A good friend explained to me that my conception of halal, as described in the previous post, was all wrong! I apologise deeply for this, and will try to correct the misstakes here.
Halal is, in fact, an almost ideal method of killing an animal for food; what is shown on the video is how it is carried out in practice: clumsily, carelessly and with no consideration for the suffering of the animal.
This is not the way halal is supposed to be carried out.
My friend tells me that, according to the Quran, halal concerns the treamtent of the cattle in life and in death. It should be raised in peace, with good food and space and handled with respect. When the time comes to kill it, the animal is to be stroked and patted gently, so as to be calmed to sleep. Finally, it must be killed by slitting its throat in a specific way that does not cut any nerves, so the animal faints before it feels any pain, and so dies in peace.
This harmonious and merciful method seems to be the best way to treat an animal you intend to raise only to serve as meat on your plate.
Industrial methods, however, show little consideration for the welfare of the animals, as the demand for vast amounts of meat to be delivered quickly and the greed for money (and thus the desire to resort to cheap, albeit inhumane, methods) outweighs ethical concerns.
The true meaning of halal has been gravely misunderstood by the industry (not only by me), and is practiced as far from the ideal as one would believe possible.
This revelation was good news, though! If this unethical way of handling the animals is not a part of the Muslim religion, there is essentially no good reason not to press to abolish this ghastly treatment! The argument about religious rights I laid out in the previous post falls apart. Instead, we should strive to work harder to follow the actual halal method.
This could be done by (a) raising awareness of the differences between the ideal method and its careless practice, (b) imposing stricter legislations, pressuring industries to work consistently in the harmonious halal way, and/or (c) avoiding farmed products as much as possible, because it is very difficult to monitor and control the industrial methods (without intruding on their privacy to the extent they might become annoyed and accuse the government of spying and/or oppressing them... strict control is unfortunately such a hard thing to implement in democratic societies), that you can rarely be certain that the meat you buy has truly been handled well – staying away from it entirely, limiting yourself to wild food, such as game or wild-caught fish, is much safer, and you can eat with good conscience.
Saturday 16 February 2013
Friday 15 February 2013
Halal – cow slaugther the Muslim way
A friend posted this video.
I found it hard to believe when I saw it. I mean, how could this be real?
Of course, it is indeed very much real, and I am only surprised because I have never looked into this, but now that it has slapped me accross the face like a moist towel, I just cannot ignore it.
I am sorry that this post will be chaotic, because I just had to write something on this horrendous topic as soon as I saw it.
I am not well informed about the details of these things, as I have not done any research yet, but I can easily see the problem.
Halal, as I understand it, is the 'correct' way of slaughtering cattle according to the Muslim religion. (It might apply to other animals as well.) As you see in the video, they slit the animal's throat and let it bleed to death, albeit fully conscious, in shock and overwhelming agony.
We wonder how such 'barbarism' can be allowed, even seen as the one true way of treating animals committed to become food. We are probably quick to judge the Muslims as savage, cold-hearted, soul-less monsters with no remorse and no respect for life. However, think about your own religion, your own people. Have others not done terrible things as well? Are others not still doing terrible things? Think about it.
Do not misstake me: I do not approve of this in any way – I denounce is as barbaric and disrespectful beyond measure – but being a philosopher in heart, I cannot help but seeing the other side of the issue. It is in a sense the religious right of the Muslims to pursue such acts, and I immediately see how serious a political obstacle this places against the hopes of banning such treatment of the animals.
Just as we consider it insane, brutal, savage, the faithful Muslims (faithful with respect to this particular part of their religion; I am not much familiar with Islam, which is the reason why I am unwilling to make bold statements here...) consider it a natural part of their belief of what is the correct way of living.
This can then all boild down to a debate about rights: animal rights vs. religious rights. How could we settle this? If there was a clear solution, the issue would probably have been settled by now. Such a dilemma is sort of the bane of reasonable agreements: two completely conflicting views, neither more obviously correct to an unbiased observer.
From what I understand from the video, halal is banned in Europe, but imported meat obtained by the method is cheaper, and therefore tempting to the unscrupulous business man, so they sneak in such meat to reduce production costs.
However, one thing I do not understand is why halal meat is necessarily cheaper. The method does not seem more efficient in any way! If you compare it to the clean, quick British standard method of instant kill, cows writhing on the floor, kicking wildly and struggling to break free or stand up, splashing blood and tissue accross the floor, seems like an uneccessarily messy way of handling the animal, apart from repugnant. Physical damage and injuries to workers, mental challenges to workers, and the need to clean frequently in order to maintain acceptable levels of hygiene are all extra costs that result from this clumsy treatment of the animals. Apparently, other, local factors that reduce cost (e.g. cheap labour) must outweigh the cost of the sloppy care. However, should not meat produced in such areas but with methods more like the British principle be even cheaper?
