Halal and Kosher hit by Dutch ban

[Gerald]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15610142

Note: 6 November 2011 Last updated at 04:05 GMT

What is it with political parties that put the word "freedom" in their name?

[Gerald]

There is certainly some political vegetarians, which exerts pressure.

[Skybird]

I once thouight that these ways of slaughtering are even less painful then conventional slaughtering, but I learned from several sources that my assessment and beliefs probbaly are wrong and that they mean even more suffering and pain for the animal.

That's why I am against both.

My respect for these two religions is small to non-existent already, and if they demand that the anmial you eat must be brought to death especially painfully, then this does not help to reverse my opinion on said religions.

A legal ban would be appropriate, not only because it is primitive and cruel, but due to animal protection laws, too.

[Gerald]

[_dgn_]

Originally Posted by Skybird

A legal ban would be appropriate, not only because it is primitive and cruel, but due to animal protection laws, too.

Problem is not the law, but its application.

In France, there are such laws about animal protection, for the same reasons. But there are too exemptions for Jews and Muslims ...

So law is not the same for everybody.

"Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" is the motto of the French Republic.

Equality ?

[Gerald]

More Kebab,to the people.

[_dgn_]

It seems that in some European countries (Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, Iceland ...) ritual methods of slaughtering animals for food are banned.

Laws about animal welfare are made for everybody, whatever its religion.

If some people want eat particular food (or meat), they can import it : it's not prohibited.

About this next law in the Netherlands, what is the opinion of the WWF, which generally protect animals ?

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

What is it with political parties that put the word "freedom" in their name?

I've always felt that way about the 'Labour' party.

[antikristuseke]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

What is it with political parties that put the word "freedom" in their name?

It's sort of similar to countries which have democratic in their names, but none of them are.

[HunterICX]

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

It's sort of similar to countries which have democratic in their names, but none of them are.

Don't you mean all of them?

HunterICX

[tater]

OK, I just checked out the "freedom party."

I was rather surprised, actually. I expected something entirely different that platform statements like: "Politics (Consent): Freedom Party takes the view that the initiation of coercive physical force has no place in relations between individuals, and that all relations between and among individuals - and between governments and those they govern - must be consensual."

And: "Metaphysics (Reality): Freedom Party International regards nothing as supernatural or magical. That which exists, exists physically and naturally. The universe exists independently of ones own mind and is not affected by what one merely thinks, prays, wishes, or hopes about the nature of reality."

Usually people in europe like to define "right wing" as having to do with persecution based on indelible traits (racism, etc), even when their other politics are in fact quite leftist (collectivism, strong, central government control, etc).

Assuming I didn't follow a link to the wrong "freedom party international," or their mission statement is in fact a lie, I'm not seeing a problem with them. Again, this is from reading their own web page, never heard of them before.

Regardless, there should be no religious exceptions to any laws, IMHO. If there is a humane way of slaughtering animals for food, leather, etc, then that is the way they should be killed, PERIOD. If that makes some people upset because it is contrary to the book(s) they think are magical, tough. My reaction would be that they should go start a theocracy someplace else.

Note that such laws are usually only in force for commercial entities. So farmers can still use whatever cruel method they wish for their own (not for sale) food. If this means such communities have to start farms, hunt, etc, to get meat, or even import meat from abroad, that's not really a hardship in the modern world (the latter in particular).

[tater]

Ah, I see that the Dutch party is actually the "Party for Freedom" so there might be a difference. Though they are described as a liberal party by wiki.

(I'm immediately reminded of The Life of Brian, lol—"we HATE the judean people's front!")

Ah, I see that the Dutch party is actually the "Party for Freedom" so there might be a difference. Though they are described as a liberal party by wiki.

A word that changes as it crossses the atlantic. They broke from the Freedom and Deomcracy party which would be the conservative liberalism, the party for freedom has gone past the conservative background into simple right wing populism....or simpletons right wing populism.

Regardless, there should be no religious exceptions to any laws, IMHO. If there is a humane way of slaughtering animals for food, leather, etc, then that is the way they should be killed, PERIOD.

What about fish?

Note that such laws are usually only in force for commercial entities. So farmers can still use whatever cruel method they wish for their own (not for sale) food.

No, if you are farming as a commercial enterprise you still run in to all sorts of regulations when it comes to slaughtering for your own consumption.

[tater]

In the US, there would be a difference if commerce is involved. No one is looking over a hunter's shoulder to make sure the animal didn't run off and die slowly in the bush.

It may be different in europe, I have no idea. It would seem reasonable that there would be different standards for animals farmed for sale vs personal use, though.

I dunno if there are rules for fish. In the US there are rules regarding sizes, sexes, etc for fishing, but it's not about cruelty, just trying to preserve fisheries.

Fish and birds are pretty stupid, though, so I'd imagine they are treated a little differently than mammals. Still, my point stands that if there is a method agreed with by society as "humane," all people should have to follow the humane rules, regardless of what a book they claim to be magical says.