New Zealand bans kosher slaughter

[kerikiwi]

To me it's hard to see this decision as being anything other than anti-Jewish. I'm all for showing concern for animal welfare and minimizing the brutality of slaughter practices in general, but I simply don't believe that kosher slaughter practices are any worse that what happens in normal slaughter.

Certainly not anti-Jewish. Just anti-unnecessary stress on the animal.
We require animals to be stunned. That is the surest way to avoid unnecessary distress.
What is 'normal slaughter'?

 

[kerikiwi]

It seems to be not so much anti-Jewish as a case of excessive government regulation in general.

False. I welcome all government regulation to protect animals from vicious humans. Not at all excessive.

 

[kerikiwi]

I think the question was reasonable. How do you plan to humanely "stun" a cow?

Captive bolt. It's done for most slaughter here, now animals destined for religious nutters get the same consideration.

 

[Rolfe]

And we've had threads here showing that that method doesn't always work so flawlessly either, and there's videos to prove it.

Nothing's perfect. I'm sure there are occasions when even a captive bolt operation is completely fubared. What was you point, caller?

Shechita slaughter, in a 21st century frame of reference, is indescribably horrific. The fact that it was devised with good intent several thousand years ago doesn't change that. We have moved on. Complaining that even modern best practice occasionally goes wrong is hardly a counter-argument.

And would you believe, research is continuing into even more humane methods, and better refinements of the methods we have. We don't rest on our laurels and declare (like the rabbi) that we can't improve on current practice.

You know, I get seriously sick and tired of people immediately declaring that any legislation like this is "just anti-semitic". I suspect very few people are inherently anti-semitic. I was brought up regarding the Jews as the good guys - the good guys in all the New Testament stories, Jesus was a Jew, Jews were terribly persecuted by that bastard Hitler and so on. A lot of my friends are Jewish, though it's not a subject that often comes up in conversation.

It's the most ridiculous racism to declare, immediately there's some development you see as negatively impacting on Jewish customs or whatever, that this is primarily motivated by anti-semitism.

It's not. It's motivated by animal welfare concerns. It's motivated by utter revulsion over what people will put dumb animals through just because some guy thought this was a good idea 4000 years ago, and wrote it up as a religious ritual to make sure it was done that way.

Get over it. If you can eat meat from animals that have been ear-tagged, or castrated, or branded, or injected with tuberculin as part of a TB test, and not reject them as "blemished", you can cope with a captive bolt lesion.

Rolfe.

 

[Floyt]

I've just been talking to a researcher here (South Island, New Zealand) who works on Johne's Disease and thus spends plenty of time in slaughterhouses. By his account, there is a standard "stunning" method used on all animals, kosher or not: it's an electrical shock, administered by an electrode at the nape of the neck and the front of the snout. This, however, is known to be rather unreliable, and animals are frequently quite obviously conscious for further proceedings. This despite the fact that the shock generally makes the jaw clamp so violently that there's shattered teeth flying. The abattoir definition is "rendering the animal insensible", not "killing it". Seems to be in roughly the same "humane" league as the electric chair...
According to this guy, captive bolt guns are only used as emergency back-ups (for cattle and sheep at least - he didn't know about deer). Can't say I'm much impressed with this :/

Also, apparently having whacking big burns does not count as a "blemish", then. Go figure.

ETA to clarify - this means that technically every animal slaughtered here is halal/kosher (is that even equivalent?) at this point; and the banning of this method would mean across-the-board replacement of electrical stunning with captive bolts. At least that's my reading.

 

[Thunder]

can't the animals just be given a very strong tranquilizer before they are killed?

 

[Rolfe]

Oh, sure. If you like the idea of eating meat with a lot of very strong tranquilliser in it.

There is a good reason why medications should not be given to animals destined for slaughter, for some time before slaughter. It's not just organic fruitcakes who see the rationale for this.

Just in case you don't think I'm serious, I know of foxhounds who have been fatally poisoned by being given horsemeat from horses that had been humanely destroyed using barbiturates. Any drug given to an animal will appear in the meat.

(By the way, I let the knackerman shoot my pony as he lay on the grass in his own field, with an actual gun. It's far more humane than messing about with drugs for large animals like horses and cattle. It's only when there's nobody with a suitable gun and the knowhow to use it that barbiturates become necessary.)

Rolfe.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Certainly not anti-Jewish. Just anti-unnecessary stress on the animal.
We require animals to be stunned. That is the surest way to avoid unnecessary distress.

I've been trying to figure out how to phrase my comments and questions without getting attacked. I'm not sure I can do it, but I'll give it a shot anyway. For the record, I don't want to put "unnecessary distress" on an animal either. However, the idea gives me cognitive dissonance.

I mean, I'm okay with raising an animal for slaughter where his entire life is essentially "unnatural" compared to living in the wild. I don't need the meat - I just enjoy it. So why do I get all bothered about the last few seconds of the animal's life? It never had a chance at anything like the life it would have had if we liked crickets more than hamburger. It probably wouldn't have existed at all. If it did, it's death in the wild will likely be far "worse" than what happens in a slaughterhouse. Even dying a "natural" death the animal is fraught with fear and probably pain.

