which animal cruelty is not exactly foreign to Denmark. That raises a huge question mark as to whether the longstanding right to have ritually slaughtered meat is anathema to the Danish way of life or culture.

      There certainly are ways in which all kinds of minority groups might so refuse to fit in to a national culture – for example those who by oppose free speech as in the case of he Jyllandsposten cartoons. Exercising a legally agreed exemption, campaigning for its retention, feeling aggrieved that it has been removed and (I hope) successfully campaigning (legally and peacefully) to get it back are not among these.

      • David Webb

        I would delete the “legally agreed exemption” – as that is just political correctness in the first place. I never agreed it!

        • mightymark

          No – it is an aspect rather, of the religious tolerance that has characterised most western societies for many years. By way of other examples your argumeent would mean that the British Roman Catholic emancipation legislation and abolition of the Test and Corporation Acts in the 19th Century were also mere “political correctness”.

          Nor, as I am sure you are aware, is your personal agreement (or mine, or any other individual’s with the ex officio exception of HM the Queen) required for legislation to be rendered valid.

  • swatnan

    Denmark should go further and publish the Cartoons. The only ritual slaughter I’d approve of is for terrorists of the ilk of premeditated murderers as in Woolwich. The french had thje perfect way of dealing with them: The Guillotine.
    Killing animals humanely is fine by me, but not Kosher or Halal.

    • bwims

      We used to have an appropriate ritual slaughter: hanging, drawing, and quartering.

  • Jez

    It’s rubbish.

    This is the same as the veil / Burkha bans.

    This is not the problem. It just exacerbates hostility toward the host from the Islamic populations already there.

    It’s not a hard thing to surmise; No more Immigration. Assimilate and sort out what you have. Energetically, educate your people of *who they are*, *what they should be proud of* and erase the Marxist poison that infects almost all major European institutions now.

    • crosscop

      Assimilate? How on earth do we assimilate people who believe that non-believers are lower than cattle, whose holy scriptures tell them they must not have friends who are non-believers and that they should fight against the non-believers until they are converted, subjugated or killed?

      • Baron

        Yup, crosscop, Jez’s right, assimilate, the way we’ve assimilated the ancestors of our London Mayor, others. It was done, it can be done.

        Banning non-stunned halal, burka, building of mosques does a fat lot of good for us and them, it pulls us apart even more than we already are,

        • crosscop

          It has not been done. They will never assimilate. Muslims never assimilate into any culture they have over-run. They dominate and destroy it. Ask the Copts.

          • Baron

            So Boris’s ancestors were an exception, were they?

            • bwims

              ONE of Boris’s great-great grandparents was an extremely well educated Turk. Yes, an exception. How many of them around? Also in 1909, jihadist muslims would have got short shrift in a very Christian England where people still carried guns. They weren’t an emasculated society like we have now; any muslims here in those days knew they had to behave.

              • Baron

                It was a great grandparent, btw, and yes, a member of the Islamic elite, which makes his conversion, rather than a mere assimilation, so much more remarkable. Others, like the CPS guy who had the courage to re-open the grooming case by Muslim gangs that have been ‘overlooked’ by every other agency of the state for a decade didn’t convert, is still a devout Muslim, but assimilated.

                More to the point, bwims, we have to choice but go for assimilation for if we don’t assimilate them they’ll assimilate us.

            • crosscop

              Of course they were. Boris’ grandparents were just two people and Muslims were very thin on the ground at the time – not members of a large and ever-expanding Muslim colony. If they had been, Boris would be a Muslim.

              • Baron

                In one of the many surveys on the subject, when asked whether they felt British or Muslim around 30% of the followers of Allh who answered said the former. Not a bad start, crosscop.

                • crosscop

                  Some people will say exactly what is expected of them. 70% told the truth.

                • Cyril Sneer

                  British OR Muslim?

                  This might make sense to them, but not to me.

                • Baron

                  Cyril, you can live in peace with someone who’s Jewish and British, right?, so why not with someone who’s Muslim and British. Christians, Jews, Muslims are all of the same religious family, that of the Abrahamic faith.

                  Look, Baron’s not that happy we have a large crowd of the worshipers of Allah amongst us, but only for one but key reason. Those in charge of the cult keep insisting the Koran be used not only for one’s guidance in private, a kind of a code for one’s behaviour, but also for the governance of a country. Had the mullahs dropped this interpretation of the centuries old scribbling what other objections could a sensible man have against them?

