I’m unhappy again

November 28th, 2010 at 11:08 am by David Farrar

This seems to be my week for being very unhappy with the Government. This story actually offends me even more than the electoral finance changes. the electoral finance changes were at least made for the right reasons – to get bipartisan agreement on electoral law.

But this story in the HoS by makes my blood boil, if it accurately reflects the situation.

Readers may recall that earlier this year the Government banned certain methods of killing animals, which included shechita - the traditional Jewish method, which is necessary to have food as “kosher”.

I’d not commented on the issue previously as I felt a bit conflicted. I don’t believe in religious beliefs trumping laws, but I do think it is desirable to try and allow communities to practice traditional beliefs – within limits.

If it was purely an issue of . I was content to leave it to the  Government to find that balance between and traditional practice. I’m not an expert on either.

But the article reveals:

A farming company part-owned by a Cabinet minister was able to give him a briefing about how the Government could protect its lucrative trade with Muslim countries by banning Jewish slaughtering.

This is where my blood boils. That it appears it was not animal welfare, but appeasing foreign Governments, that was part of the motivation for the law change. Now the Minister can’t control what people who lobby him say in their submissions to him, but what is disappointing is that he then referred to those concerns in documents to other Ministers.

Carter was being sued by the Auckland Hebrew Congregation for changing the law in May to make traditional Jewish slaughter of animals illegal. The case was set to begin in the High Court at Wellington tomorrow – until an embarrassing backdown by Carter who on Friday overturned the ban he asked Cabinet to support.

The practice of shechita on poultry was declared no longer illegal while the Government also agreed to negotiate the ban on sheep. New Zealand Jews will still have to import beef from Australia, where shechita is allowed.

Good to see a compromise. But my concern is not whether there is a ban or not, but about what was driving the ban.

Carter did not respond to requests for an interview.

In a statement he said: “Claims that business interests determined my decision on the Commercial Slaughter Code of Welfare are totally baseless. Animal welfare was the primary consideration in making this decision and I have said many times that animal welfare is a priority of mine.”

There is considerable wriggle room between trade interests “determining my decision” and “animal welfare was the primary consideration”. That does not rule out that trade interests were a strong secondary factor which influenced the decision, even if not determining it.

Tags: , ,

54 Responses to “I’m unhappy again”

  1. Manolo (13,396 comments) says:

    Very poor handing by Carter. He should know better, since the smell of impropriety and conflict of interest is all over him.
    Religion poisons everything. :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. kowtow (7,653 comments) says:

    ………appeasing foreign govts…….ha

    We appeased the Soviets with anti nuclear legislation and the Chinese with the FTA…..

    We appease everyone except our former allies, either in the name of the almighty dollar or almighty Allah.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Pita (368 comments) says:

    Kowtow: You forgot Gaia with the ETS

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Spam (593 comments) says:

    If he did not declare this as a conflict of interest, then he should resign.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. bchapman (649 comments) says:

    I’m surprised he wasn’t given more flak for the handling of the PSA discovery in kiwifruit. MAF are still refusing to ban pollen imports even though they haven’t discovered how it got in, or even when.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Anthony (768 comments) says:

    Why is this Jewish group so anal about not wanting animals stunned before they have their throats split? Get into the 21st century!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. David Farrar (1,856 comments) says:

    I don’t think the issue is he had shares in an agricultural company, and there is no way at all he would have been motivated by how it personally affects him (he is very rich). The issue for me is having the trade issues involved at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. TCrwdb (246 comments) says:

    Surprised much?? This is happening all around us, fascist islam in alliance with the left are destroying our freedoms, economy and way of life. They both have one aim and that is a single world government. However the left have no clue that their bedmates in this cause are simply using the left as a vehicle to achieve their aims and will destroy them in the process.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. ben (2,399 comments) says:

    Oh for god’s sake. The Cabinet is now writing rules on the precise means by which animals can be slaughtered? And have come up with different rules for poultry vs beef?

    Jesus H Christ. Does nobody think perhaps government is overreaching when it is involving itself in such minutia? Forget the value of compromise David, or animal welfare – what’s ridiculous, costly, embarrassing, and all the rest, is a Cabinet with the hubris to think it can write rules on this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. eszett (2,337 comments) says:

    From the article:

    New Zealand requires halal meat be stunned before slaughter while kosher meat – which is killed only for a small domestic market – does not have the same restriction.