And why am I concerned about cows and not flies? Every year when the mulberries drop, we get an invasion of flies. Invariably a bunch get in the house, and I use a spray that makes the little bastards drop like flies (now I understand the saying) and squirm around in their death throes. I have to trap about one roof rat per year. Sometimes I use poison.

So, at the end of the day I accept that I have developed my own morality and concept of "humane" that I feel is inconsistent internally. I find it difficult to get on my high horse about Kosher rules. While I have issues with their belief in a god, I accept that they do believe in one. If I were to have a god proven to me, and he told me how to slaughter cows, I'd listen. If their rules are seemingly inconsistent, so are mine.

 

[Rolfe]

Supporters of bullfighting say much the same thing.

There is of course the argument that cruel treatment of animals brutalises the people who are doing it, and if it is done in the name of society, then all of society is brutalised.

I killed a ram this afternoon. He was lying in the back of a Landrover, seriously ill. I used barbiturate overdose. I was glad to be able to give him as kind an end as possible under the circumstances. I think it matters, for my humanity as much as for the welfare of the animal.

Rolfe.

 

[Floyt]

Re UncaYimmy: This is true. In the end, it always comes down to majority morality.

 

[The Fool]

(By the way, I let the knackerman shoot my pony as he lay on the grass in his own field, with an actual gun. It's far more humane than messing about with drugs for large animals like horses and cattle. It's only when there's nobody with a suitable gun and the knowhow to use it that barbiturates become necessary.)

Rolfe.

I have also seen a farmer put down a cow with a sledge hammer blow to the head because the cow was in a hole with a broken leg doubled back up its side and he had no gun with him...apparently its not an uncommon method.

to me the methodology is irrelevant, its what the animal experienced....life-death....and not life-pain and suffering-death.

anyone thinks having your throat cut is humane?......what can I say? Don't even care if you think a supernatural being wants you to do it...

 

[Uncayimmy]

Supporters of bullfighting say much the same thing.

Was this in response to my post? Do bullfighters really say, "I don't want to cause an animal unnecessary distress?"

There is of course the argument that cruel treatment of animals brutalises the people who are doing it, and if it is done in the name of society, then all of society is brutalised.

Well, that sounds good, but it's of no more value to me than Sky Daddy dictating how to slaughter animals. It's just your morality versus mine versus another.

I killed a ram this afternoon. He was lying in the back of a Landrover, seriously ill. I used barbiturate overdose. I was glad to be able to give him as kind an end as possible under the circumstances. I think it matters, for my humanity as much as for the welfare of the animal.

So, you denied him the dignity of facing death on his own? You, being the benevolent overlord, decided when he should die? Well, why not? We humans decide when they are going to die so we can eat their meat. We decide when to impregnate them. We decide to keep them lactating. We decide when to shave their fur. So why not decide to end their lives at the time and manner we see fit?

I'm not criticizing you personally, Rolfe. I'm just trying to relay my own cognitive dissonance in our relationships with the animals around us. When it comes to my fellow humans, I'm okay with the harm principle as a guiding philosophy, so I'll get my feathers ruffled about certain subjects. When it comes to animals, I see a lot more shades of gray and don't feel comfortable getting all indignant. My foundation is just too shaky.

I'm willing to be convinced. If you can give me something as concise as the harm principle that I can apply, maybe I can go with it.

ETA: In case it's not clear, I'd prefer my meat to be slaughtered in a way that causes the least suffering to the animal. If I'm honest with myself, it's because I don't know if I would have the balls to slit a pig's throat like my in-laws do in their little village in Hungary. So, when I eat meat, I know that I'm telling the system, "Kill another one." Since I feel a personal connection, I want it done in a way I'm comfortable with.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go put out some poison so the rat up in my attic will suffer a painful death bleeding internally. I could simply cut down my citrus trees or do a better job of picking up fallen fruit from the ground, but, well, I'd rather spend my time arguing over the humane treatment of animals.

 

[Mycroft]

I'll just bet there is. There's a small pressure group of strongly Jewish vets and researchers in every country who continue to press this point and publish whatever they can to support it.

I’m not aware of the science either way, but you seem to believe the science that support kosher slaughter as humane is faked, apparently?

It's barbaric. The animal's throat is cut, and the brain still receives enough blood through the vertebral arteries to stay conscious while it bleeds to death through a huge wound in its neck. It may be hung up by a hind leg while this happens.

I think being killed is an inherently nasty business, but I also think it makes sense to make comparisons to other accepted practices. If the assertion is made that one practice is less humane than another, I’d like to see some science to support the assertion and have more than a politicians opinion before I agree with something that potentially offends a population.

Now I’m certainly not an expert on Kosher slaughter, but I’m told the cut is made with a razor-sharp knife so that there is no pain to the cut. Having been cut with a razor a few times myself in my years, I know from experience there is truth to that. So even though I haven’t read any science either way, I don’t take it for granted that kosher slaughter is inhumane even though I believe you when you say the animal may remain conscious.

If you think being strung up by the hind legs exacerbates the suffering…I’ll probably agree with you, but making a rule against that probably doesn’t offend anyone’s religion.