              • Baron

                Let’s call a truce, crosscop, argue next time the subject comes up.

    • Cyril Sneer

      They won’t assimilate, some might, but a great many won’t.

      Then, when they get to certain size demographically they’ll seek to twist and change our country to something that is quite unBritish.

      Then we’ll have mass violence.

      And people will suffer because of the ignorance of the left.

  • chrisd87

    Your portrayal of this as animals v. humans is sheer nonsense. All this is doing is preventing needless suffering to animals on the basis of religious commandments, ones that are ‘imports’ to our societies. No humans are coming to any harm as a result.

    • tastemylogos

      apart from those who you force to go vegetarian on a matter of spite. After all YOU don’t believe in their god, so… what? Who cares, hey?

      • Robbydot1

        Easily the most stupid comment I’ve read all week, amongst some stiff competition!

        • tastemylogos

          What is stupid is the idea that an animal has rights apart from the right to life. If you believe that then you are the moron fella. Now back it up or jump back in your bin and think it through,

          • bwims


            • tastemylogos

              2 comments from you. Both one word insults. You are so clever.

              • Cyril Sneer

                In all of those wonderful single word comments he has demonstrated far more intellectual capability than you have in your entire pathetic and worthless existence.

                Crawl in the corner and die.

                • tastemylogos

                  die? bigot.

          • Swanky

            You’ve clearly never had a pet beyond a goldfish. Animals are not a mere collection of atoms. Dogs and cats, never mind farm animals, are beings with intelligence and sensitivity. We are farther along the road of consciousness than they are, but we owe them compassion for that reason, not contempt.

            • Fergus Pickering

              How right you are, Swanky. Descartes thought animals were machines, bloody French fool.

              • Swanky

                Must have been a very sad French fool as well, Fergus.

                • Fergus Pickering

                  He was. Unlike the good Doctor Johnson, our English philosopher, who bought fish for his cat Hodge himself, not thinking it a proper task for servants…

                • Swanky

                  I want to read Boswell’s biography. I’ve got the account of their travels in Scotland and have to get to that, as well.

                • Fergus Pickering

                  Oh Swanky, you must.

                • Swanky

                  It’s on the list! I’d better get off the Internet and crank through these books or my lifetime won’t be long enough.

                • Kitty MLB

                  Swanky, after you have read Boswell’s biography
                  ( which I have not actually read myself)
                  You really must read Yvonne Skargon’s
                  Hodge, Lily and Dr Johnson, it is an absolute
                  rib tickler. reminds you of the joy of animals.
                  Saying that cats are not too fond of me,
                  they tend to run away.
                  Once had a cat as a child who disappeared for
                  One whole year, and then returned ( it was the same cat)
                  she wandered through the house with a lofty expression
                  and just demanded food.

                • Kitty MLB

                  Dr Samuel Johnson.
                  He who said curiosity in a generous mind is the first
                  and last of all things, as well as a permanent characteristic
                  of a vigorous intellect..
                  There is also a statue of his cat Hodge, in the courtyard
                  of his house in London, but not one of his second favourite

                • Fergus Pickering

                  I didn’t know about the statue. How many statues are there to pets?There is Greyfriars Bobbie in Edinburgh. And Guy the Gorilla in London Zoo, though I suppose he wasn’t really a pet..

                • Kitty MLB
            • tastemylogos

              > We are farther along the road of consciousness than they are, but we owe them compassion for that reason, not contempt.

              Don’t eat them then

              • Swanky

                I don’t.

                • tastemylogos

                  ok fair enough. At least you are consistent and can therefore come to your conclusion completely honestly.

                • Swanky

                  Good man.

                • tastemylogos

                  I have absolutely no problem with the position that religious or cultural slaughter is wrong on the basis of animal ‘rights’. None what so ever.

                  But if ‘animal rights’ is the concern, then surely it is anomolaic for their ‘rights’ not to include a right to life. Without this, it makes all other ‘rights’ redundant. Just imagine, human rights without the right to life. What would be the point?

                  The only intellectually honest way one can use this as an argument against kashrut is if they themselves refuse to eat slaughtered meat on that basis, and wish all culling ot be banned.

                  If not, they reveal themselves as a hypocrite.

                  You are not a hypocrite and I respect your position whole heartedly. Indeed it is probably morally superior and certainly less arrogant (food chain argument) than mine.