    So there are restrictions on halal meat, but not on kosher. Seems only fair enough to enforce the restrictions on both or neither.
    My vote is for both. Why should animals suffer for some silly superstitions.

    So restrictions would be good for animal welfare and trade? What exactly is the problem then?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Nicola Wood (57 comments) says:

    A very dangerous line is crossed when we make laws saying that horribly cruel things like slitting animals’ throats is okay, so long as you’re from a certain religion.

    Completely inappropriate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Matt (223 comments) says:

    If they can’t get their special meat then maybe Mossad’s spies will be dissuaded from coming to NZ? More seriously, I completely agree with eszett – animal welfare shouldn’t be compromised for superstition.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. ciaron (1,318 comments) says:

    If you don’t like it, don’t eat it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. radar (319 comments) says:

    That a large and otherwise perfectly intelligent group of people would rely on instructions given several thousand years ago by an invisible supernatural being as to how they should prepare their food is staggering, but there you go.

    Traditional Jewish and Muslim methods of slaughtering animals is barbarity in the extreme and the law should never, under any circumstances, make allowances for religious belief when it comes to animal welfare.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. TimG_Oz (917 comments) says:

    If anybody seriously thinks that Shechita is cruel – then make sure you have your facts correct.

    The process come about from laws that forbid animal cruelty – that actually pre-date Judasim.

    Under Shechita, blood pressure drops instantly to the animal’s brain, causing instant loss of conciousness.

    Now, can anybody tell me how often stunning actually fails? Especially with the current deregulated meat market in NZ, and poorly trained technicians? I’ll tell you – quite a lot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. feigeleh (2 comments) says:

    Let’s get some perspective on this. Shechita prescribes how an animal is slaughtered. The so-called “stunning” of animals in New Zealand kills the animal outright more often than not. You cannot slaughter a dead animal!

    Shechita requires that a highly trained person using an extremely sharp knife without knicks or blemishes, severs, with one swift movement, the Carotid and Jugular as well as the windpipe. Shechita also declares that if there is any evidence that the animal suffered then the meat is Traif (non-Kosher).

    This was never about animal welfare. If it were then Carter would never have allowed an exception for hunting (I suggest those with a strong stomache search “Pig Hunting in New Zealand” on YouTube and watch this “sport”. Then tell me that Shechita is cruel and this barbarity is OK!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. radar (319 comments) says:

    “If anybody seriously thinks that Shechita is cruel – then make sure you have your facts correct.
    The process come about from laws that forbid animal cruelty – that actually pre-date Judasim.
    Under Shechita, blood pressure drops instantly to the animal’s brain, causing instant loss of conciousness.”

    Next time al Qaeda cuts someone’s head off I will wait with patience for people to label it a humane execution.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Chris Diack (723 comments) says:

    There is no evidence that Shechita done properly is any more cruel that any other slaughter method. In fact done properly (as it was in New Zealand) there is some evidence that it results in less pain.

    There is ZERO animal welfare issue with New Zealand Shechita.

    What is truly alarming about this issue is that first the Minister considered trade matters (an irrelevant statutory consideration therefore tainting his decision from the start) and then goes on to say that it was “primarily” an animal welfare issue.

    Actually it isn’t “primarily an animal welfare issue”. The law requires the Minister to weight his NZBORA responsibilities with his responsibilities under the Animal Welfare Act 1999. There is no evidence he seriously did this.

    And regarding shechita as a ritual of Judaism, this issue is about maintaining an Orthodox core to the Jewish cultural presence in New Zealand. Without that Observant core there is no Jewish cultural presence in New Zealand.

    And it’s not as if he was not repeatedly told this. As was the PM.

    The fact that the Crown is trying to settle in private tells me that the Government’s own Lawyers were advising that the Minister was a “gone Kosher burger” in the Courts.

    Perhaps David Carter should chip in to the Crowns totally avoidable legal costs – he created them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. backster (2,082 comments) says:

    It is deceptive and misleading to state that a farmer is a part owner of a large company without pointing out that he is merely a member of a co-operative. The rest of the article is also thus likely to be of a deceptive and malicious nature,perhaps a mouthpiece for Hodgson or Mallard.