You're free to "believe" what you like. You're wrong. When your religion mandates killing animals like that, I have no sympathy. Get the chip off your shoulder and realise that some people just care for animals. Anti-Jewish - get over yourself!

You get over yourself. You’re making assumptions about me that are unfounded. Except for hot-dogs I’ve never purchased kosher meat in my life, probably never will, and don’t even know anybody who has.

I am for religious freedom. Everybody’s religious freedom. In being for religious freedom, I understand that I’m going to be supporting a lot of things that don’t make sense to everybody. That’s what freedom is; the individual being free to do something the majority probably won’t approve of.

So if the Mormon wants to wear unique underwear, hoard huge amounts of dry food in their basement and perform some secret rites in their temple to save the soul of Adolph Hiter…fine. Pass a law against that I’ll call that law anti-Mormon. If the Muslim thinks they need to chop the head of a goat to properly celebrate the feast of Eid…I’m fine with that too. Propose a law against it and I’ll want someone to prove it’s less humane than shooting a deer with an arrow. I don’t think that can be proven.
Heck, I’ll even support the Voodoo priest down in the Bayou of Louisiana who thinks he needs to swing a chicken around by its neck until it’s dead. Weird? Yeah, but that’s his religion. He thinks it’s more important than the chicken, I might disagree, but I’ll agree not to think about it in the same way I don’t think about where all that chicken for KFC comes from.

So you get over yourself. Your sensibilities are not the only ones to consider. There are six billion people that share the planet with you, and not all of them think the same way as you.

 

[kerikiwi]

Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go put out some poison so the rat up in my attic will suffer a painful death bleeding internally.

two points:
1. Is internal bleeding painful?
One of my dogs raided the rait baits in my neighbour's orchard and the only symptom was that she didn't feel inclined to chase the horse at chase-the-horse-time. No sign of pain, just lethargy, which was a sure sign something was wrong.
2. Snap traps are perfectly humane.

 

[kerikiwi]

I am for religious freedom. Everybody’s religious freedom. In being for religious freedom, I understand that I’m going to be supporting a lot of things that don’t make sense to everybody. That’s what freedom is; the individual being free to do something the majority probably won’t approve of.

So if the Mormon wants to wear unique underwear, hoard huge amounts of dry food in their basement and perform some secret rites in their temple to save the soul of Adolph Hiter…fine. Pass a law against that I’ll call that law anti-Mormon. If the Muslim thinks they need to chop the head of a goat to properly celebrate the feast of Eid…I’m fine with that too. Propose a law against it and I’ll want someone to prove it’s less humane than shooting a deer with an arrow. I don’t think that can be proven.
Heck, I’ll even support the Voodoo priest down in the Bayou of Louisiana who thinks he needs to swing a chicken around by its neck until it’s dead. Weird? Yeah, but that’s his religion. He thinks it’s more important than the chicken, I might disagree, but I’ll agree not to think about it in the same way I don’t think about where all that chicken for KFC comes from.

So you get over yourself. Your sensibilities are not the only ones to consider. There are six billion people that share the planet with you, and not all of them think the same way as you.

So, if some of the 6 billion think genocide is good idea, can we say they are wrong?
You seriously are for religious freedom?
Human sacrifice okay?

 

[Uncayimmy]

two points:
1. Is internal bleeding painful?
One of my dogs raided the rait baits in my neighbour's orchard and the only symptom was that she didn't feel inclined to chase the horse at chase-the-horse-time. No sign of pain, just lethargy, which was a sure sign something was wrong.

If you believe the animals have some sort of emotion, then a slow death is a frightening experience because they know they cannot escape from predators. Anyway, according to the web, one symptom of internal bleeding in humans is pain.

2. Snap traps are perfectly humane.

First off, you're making the assumption that it is "humane" to crush a rat's neck while he's just getting a bite to eat. That you can call that "perfectly humane" is the type of cognitive dissonance I'm talking about. You're still killing the thing even though with some extra effort you could catch it, drive it out to a field, and release it. Only that takes a lot of effort. So, really you're saying it's "humane enough considering how little it bothers me to kill it."

Second, they don't always go off as intended. It's not always a "perfect" blow that "painlessly" snaps the creature's neck. More than once I've picked up a trap and said to myself, "Ah, ****. That sucks. Poor thing."

I still put out another one because I'm honest with myself about how much (well, little) it really bothers me. If I had to watch it suffer, I'd feel differently. Same thing goes for slaughtering cows.

 

[Uncayimmy]

So, if some of the 6 billion think genocide is good idea, can we say they are wrong?
You seriously are for religious freedom?
Human sacrifice okay?

Are you equating human sacrifice with animal slaughter?

 

[Mycroft]

So, if some of the 6 billion think genocide is good idea, can we say they are wrong?
You seriously are for religious freedom?
Human sacrifice okay?

No. I'm only willing to go so far as the chicken.

Thanks for asking.

 

[Floyt]

I'm not going jump back in before I can get this into smiley form:

 

[kerikiwi]

Are you equating human sacrifice with animal slaughter?

No. Mycroft said "I am for religious freedom'. I challenged that.