Hi Everybody

Please stick to the issue as David, Morgan Yabby, pointed out.

This is only about what is best for the animals.

I have met and worked with some wonderfully compassionate Muslims mostly from overseas.

They were `excited` about the prospect of introducing Gas to put Animals to sleep before slaughter.

Jolanda raised the issue earlier based on we have rights to be informed what we eat.

Labeling isn’t Australia’s strong point. To argue this would be unfair to Muslim or Halal products unless it applied to all...

There are many Halal Slaughtering Abattoirs in Australia but do they have anything in common not really=
http://www.albalagh.net/halal/kosher_meat.shtml

*I haven’t made my mind up. Peter Singer *may have? Done research.

Reading comments he `seemed` to support the theory not to pre stun.

I don’t embrace some of Singers ideas but he’d had at` least had `believe` that it was kinder.

Its curious Islam and Muslims would suddenly embrace the Jews and their laws especially when it comes to Halal Slaughter or food products.

“Although it is the argument they are to use
The question is why?

Speaking with abattoir workers “all!” claimed kosher horrified them.

. Said without a doubt the! Most cruel method, and that Halal was kinder but the bolt was the all round kindest.

Q So why don’t Muslims just use a bolt gun you may ask?

A Because it damages the scull of the Animal prior to slaughter there for not being an offering of a perfect sacrifice or offering to Allah [In Brief]

Q-What is pre stunning
A It is a electric shock that renders the Animal unconscious before slaughter.

Q So why do some Muslims like pre stunning?

A Because it damages the scull and is more work intensive.

It is also a Western Culture requirement which some older school Muslims don’t like.

Let’s face it many older people do not like change. That’s normal.

I have invited the X President of AFIC to join us in this thread

and will invite the current President along with the head Halal CEO also.

Correction- I do apolizise

Q So why do some Muslims `not` like pre stunning?

A Because it damages the scull and is more work intensive.

See=http://vein.library.usyd.edu.au/links/Essays/2005/nandha.html
Animal Welfare Science Essays 2005

Copied from Science Essays
These essays represent students' work and the views expressed in them are not necessarily those of the Faculty of Veterinary Science or the University of Sydney.

Leading sheep to slaughter: religious versus non-religious slaughter methods
By Karishma Nandha
Introduction
In most countries conventional slaughter of sheep requires either electric or captive bolt stunning prior to slaughter. However, there is an exception to this rule when considering slaughter of sheep in Jewish and Muslim religions, as pre-slaughter stunning is not performed (RSPCA, 2005; Stevenson, 1999).

This has created an ongoing animal welfare debate over the various slaughter methods used. The following paper aims to review recent studies in slaughter methods which promote welfare of sheep.

Discussion
According to the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC), pre-slaughter stunning benefits an animal as it reduces stress endured from pre-slaughter handling and the induction of unconsciousness at the time of slaughter (Anil et al., 2004).

Jewish (Shechita) and Muslim (Halal) methods of slaughter require maximum bleed out after the slaughter of sheep for the meat to be religiously acceptable.

Both methods sever the trachea, oesophagus, carotid arteries and jugular veins with a single incision. One main argument against pre-slaughter stunning according to Jewish and Muslim factions is that the stunning process can hinder blood loss, as stunning supposedly changes the muscular, neurological and cardiovascular status of the animal (Anil et al., 2004).

Yet, recently in some Muslim abattoirs, stunning prior slaughter has become acceptable, though according to Muslim faith the animal is not to be killed before exsanguination (Grandin and Regenstein, 1994).

http://www.worldhalalforum.org/

Its all a little mellodramatic, don't you think. All living things have the right to live in peace, but when it comes to exporting, and lets not forget we need to eat, but the slaughter must be stopped at home.
We have the gift of speech, but what if all living things think? I just wonder what they would say.
Let me give you this insight. The human race is at the top of the food chain, and look what we have done to our own kind. We have shot and raped, enslaved, tortured, cut up and disemboweled because of one simple fact! We are just animals ourselves.
There are so many lines we can or cant cross, I just wonder why we have separated ourselves from the big picture. I generally don't think much of human beings, and we are all filled with our own self righteousness or ego, or junkmailness, thats a new word I have invented, hahaha, but the minority are always an easy target.
I guess thats human. Iam not your friend, mate, or anything else for that matter. Talking with a open mind is my crime. What is yours.
But back to the point! I say NO to exports.

At the early period when Kosher killing was introduced, it would have been the most humane way of killing an animal. I know little about Halal slaughter other than what has been explained here. But I do agree this type of killing an animal is inhumane.

As for sheep, I have been told that they often die of a heart-attack before the actual killing method is used. The stress all animals undergo before death must be quite appalling.

I found this site would explains that the most humane killing of stock is by a bullet and in a precise position. Unless stunning is also precisely administered it is not effective. How much real care is taken when stunning is done? The term "stunning" does not inspire confidence that the animal feels nothing.
http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/96796/humane-destruction-of-stock.pdf.

A stand must be taken against inhumane treatment of animals, not just the way they are killed, but also the environment in which they are raised. This is one and the same problem.

Hopefully Halal killing is banned. I am sure devout Muslims, as do other religious groups, would willingly forgo meat as a demonstration of their faith.

*But back to the point! I say NO to exports.*

Evolution, you are free to say that. You are also free to buy
every sheep and slaughter them right here. They are sold
at market price.

What you are not free to do, is deny other people making
a living, without good reason. Given that there is no
slaughter capacity for these animals in Australia, shooting
them and burying them in pits is the other option. Will
you pay producers the difference of their loss? We are
constantly told that farming should be a business like any
other, yet when farmers adopt sound business practises,
you want to deny them that right.

I know of cases of hobby farmers trying to shoot cows with a
.22, she'd jump 4 fences, its one nightmare. In Australia
people regurarly cut sheeps throats for their own meat supply.
I know of hobby farmers starving stock, letting them run out
of water, feed, etc. Nobody hardly says boo. But a whole
movement is absolutaly obsessed with the live trade, who buy
their stock in the open market and in fact help avoid alot of
suffering, in times of drought etc. All that is forgotten in
this debate.

Animal abuse cruelty should be fully investigated and no reason, including religion, should be allowed to cause animals unnecessary suffering.
This is a good discussion to have especially now the govt is investigating the issue.

Unless research proves that the halal slaughtering method is less cruel than the Australian method, the Australian law should be obeyed.
I am not at all convinced by the links that show that suffering doesn't last longer than half a minute or so.
Animals don't suffer this long with the pre-stunning method.

Do Muslims know about the research that was done some time ago about the volume of blood loss in stunned vs non stunned animals- there was no difference.

And this was counted from the time the throats were cut. We all know that even the cutting of a throat isn't always as smooth and quick -one quick cut- as they make it out to be. A lot of sawing is going on.

If there is no difference in blood loss between the two groups of animals, then what objection could there be about stunning animals?

Here's the link to the abstract of this article titled:
Comparison of Halal slaughter with captive bolt stunning and neck cutting in cattle: exsanguination and quality parameters
http://tinyurl.com/37k56q

If we have to have an "immigrants' test" why not include a question about the legal slaughtering method in Australia.
Q "Is halal slaughter without pre-stunning allowed?"
A "NO"