                • Swanky

                  (hi I’ve just seen that my post was ‘pending’ i.e. tripped over a m deration tripwire) Have dropped the italics even though I like ’em because they seem to trigger that response.

                  I see your point. I think that the predicament is one that Nature places us in; it’s not one we seek. Like all beings we must k-ll something in order to live, whether it be sardine or watercress. The problem for humans is that, as the supercharged brains of the planet, our nutritional needs tend towards the sardine rather than the watercress end of the spectrum. I don’t think that soy and whatnot would satisfy the usual H. sapiens, since it’s fundamentally not meat. Such a problem. But so is the secks drive: it militates against happiness in many (I would say most) cases, in the long run, and yet we need it as a species. Life is a game of Lose. The trick is to enjoy losing along the way.

              • Kitty MLB

                Its more then just not eating them.
                Yet, I suppose you would not understand that.

                • tastemylogos

                  It’s all well and good to say, it goes beyond eating animals but ultimately, no one can come to a reasoned answer as to why. no doubt because as soon as you begin to think about it, your position becomes more and more absurd.

                  You don’t mind a bolt being shot through a lambs head, but do mind its throat being cut? hmmmmm.

                  so, inhumanity is a matter of degree? How very principled of you.

            • Kitty MLB

              Animals do indeed have intelligence
              and sensitivity.
              A family cat managed to get itself
              quite burned because the creature
              thought a baby was too close to
              a fire (baby was not , but cat didnot know)
              Placed itsself between baby and fire
              but unfortunately too close.

              • Swanky

                How awful!

          • gerontius

            “What is stupid is the idea that an animal has rights apart from the right to life.”

            This has nothing to do with rights. We as humans have a duty to avoid inflicting avoidable suffering on sentient creatures.

          • Fergus Pickering

            I don’t think human have rights either, except the right to be left alone if they do no harm. The rest is an invention of the last few years.

        • Cyril Sneer

          Yeah he really is a clueless self hating anti-white leftist w nker.

      • bwims


        • tastemylogos

          wow, another one? any more? troll.

  • KO

    ‘Banning ritual slaughter is just cruel to people’?????

    • Blazenka Hudson-trograncic

      The Romanian Iron Guard processing a group of Jews in the Bucharest abattoire, that really was cruel.

  • mahatmacoatmabag

    Ed West writes : “I don’t for one minute believe that the people who make such laws are driven by hostility to Muslims or Jews”
    Well Ed here is where we disagree, Ed its all about hatred of Jews, centuries of ingrained anti-Jewish teachings by the church has left its DNA in the minds & attitudes of even Atheist Europeans, the fact that the ban also affects Muslims is by an large unintentional especially given the unwritten alliance between International Marxism & extremist Islam in their quest to eliminate both Israel & any remaining semblance of the Jewish religion on the planet

    • Tom Allalone

      If I were accusing a quite large and very disparate section of humanity of impaired brain function I wouldn’t write posts like yours. People might think it’s a case of pot and kettle

      • mahatmacoatmabag

        hatred of Jews has been around for centuries, its just the latest fad by the Jew haters to ban Kosher slaughter of animals & Circumcision , in the hope Jews will either abandon their religion or move on & voluntary make Europe Judenrein

  • HD2

    The quicker we, too, ban such barbaric practices, the better.

    And the import on any and all meat and meat products obtained form animals so slaughtered.

    Anyone who disapproves of ‘normal’ meat can turn vegetarian – or emigrate.

    • mahatmacoatmabag

      Hitler was the number one promoter of the vegetarian way of life ever to have lived. It is well known that a vegetarian diet is damaging to brain function & vegetarians are extremists on a par with any other type of Fascism or Islamo-Fascist ideology

      • lol internet

        Good trolling. I particularly like your use of fallacies to create the impression that your points are rooted in something other than prejudice and ignorance. I suggest citing pseudo-scientific studies for maximum trolling. Better luck next time

        • mahatmacoatmabag

          mahatmacoatmabag: 6636 comments 17790 votes

          lol internet: 1 comment 2 guest votes.

          conclusion : lol internet is a newly created Troll ID

          Better luck next time

      • bwims

        He isn’t promoting it, merely suggesting an alternative to religious fanatics who want cruel meat.

      • Fergus Pickering

        Doesn’t seem to have done George Bernard Shaw much harm. Nor Indian Brahmins.