The acceptance of halal meat by amoral European companies poses a problem to confining halal. Prohibiting it in Europe does not stop it being performed in other parts of the world, but it sends a message that such products are very much undesireable. However, if some still do desire that meat, and is amoral enough to ignore the ethical regulations, for the sole purpose of a few extra coins in his/her pocket, it will be futile. Indeed, it may be seen as even worse, as that meat is hidden in unlabeled products, so there is little chance of knowing whether you are eating halal-produced meat or not!
I see this pretty much similar to what I imagine to be the reason for tobacco remaining legal. If it was to be illegalised, the market demand for tobacco would not be reduced – it would increase if anything. Think about it: the addicts would not stop craving tobacco, and would resort to desperate measures to obtain it. That would almost certainly mean that tobacco would go wild on the black market. Then, it would be impossible to regulate the amounts and distribution. Therefore, it is more practical to have it legal, so that you can impose control on the market, and also tax it.
However, consuming tobacco ruins yourself; allowing halal meat import, even under strict control and heavy taxationm is a morally detestable act. Although the problem is similar, the solution is not.
What can we do?
The way I see it, the most efficient possibility of solving the problem for good is to attack the heart of the matter: allowing halal because to not allow it would be religious oppression. If we could somehow convince the (vast majority of) Muslims that it is an unethical way of treating living animals, perhaps they would agree to stop doing it.
This could be done by plea to their hearts and conscience as human beings, or by arguing strongly for why the act is unethical. The former part faces the problem of all coming down to animal rights against religious rights, which I mentioned earlier. Conflicting rights demand that we sort out who is the 'most right'.
What, then, is a right? This is something I have been trying to figure out a long time. The best answer I have come accross is that a right is something the rest of humanity is obliged to provide for you. This satisfies the right of freedom of speach, the right of freedom of religion, etc. etc.. Animal rights would be just the same: something humanity is obliged to provide for them. In my opinion, we are obliged to treat them with respect, as they are living beings sharing our world, and providing us with food.
If you agree with me that animals have the right to be raised, handled and eventually, if necessary, killed with full respect for the wonder they present as living organisms, and accept my definition of rights, then you must agree with the logical conclusion: to kill animals in such a maner as in halal is wrong because it is unthankful for the life that is taken to sustain our own, and therefore contradicts animal rights. Thus, even Muslims should be obliged to treat animals with respect, as it is their right. (If you agree with this reasoning – and I sincerely hope you do!)
But what do we do about the Muslim's right to freedom of religion? I would not claim that that is wrong in any way. However, consider this: the animal's right to respect does not directly contradict the Muslim's right to freedom of religion as a whole, while the Muslim right effectively denies the animal's full right. Phrased in anoher way, the Muslim right fully suppresses the animal right, while the animal right only denies the Muslims their right to one particular ritual. From this, I am tempted to make out that the animal right is more innocent and in need of reinforcement.
Still, there is no clear-cut way of determining which right is the 'more right'. I did not hope to solve the issue, but writing out some arguments – for and against – has helped me clear my mind a bit about the problem, and, hopefully, I have guided you through the issue in a way that opened your eyes to its delicacy as well.
While any normal animal activist can be expected to aggressively denounce halal and refuse to understand why such an abhorrent act has not been abolished, I know that that will not solve the issue, but create perpetual collisions between sides that are blind to the needs and wants of the other. If two cars meet in a long street that is too narrow for more than one car, both drivers jamming their horns and shouting curses at the other will not make any one willing to move aside. If we instead calmly look around a bit, and find that one of the cars is much closer to an exit to a wider road, and present the matter in a clam way to both drivers, explaining why it is most fair if the driver that has to reverse the shortest distance should be the one to back out, perhaps the issue can be solved, to the overall benefit of both and without being angry.
Ps. A friend commented, elegantly building on the car metaphor, that in this case the vehicles unfortunately are of different sizes, and one of the drivers sees no reason to reverse as that would be the wrong way to go, while the other does not know how to turn.
Ps. Talking to another friend, I was informed that I have completely misunderstood the principle of halal!! I will amend that misstake in a new post!
I found it hard to believe when I saw it. I mean, how could this be real?
Of course, it is indeed very much real, and I am only surprised because I have never looked into this, but now that it has slapped me accross the face like a moist towel, I just cannot ignore it.
I am sorry that this post will be chaotic, because I just had to write something on this horrendous topic as soon as I saw it.
I am not well informed about the details of these things, as I have not done any research yet, but I can easily see the problem.
