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!
No comments:
Post a Comment