  • Pootles

    Rubbish, Ed. We’re talking unnecessary cruelty here. Furthermore, as I understand it, both Judaism and Islam permit their followers to eat non-kosher, non-halal meat if that is all that is available. From a UK perspective, the big issue is that the entire population (ie., the 95% of adults, and the 90% of children who are not Muslim) is effectively forced to eat halal meat because the supermarkets won’t label the stuff, and, for example, nearly all New Zealand lamb is halal. Further, if I were to be caught chucking stones at the cats who sh*t in my garden then I would be taken before the courts, yet if I put a funny hat on I can slit the throat of an animal and hang it upside down until it bleeds to death. Rule of law – that important Enlightenment principle – is eroded by that, and it means we live in a ‘democracy’ that offers more legal rights to one group more than another. That is just plain wrong.

    • Tom Tom

      NZ lamb is halal because once the UK joined the EEC NZ had to look to the Middle East for export markets

      • Mike Donnellan

        Yes, it’s not heard often enough that for decades the corps of UK politicians – excluding Mrs Thatcher of course – have not only betrayed their own people and their armed forces but the entire British Commonwealth -who stood alongside them in times of war – in their sycophantic and self interested rush to subjugate their nation to the wishes of an unelected bunch of crooks. Audit the EU’s books? Go away little person!

        • global city

          Margret Thatcher did too in her time in control.

          All she cared about was the money, not the loss of sovereignty.

      • BarkingAtTreehuggers

        Curious how Waitrose is still in the position to offer the product at a competitive price.

      • Shorne

        From ‘The Farmers Weekly’

        “Historic data published by the Meat Hygiene Service suggests that around 90% of UK halal slaughter involves pre-stunning.

        Beef and Lamb New Zealand confirmed that while the majority of the beef and lamb imported to the UK is slaughtered using halal methods, it is all pre-stunned.

        Dave Harrison, regional manager for Europe for Beef and Lamb New Zealand, said all animals were pre-stunned before slaughter, although the stunning process was reversible in order to comply with religious custom.”

        • Blazenka Hudson-trograncic

          Reversible stunning, can you be un-Tazered?

  • scampy1

    suggest you and the labour and lib dem luvvies go watch an animal thrashing around after having it’s throat cut for some medieval horror requirement?

  • Fasdunkle

    Most halal meat is pre-stunned anyway. They have just banned non pre-stunned. Which we should do here too

    • monty61

      What we should do is label all ritually slaughtered meat it so that people can have a free choice. Why should this be so hard?

      • bwims

        Because in the EUSSR, freedom is an illusion.
        Vote UKIP

      • Cyril Sneer

        I make a point of asking if the meat is Halal, if it is, I then make the point of chucking the meat at them and walking out saying I will never shop there again.

    • mahatmacoatmabag

      halal meat, unlike Kosher, is not hygienically handled, in fact the slaughter of impure, infirm or diseased animals by Muslims is common practice in most Muslim countries thus increasing the risk to public health

    • Shazza


    • bwims

      I thought pre-stunning was haram?

  • In2minds

    One the one hand well done Denmark on the other, as you say, Danish intensive farming methods are as bad as they can be.

    • bwims

      Maybe, but they have best bacon, possibly because they have a reputation to keep up. The British flag on pork is a joke, because the British nature is to maximise profit. If you are not going to castrate boars, then you have to slaughter them before maturity, but they weigh less, so the money-grubbing pig farmers will keep them going a bit longer until the testosterone and skatole makes the pork inedible for about half the population who are sensitive to it.

      It wouldn’t matter so much if the pork was labelled as male or female (boar or gilt) so that people like me could buy untainted female pork, but they don’t/won’t. The only shame is that I can’t find Danish pork anywhere only bacon.

  • atticvs

    ‘They’re animals’ ????…as if any further argument is meaningless…rarely read such drivel in this magazine!

    • scampy1

      Who jews and muslims?

    • Pootles

      Indeed! The man is a bloody idiot.

      • Robbydot1

        But the thing is, he isn’t. He’s a very thoughtful blogger normally, that’s why I don’t understand his stance on this?

        • tastemylogos

          He has explained it, you just disagree with it. and when you say, ‘he is a good blogger’, what you mean is, you agree with most things he writes.

          • Robbydot1

            No, it means I’ve been reading Ed’s stuff for a long time and my critical faculties tell me he’s good.
            You seem to have a lot of anger, have you thought of anger management?
            Btw, Robby, is the feminine spelling. Men tend to use Robbie.