    The minister could well have been motivated by concern for animal welfare and it seems to me justifiably so.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Chris Diack (723 comments) says:

    Bankster

    But…… this was a Minister making a decision against official advice twice provided by the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee. What on earth was he doing being lobbied on this decision – again he should know better.

    As I said the Minister’s concern was not only animal welfare but the NZBORA – he did not do his job properly and this resulted in legal costs by the Crown (not to mention the New Zealand Jewish Community) who had to resort to the Courts to get some common sense from the Crown.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. PaulL (5,875 comments) says:

    The main question is whether it is actually cruel. It isn’t clear to me what is cruel about slitting an animal’s throat. I thought that was the standard way of dispatching a sick farm animal. The people who are complaining are the same people who think any killing of animals at all is cruel – I’m not sure we should give their opinions much weight.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. AlphaKiwi (686 comments) says:

    Maybe we should just stop slaughtering animals. http://www.earthlings.com

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. gravedodger (1,517 comments) says:

    Having dispatched quite a number of animals with a slash to sever the neck muscles and a contemporaneous snapping of the c1 or c2 vertebrae, I wonder at the true facts of modern humane killing.
    There is no pain with a deep cut until the nerve ends are irritated as anyone suffering such a cut knows, the pain comes later and if complete dislocation of upper cervical vertebrae brings instant traumatic brain damage then I am of the opinion that properly accomplished, throat cutting and snapping of the neck bone structure is about as humane as any dispatch.
    There is far more “trauma” for animals between pasture and slaughter with starving, denial of water, stressful crowding and other “hygiene” and logistical requirements. Fishing is far more “inhumane” than slaughtering animals for protein.
    Most meat lovers with a close connection to the preparation and dispatch of a slaughtered animal know that the stress from pasture to slaughter is cumulative and the best eating meat has the least time and activity of that process, hence the development of so called “barbaric practice” of traditional slaughter with complete blood loss as the beating, albeit, doomed heart expels the blood.
    Sadly people get hung up on the fact that an animal has to die to access the protein so many of us desire.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. eszett (2,337 comments) says:

    PaulL (3,666) Says:
    November 28th, 2010 at 3:14 pm

    The main question is whether it is actually cruel. It isn’t clear to me what is cruel about slitting an animal’s throat.

    The question is not about whether or not to slit an animal’s throat. The question is whether it should be stunned unconscious before the slitting.

    The argument that through the slitting of the main arteries the “blood pressure drops instantly to the animal’s brain, causing instant loss of conciousness” is quite disputed. It is quite probable that the animals do feel pain and suffering for a considerable time.

    In any case it does not seem an unreasonable to stun the animals before slaughtering.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. toad (3,670 comments) says:

    As someone who regulars here will know has been a consistent advocate of animal right, I smell a nasty stink here.

    Carter was supposedly concerned enough about the suffering of chickens in the last minute or so of their lives to ban shechita killing, but is still quite happy to continue to allow them to spend all their lives to that stage suffering while being jammed up together in battery cages, unable to walk, and pecking the feathers off each other.

    I call bullshit.

    Of course it was the trade implications that motivated his decision, and the fact that he was briefed on it by his own company and then used that briefing in making his decision makes it look even worse.

    Time for Carter to take the Wong road and resign, methinks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. PaulL (5,875 comments) says:

    It is unreasonable if you’re trying to home kill. Not many farmers have a stunning device.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Viking2 (11,147 comments) says:

    Silver Fern Farms bowing to trade pressure in an attempt to remain financially viable. Sooner there gone the better. Broken arsed for at least the last 15 years.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Viking2 (11,147 comments) says:

    Where has the edit button gone?

    Think about this. The Muslims luv to slaughter their own sheep. But to do that we have to export them live. Now who loses? Meat works, meatworkers, Who wins? um farmers, dealers, shipping co’s, customers.

    So apart from Silver Fern Farms who else would be making a noise. Well the Aussie Unions have been campaigning against the export of live sheep forever and I doubt our unions are far behind.

    More to this than meets the eye. Another Aussie intrusion in the NZ scene perhaps.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. MikeG (399 comments) says:

    “I don’t think the issue is he had shares in an agricultural company, and there is no way at all he would have been motivated by how it personally affects him (he is very rich).”

