Halal Hulabaloo

There has been quite a lot of feedback in the papers from "outraged" readers in regards to the Mail on Sundays "expose" on the widespread distribution of halal meat to well known stores and food outlets without this being made clear to buyers / eaters, or even mentioned at all. I didn't actually think that it was not that well known that cheap halal meat was frequently sold - not just to take aways, but to other places too. Despite what the coverage may say this isn't in case it offends Muslims. It is just pretty good value for retailers and food outlets buying in bulk. There is really one profit that these guys are in awe to, and it ain't Mohammad.

Now back to the outcry. There is the question of the ethical nature of halal based killing of food animals, and whether it is right to keep schtum about how the meat we eat is killed (and treated.), and I have no stick with that, they are valid ones. As for the cruelty of the halal method? Despite the silliness of having to get a green light from God before killing an animal for food, as many religious purity ceremonies don't make much sense. Well the sad fact is there aren't many "pleasant" ways of systematically killing meat mammals and poultry birds with advanced nervous systems. It is a case of trying to meet the least bad option really. But that really is to miss the real gripe of many of the letters. A gripe they try to cover up (badly) in the language of animal welfare. It is grimly humorous to see complainants writing in, trying to make out that they are some kind of Linda McCartney clone, when you know that their sole contribution to animal welfare was to feel a bit bad eating gammon and pineapple at the Brewers Fayre, after watching "Babe" on Sky Movies the night before. The complainants are mostly more teed off that they may have unwittingly become involved in an Islamic tradition, than what was going through a sheep's mind before it was revolving on a rotating spit in a kebab house window.

One letter to the Mail on Sunday really encapsulated that - when you took out all the more evasive weasel wording - it was a "bloody Muslims" rant fest at heart, was the one I have reproduced below by Mrs Felton, who gives the game away with all the huffy solipsistic sanctimoniousness and fake; turned up to eleven - moral outrage of chintz soaked suburbia, that only a pissed off Mail letter writer can master

"In his letter regarding Halal meat being sold when not specified as such, Fiyaz Mughal [the Director of Faith Matters] states that the 'respect of religious beliefs is what makes us a tolerant society'

Where is the respect for my religious beliefs, when I am expected to eat meat that has been ritually slaughtered?

I find the whole concept deeply offensive on a spiritual and moral level, and I am furious that I have probably consumed halal meat unwittingly. It seems a case of some animals being more equal than others.

C. Felton (Mrs.) Gillingham Kent. "

Now I summoned all my "Northernbloke" lackeys together, which was easy as it consists of just me, and we came up with this equation. The "Mrs C Felton of Kents, animal welfare to "they've got all sorts of yuman rights these days" percentage differential, which is expressed as follows.

%AGE OF MRS C FELTONS WAKING MOMENTS DEVOTED TO THE WELFARE OF COWS THAT ARE BURGER FODDER. - 0.00%

%AGE OF MRS C FELTONS OUTRAGE AT "NOW MUSLIMS BAN PROPER ENGLISH AND CHRISTIAN MEAT." -100zillion %

Mrs Felton and many like her who write in at their "outrage", couldn't give a flying fuck about how some cows spent their last few hours on this earth, and that for me is the only real potential ethical problem there is with this sort of thing. I can't change their views. But I do get pissed off that they are so bloody mealy mouthed and backhandedly snide about what they really mean. If you want to be controversial go the whole hog. Write in and say "You can sod right off if you think I'm eating smelly muslimist meat." It may not be nice sentiment, but at least it would be honest.