            • tastemylogos

              I get angry with ignorant (I take it you have never seen the kosher culling of an animal), self righteous. smug little prats who tell others how they should maintain there 3000 year culture despite it not affecting your life in any way, yep.

              • Dicky14

                So you’re advocating animal cruelty because it doesn’t hurt humans? Geez, that’s abhorent.

                • tastemylogos

                  Typical moronic statement we come to expect in this debate!

                  No doubt, it’s fine to eat a steak though.

                • gerontius

                  “No doubt, it’s fine to eat a steak though.”
                  Yes – provided it has been humanely butchered.

                • tastemylogos

                  ? humanely butchered

                  I sense irony.

          • Fergus Pickering

            But now he’s talking balls.

  • crosscop

    Anything that shows Muslims that they are not welcome in the West and resists the continuing Islamification of Europe has to be good. Well done, Denmark.

    • Shazza

      Totally agree crosscrop. Ed suggests that we should honestly speak about our ‘difficulties with Islam’- we would like to but we can’t. Telling the truth now is ‘hate speech’ and we all know what the consequences will be.

      • FrenchNewsonlin

        Such are the devious webs woven by the PC mobsters.

        • tastemylogos

          No . You are entitled to your views but one can’t help being left with the impression that ultimately you are an intolerant bigot that’s all. You are wove on grudge, not logic. It doesn’t effect so why should you care? Is the insular, undeveloped attitude you take.

          • Aesop Jones

            You’re not making an argument or saying anything at all, really. Just hurling insults and patting yourself on the back.

            • global city

              Parading their PC credentials.

              He jumped to so many conclusions from a single line post that only mentioned PC. Terrible stereotyping by the person who posted it.

            • tastemylogos

              Its difficult to not insult if you pretend to be dumb. The argument is clear, whether you choose to try and and absorb it/think about it, is your prerogative. Others reading it certainly will.

              • bwims

                More troll gibberish.

                • tastemylogos

                  you sad little troll. 1500 Messages. 6000 upvotes. Try harder.

                • Cyril Sneer

                  Try mine 3k comments, 17k upvotes.

                  You dead yet?

                • tastemylogos

                  wishing people to die? you’d be useful in the jew hating national socialist party.

            • tastemylogos

              I am simply fighting fire with fire. The intolerant bigots who wish to ban things they disagree with will not deter me from pointing out their bigoted lunacy.

              My points are quite clearly substantiated. The fanatics might not be able to see logic when it slaps them in the face. everyone else will.

              • gerontius

                In a civilised country we should not allow unneccessary pain to be inflicted on animals just to pander to the dark age religious superstion of barbarians. That’s all there is to it really

                • Fergus Pickering

                  Not quite all of course, but a good bit.

          • bwims

            You pathetic troll.

          • Cyril Sneer

            Oh there we go again ‘bigot’….

            You’re a typical lefty – clueless, ignorant and vile.

            • tastemylogos

              lefty?! haha. read my a couple of my past comments, sonny jim. apology accepted. bigot.

            • tastemylogos

              telling people to die then calling them vile is a bit silly.

          • gerontius

            He’s not being a bigot. He is simply asking you to find a more civilised way of getting your jollies. This is England, not a third world hellhole, and we would rather keep it that way.

            • tastemylogos

              you won’t find no battery pens in much of the world outside hedonist, hypocritical europe and america, sonny jim.

          • Blazenka Hudson-trograncic

            Refrigeration is not bigotry, just common sense.
            Though of course ‘faith’ is beliefs that defies the laws of nature so what use is common sense.

    • Tom Tom

      Muslims will simply have to stop eating kosher you say ?

    • Noa

      Danish politicians have alays been truly gifted PC idiots. Whilst living in Riyadh during the first Gulf war Danish friends working in the hospitals there were, unlike the British and Americans there, not provided with gas masks by their embassy against Saddam’s expected chemical warfare missile attacks.
      The reason?
      The Danes had given their gas mask stocks to the Palestinians.

      • Fergus Pickering

        And were any of the gas masks any use?

        • Noa

          In the event, no Fergus.
          So, fortunately for the Danish government it did not have to explain the death by gassing of its citizens in Riyadh, whilst it protected Saddam’s muslim allies.

          But then, you knew that already, didn’t you?

          • Fergus Pickering

            Of course I did.

            • Noa

              Why then waste my time as well as yours?

              • Fergus Pickering

                We’re all wasting our time, but pleasantly I trust.

Can't find your Web ID? Click here