    I call B/S on that statement – I would say that most wealthy people are very interested in our their investments are performing, after all that is often how they became wealthy. By DPF’s logic, conflict of interest does not occur if you are very rich.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. big bruv (13,331 comments) says:

    I am unhappy that we make any allowances when it comes to ‘acceptable” animal cruelty just to satisfy stupid and ignorant religious beliefs.

    Make it NZ law that the animals MUST be stunned before being slaughtered, after that they can accommodate any stupid fucking religious bullshit they like.

    Reason 190436 to hate religion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Repton (769 comments) says:

    Are we really in danger of losing our ability to sell to Muslim countries because (in effect) we allow Jews to live here?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Manolo (13,396 comments) says:

    Unfortunately, as a country New Zealand is past the point when any politiciam found wanting had the courage and decency to resign his/her position. The current crop of Labour-lite ministers, as their socialist predecessors, feel entitled to their sinecures and will never relinquish them unless pushed.

    Sign of the times and an utter disgrace.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. davidp (3,540 comments) says:

    Repton>Are we really in danger of losing our ability to sell to Muslim countries because (in effect) we allow Jews to live here?

    My reading of the issue is that Muslims would prefer that their animals weren’t stunned before ritual slaughter, but they suck it up. However, if Jews are allowed to ritually slaughter animals without stunning them first then Muslims will ask why Jews are allowed an exemption that isn’t available to Muslims. The only mention of Jews living in NZ is from a Jewish spokesman who has said it will be impossible for Jews to live in NZ if they’re not allowed to kill animals the way they did three thousand years ago.

    Personally I wonder why Carter took a briefing from a company in which he owned shares. It should be obvious to anyone with an IQ higher than 80 that even if there isn’t an actual conflict of interest, there will be a perceived conflict of interest and the government will look bad. That isn’t hard to understand, so why do National keep getting caught by these sorts of things? John Key needs to make it quite clear that any MP who appears to favour their own interests over the interests of the government is a liability and will be sacked straight away. No investigation is necessary, because their crime is being stupid and all the evidence is in the public realm. Maybe if he clears out half the cabinet, the others will finally get the message.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. toad (3,670 comments) says:

    FFS, nothing like a post about Jews, Muslims, animal welfare, and Ministerial corruption to get all the punters stirred up.

    Much as I agree with big bruv about the irrationality of religion (alhtough not much else) I think we ned to acknowledge that peoples’ religious beliefs are genuine and heartfelt. They are not just a ploy to undermine capitalism – or, alternatively, Gaia.

    The people who have those beliefs genuinely believe them, and I think we should be tolerant of that.

    I (as a meat eater) struggle to deal with the issue of animal slaughter itself. I suspect from some of your comments on animal welfare issues you do to, although you confirm that you too eat meat.

    Life is complicated, bruv. It is not just the black and white you would like it to be.

    That said, I think David Carter has manipulated the issue of religious belief here to push a personal conflict of interest that he has in securing meat sales to Muslim nations.

    IMO, that warrants his resignation as a Minister.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. big bruv (13,331 comments) says:

    “I think we ned to acknowledge that peoples’ religious beliefs are genuine and heartfelt. ”

    Why must we?

    Stupid middle eastern superstition should not mean that animals have to suffer all in the name of some non existent god.

    Those of a religious persuasion can pray to who ever they like, they can wear what ever they like, they can choose to live their life how they see fit but is does not and should not mean that they have the right to break the laws of the land or inflict needless suffering on these animals just because they are stupid enough to waste their lives believing in a “higher being”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. davidp (3,540 comments) says:

    Toad>That said, I think David Carter has manipulated the issue of religious belief here to push a personal conflict of interest that he has in securing meat sales to Muslim nations.

    Green MPs have famously used their parliamentary positions to promote things like wind energy and organic farming while owning shares in wind turbine companies and organic farms. Are you saying that it is okay for ordinary MPs to use their position to enrich themselves and it is only a resignation matter once they’re a minister? Bacause ministers obviously have more ability to make decisions, but all MPs get to vote on legislation, sit on select committees, and have ready access to the news media.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. eszett (2,337 comments) says:

    I think we need to acknowledge that peoples’ religious beliefs are genuine and heartfelt.

