Animals, rather than abstract principle, became the protagonists of this vote. Here, the case for a ban was made with striking confidence while the opposing case barely materialised.
The floor’s most-respected Yes case said, “Only the most humane slaughter method should be permitted.” Other highly rated voices framed the issue as a choice between veterinary evidence and religious authority: “Science before religion.”
No side scarcely made a case at all. One No-labelled post was an admission of error — “I voted Yes but it flipped to no so sorry” — while another offered the practical objection that “Kosher food can already only be found in Kosher sections”; neither engaged seriously with the welfare argument.
That leaves the vote inside the UK’s wider argument over how far religious freedom should shape general law when animal welfare is at stake. The room’s certainty also had a pointed limit: one Yes voter cautioned, “let’s not kid ourselves that the meat and dairy industry in general is much more humane,” widening the charge beyond non-stun slaughter.
The page did not settle every question about humane meat, but it was unequivocal about which exemption this room wanted removed.
33 Opinions
Absolute no brainer. Allowing people religious freedom is fine, until it comes into direct conflict with the values, social mores and laws of the host country. Then... "Our house, our rules." Try nude sunbathing somewhere where public nudity is not allowed, see how that goes.
YES Why should any animal suffer needlessly just to satisfy the outdated fairy stories & rules of fake deities? Kosher & Halal are as outdated as all religious practices are & have no place in a modern society!
Slovenia, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Belgium (Flanders & Wallonia), Finland, New Zealand could restrict non-stun slaughter - so can we. Science before religion.
Only the most humane slaughter method should be permitted. Animals should not suffer because some backward cultures are superstitious.
No exemptions. Simple. Don’t agree ? Go to a different country that does allow it. Add clearer labelling until outlawed - it should be blatantly displayed if it is halal or kosher so that the majority of us not required to eat it can have the choice whether to buy it or not. Some people won’t mind buying it, but others will.
The suffering is unnecessary. So of course it should be banned. Religious idealogues are not above the law and whilst religious sensitivities can sometimes be accommodated, when suffering is a consequence it should be a no brainier!
We should always make the slaughter process as humane as possible. Stunning is the right thing to do.
Yes all non stun slaughter must be outlawed its inhumane no matter what the evidence.
I have no idea if a gun to the head of an animal causes instant death without pain or not. The fact the animal needs stunned suggeste there is pain. Which then suggests stunning the animal is a requirement therefore there are zero reasons for not stunning as the animal has done nothing to deserve pain and must be killed as humanely as possible.
It’s extremely cruel, and a barbaric practice. Slaughter of livestock shouldn’t be based on backwards superstition from thousands of years ago. If Muslims really don’t want to eat non halal meat they can choose to be vegetarian or simply to leave the country