Halal, as I understand it, is the 'correct' way of slaughtering cattle according to the Muslim religion. (It might apply to other animals as well.) As you see in the video, they slit the animal's throat and let it bleed to death, albeit fully conscious, in shock and overwhelming agony.
We wonder how such 'barbarism' can be allowed, even seen as the one true way of treating animals committed to become food. We are probably quick to judge the Muslims as savage, cold-hearted, soul-less monsters with no remorse and no respect for life. However, think about your own religion, your own people. Have others not done terrible things as well? Are others not still doing terrible things? Think about it.
Do not misstake me: I do not approve of this in any way – I denounce is as barbaric and disrespectful beyond measure – but being a philosopher in heart, I cannot help but seeing the other side of the issue. It is in a sense the religious right of the Muslims to pursue such acts, and I immediately see how serious a political obstacle this places against the hopes of banning such treatment of the animals.
Just as we consider it insane, brutal, savage, the faithful Muslims (faithful with respect to this particular part of their religion; I am not much familiar with Islam, which is the reason why I am unwilling to make bold statements here...) consider it a natural part of their belief of what is the correct way of living.
This can then all boild down to a debate about rights: animal rights vs. religious rights. How could we settle this? If there was a clear solution, the issue would probably have been settled by now. Such a dilemma is sort of the bane of reasonable agreements: two completely conflicting views, neither more obviously correct to an unbiased observer.
From what I understand from the video, halal is banned in Europe, but imported meat obtained by the method is cheaper, and therefore tempting to the unscrupulous business man, so they sneak in such meat to reduce production costs.
However, one thing I do not understand is why halal meat is necessarily cheaper. The method does not seem more efficient in any way! If you compare it to the clean, quick British standard method of instant kill, cows writhing on the floor, kicking wildly and struggling to break free or stand up, splashing blood and tissue accross the floor, seems like an uneccessarily messy way of handling the animal, apart from repugnant. Physical damage and injuries to workers, mental challenges to workers, and the need to clean frequently in order to maintain acceptable levels of hygiene are all extra costs that result from this clumsy treatment of the animals. Apparently, other, local factors that reduce cost (e.g. cheap labour) must outweigh the cost of the sloppy care. However, should not meat produced in such areas but with methods more like the British principle be even cheaper?
The acceptance of halal meat by amoral European companies poses a problem to confining halal. Prohibiting it in Europe does not stop it being performed in other parts of the world, but it sends a message that such products are very much undesireable. However, if some still do desire that meat, and is amoral enough to ignore the ethical regulations, for the sole purpose of a few extra coins in his/her pocket, it will be futile. Indeed, it may be seen as even worse, as that meat is hidden in unlabeled products, so there is little chance of knowing whether you are eating halal-produced meat or not!
I see this pretty much similar to what I imagine to be the reason for tobacco remaining legal. If it was to be illegalised, the market demand for tobacco would not be reduced – it would increase if anything. Think about it: the addicts would not stop craving tobacco, and would resort to desperate measures to obtain it. That would almost certainly mean that tobacco would go wild on the black market. Then, it would be impossible to regulate the amounts and distribution. Therefore, it is more practical to have it legal, so that you can impose control on the market, and also tax it.
However, consuming tobacco ruins yourself; allowing halal meat import, even under strict control and heavy taxationm is a morally detestable act. Although the problem is similar, the solution is not.
What can we do?
The way I see it, the most efficient possibility of solving the problem for good is to attack the heart of the matter: allowing halal because to not allow it would be religious oppression. If we could somehow convince the (vast majority of) Muslims that it is an unethical way of treating living animals, perhaps they would agree to stop doing it.
This could be done by plea to their hearts and conscience as human beings, or by arguing strongly for why the act is unethical. The former part faces the problem of all coming down to animal rights against religious rights, which I mentioned earlier. Conflicting rights demand that we sort out who is the 'most right'.
What, then, is a right? This is something I have been trying to figure out a long time. The best answer I have come accross is that a right is something the rest of humanity is obliged to provide for you. This satisfies the right of freedom of speach, the right of freedom of religion, etc. etc.. Animal rights would be just the same: something humanity is obliged to provide for them. In my opinion, we are obliged to treat them with respect, as they are living beings sharing our world, and providing us with food.
If you agree with me that animals have the right to be raised, handled and eventually, if necessary, killed with full respect for the wonder they present as living organisms, and accept my definition of rights, then you must agree with the logical conclusion: to kill animals in such a maner as in halal is wrong because it is unthankful for the life that is taken to sustain our own, and therefore contradicts animal rights. Thus, even Muslims should be obliged to treat animals with respect, as it is their right. (If you agree with this reasoning – and I sincerely hope you do!)