    Absolutely, I do not think for one second that they are not genuine.
    People believe a lot of things and those beliefs are genuine and heartfelt. Doesn’t make them true, though.

    But you have to ask whether they are sensible, rational and do they stand up to scientific scrutiny and do they infringe on any other rights or ethical issues.

    In this case they are neither sensible nor rational nor do they stand the test of scientific scrutiny and they clearly are in conflict with ethical treatment of animals.

    And yes, I do eat meat, I love my steaks and would not want to miss it. But I do care about how that steak got on my plate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Dazzaman (1,123 comments) says:

    Having dispatched quite a number of animals with a slash to sever the neck muscles and a contemporaneous snapping of the c1 or c2 vertebrae, I wonder at the true facts of modern humane killing.
    There is no pain with a deep cut until the nerve ends are irritated as anyone suffering such a cut knows, the pain comes later and if complete dislocation of upper cervical vertebrae brings instant traumatic brain damage then I am of the opinion that properly accomplished, throat cutting and snapping of the neck bone structure is about as humane as any dispatch.

    Dead right gravedodger! It’s pretty quick if you’ve snapped the neck around your leg while slitting the throat in one quick action, tastes better too…especially if you don’t wash the carcase down! The shechita method sounds like how we used to do it on the farm & freezing works.

    Slitting the throat vertically (a’la Halal killing) is just down right cruel & elongated, that’s why they need to stun the animals to do it quietly.

    Correct me, but I’ve killed enough sheep to know this shechita method is certainly not cruel….can’t eat them animals without actually KILLING them!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. toad (3,670 comments) says:

    @davidp 8:31 pm

    Green MPs have famously used their parliamentary positions to promote things like wind energy and organic farming while owning shares in wind turbine companies and organic farms.

    And when they have done so with a pecuniary interest, they have publicly declared that pecuniary interest. What is more, they have not been Ministers, so can only advocate a position, rather than determine it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Crampton (214 comments) says:

    There will be spillover costs all over the place. At Canterbury, we regularly host visiting scholars from the States. The change in policy on Kosher slaughter imposed massive costs on one of our incoming visitors this Spring; I don’t think we could easily attract again folks who keep Kosher.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Matt (223 comments) says:

    “I think we need to acknowledge that peoples’ religious beliefs are genuine and heartfelt.”

    And there are some people who genuinely believe in polygamy, the use of parts of rare animals in medicines and that raping small children will cure AIDS. We allow none of those things in NZ, so why animal cruelty?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. simpleton (155 comments) says:

    One does have to wonder what else happens in the EU when Brussels in Belgium is considered to be the capital of the European Union.

    http://www.fve.org/news/press_releases/2009_03_11_slaughter_without_prior_stunning
    Federation of Veterinarians
    The FVE is indeed very concerned by the fact that in certain EU countries a high proportion of animals are killed without stunning – e.g. in 2006, this concerned 92% of sheep and 21% of calves slaughtered in Belgium – while the proportion of consumers of this type of meat is very small (around 3.5% of the whole population). Meat from these animals is sold on the domestic and export market, even to consumers who are unaware of the slaughter conditions.

    1. Data:
    Belgium, 2006, 21% of calves, 10% of adult cattle and 92% of sheep were slaughtered without prior stunning. Muslim population around 3.5 %. The degree of self-sufficiency for calves is about 140% and for sheep 12%.

    In France, figures differ according to the source.
    According to the COPERCI report, 20% of bovines, 80% of sheep, and 20% of poultry are slaughtered without prior stunning.
    According to OABA, Oeuvre d’Assistance aux Bêtes d’Abattoire, 40% of calves, 25% of cattle and
    55% of sheep and lambs are slaughtered without prior stunning.
    According to the French Ministry of Agriculture (DGAL) (2008) 13% of calves, 12% of cattle and 49% of sheep/goats are slaughtered without prior stunning. The Muslim population in France is around 7%. Self sufficiency in France for bovines is about 110%, ovines 50%.