But what do we do about the Muslim's right to freedom of religion? I would not claim that that is wrong in any way. However, consider this: the animal's right to respect does not directly contradict the Muslim's right to freedom of religion as a whole, while the Muslim right effectively denies the animal's full right. Phrased in anoher way, the Muslim right fully suppresses the animal right, while the animal right only denies the Muslims their right to one particular ritual. From this, I am tempted to make out that the animal right is more innocent and in need of reinforcement.
Still, there is no clear-cut way of determining which right is the 'more right'. I did not hope to solve the issue, but writing out some arguments – for and against – has helped me clear my mind a bit about the problem, and, hopefully, I have guided you through the issue in a way that opened your eyes to its delicacy as well.
While any normal animal activist can be expected to aggressively denounce halal and refuse to understand why such an abhorrent act has not been abolished, I know that that will not solve the issue, but create perpetual collisions between sides that are blind to the needs and wants of the other. If two cars meet in a long street that is too narrow for more than one car, both drivers jamming their horns and shouting curses at the other will not make any one willing to move aside. If we instead calmly look around a bit, and find that one of the cars is much closer to an exit to a wider road, and present the matter in a clam way to both drivers, explaining why it is most fair if the driver that has to reverse the shortest distance should be the one to back out, perhaps the issue can be solved, to the overall benefit of both and without being angry.
Ps. A friend commented, elegantly building on the car metaphor, that in this case the vehicles unfortunately are of different sizes, and one of the drivers sees no reason to reverse as that would be the wrong way to go, while the other does not know how to turn.
Ps. Talking to another friend, I was informed that I have completely misunderstood the principle of halal!! I will amend that misstake in a new post!
Tuesday 12 February 2013
Giving up bad habits for lent
For lent, the period starting tomorrow and going on until Easter, during which the English (and probably many others) give up bad habits and take up good habits, I have decided to dedicate my giving-ups to making the environment better.
One thing is to stop taking uneccessarily (but oh so nice) long showers. I will not set a time limit, since then I will only be rushed and risk starting to sweat again right after, so it will all be pretty pointless. Instead, I will simply do the washing I need and nothing more. No daydreaming to the sound of pouring and splashing water and enjoying the warmth enveloping you. This just has to stop; I have had my good time so far, but now I will make a serious effort to be less wasteful with hot water.
The other thing I am giving up is puns. Puns are the most pure and wonderful type of jokes, but everyone around me seem to develop aggression issues or suicidal tendencies whenever I make a decent pun (so, on a daily basis, then). It is almost as if they are giving up hope, having lost faith in humanity and despair over their coming years of acquaintance with me.
Therefore, as an act of mercy, and as a test of my dicipline, I will also stop making puns, for the good of the people and the sake of the environment (if they turn to alcohol and drugs to drown their sorrows, they will start littering all over the place...). Making puns is sort of an instinct for me; it is a deeply rooted part of my personality, so fighting the urge to throw out these provocative jokes will not be easy.
But then again, if it was easy, there would be little point in it, and not much of a sacrifice for the greater good!
One thing is to stop taking uneccessarily (but oh so nice) long showers. I will not set a time limit, since then I will only be rushed and risk starting to sweat again right after, so it will all be pretty pointless. Instead, I will simply do the washing I need and nothing more. No daydreaming to the sound of pouring and splashing water and enjoying the warmth enveloping you. This just has to stop; I have had my good time so far, but now I will make a serious effort to be less wasteful with hot water.
The other thing I am giving up is puns. Puns are the most pure and wonderful type of jokes, but everyone around me seem to develop aggression issues or suicidal tendencies whenever I make a decent pun (so, on a daily basis, then). It is almost as if they are giving up hope, having lost faith in humanity and despair over their coming years of acquaintance with me.
Therefore, as an act of mercy, and as a test of my dicipline, I will also stop making puns, for the good of the people and the sake of the environment (if they turn to alcohol and drugs to drown their sorrows, they will start littering all over the place...). Making puns is sort of an instinct for me; it is a deeply rooted part of my personality, so fighting the urge to throw out these provocative jokes will not be easy.
But then again, if it was easy, there would be little point in it, and not much of a sacrifice for the greater good!
Monday 11 February 2013
Less waste
A few days ago, I discovered a new method for my daily face wash that uses maybe only one tenth of the amount of water I normally waste for this.
The detail are not important; it is the message that matters! By just thinking a little outisde the box about what we do every day, we could easily come up with much more energy-efficient and resource-saving ways of doing what he have always done. This is in essence what needs to happen at a global scale, but if we start small, and succeed, we show ourselves that it is possible!
The detail are not important; it is the message that matters! By just thinking a little outisde the box about what we do every day, we could easily come up with much more energy-efficient and resource-saving ways of doing what he have always done. This is in essence what needs to happen at a global scale, but if we start small, and succeed, we show ourselves that it is possible!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)