    Obviously more livestock are being killed halhal in Europe than even the Muslim population would eat ! !
    Many institutions, such as schools, prisons support halal meat killed in this fashion as if enough numbers are done then the costs would be competetive.

    http://www.zimbio.com/Islam/articles/PddofptCcld/Halal+meat+being+served+schools+hospitals
    Cost cutting: The European Parliament has attempted to force the food industry to to label halal meat as coming from ‘unstunned’ animals but the legislation faces an uphill struggle

    It is impossible to find out how many animals are killed in halal abattoirs. The last Labour administration ordered the Meat Hygiene Service to stop keeping records.

    It was ostensibly a cost-cutting measure, but animal welfare groups fear it was to help disguise the rapid growth of the halal meat industry.

    Here in New Zealand

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/department-of-corrections/news/article.cfm?o_id=312&objectid=10602130
    All 8500 prisoners in the New Zealand prison system eat halal-certified meat, despite only 82 prisoners identifying themselves as Muslim.

    At least sheep and cattle in New Zealand they are required to be stunned before Islamic Sharia law requirements are proceeded with.
    I wonder what other places are dishing up halal? hospitals?

    http://www.abigmessage.com/growing-issues-over-halal-slaughter.html
    The Halal Monitoring Committee in the UK posts inspectors in halal abbatoirs to ensure that the animals are not stunned before they are killed. … some halal producers, aware of the controversy over halal slaughter, do stun the animals first. … creates tensions within the Muslim community as to what is and what is not halal meat.

    ……….. Organizations like the Halal Monitoring Committee are frightening decent Muslims for their own ends. They are making money from this…… ”.

    It seems that every couple of years that there is an issue that some NZ meat companies are not in compliance with halal, sometimes Malayasia or Indonesia, a bit like a shake down for one of the various Islamic schools of jurisprudence.

    Also some interesting and different studies of killing and interpretations of them with ecg and comparisons with stunning, electrification or captive bolt. It seems to me it is a job of skill, maintaining good equipment, and the set up, (stressfree positioning of animal and allows for safety) that allows good fast technique, is really the main issue, that allows what should be a pain free, quick, unaware, loss of consciousness to death.

    Not my favourite job, but I know for home kill it is a manner of being thoroughly ready, smooth and quiet, so the stock are unaware, and from “position” they are totally unconcious in the moment of that second in one quick movement as it goes beyond no return and the neck snaps on the sheep near simultanously also.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Manolo (13,396 comments) says:

    Caught with his hands in the till Carter had to reverse his decision: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10690598

    Why some ministers of the Crown are so thick to not be able to spot the obvious conflicts of interest? Is greed Carter’s overarching principle?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. bka (135 comments) says:

    “But my concern is not whether there is a ban or not, but about what was driving the ban.”

    What has been banned is the commercial slaughter of animals without prior stunning. Allowing shechita is an exception to a ban. What is driving that? Matters which are also not the direct concern of the Minister of Agriculture, not any more than trade is. The article quoted is a classic hatchet job, is anyone really suggesting Carter resigns due to a conflict of interest?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Chris Diack (723 comments) says:

    bka
    “What has been banned is the commercial slaughter of animals without prior stunning. Allowing shechita is an exception to a ban. What is driving that? Matters which are also not the direct concern of the Minister of Agriculture, not any more than trade is”

    Wrong. Trade was an irrelevant consideration under the Animal Welfare Act. Whereas the religious aspect of shectita WAS a relevant consideration under the NZ Bill of Rights.

    EPIC fail from David Carter – he should be chipping into the Crown’s entirely avoidable legal expenses.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Matt (223 comments) says:

    Chris: While it’s clear that Carter has been incredibly stupid in seeking advice from a company he owns part of, that doesn’t affect the fact that shechita is an unjustified exception to the rules. The Bill of Rights religious provision is intended to ensure freedom of religion, not to be a loophole to allow cruelty to animals.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Southern Raider (1,590 comments) says:

    Matt where is the supposed animal cruelty?

    You need to do some research on what shechita is, how it is done and by who.

    Judaic law probits animal cruelty in any way which is why we are forbidden to eat animals that have been hunted.

    The whole intention of shechita is to ensure the animal is killed humanly. There is a very limited amount of people who are trained and certified to carry this out, the knife has to be extremely sharp with no imperfections and the kill down in a single stroke and to a certain part of the neck.

    You rally against this yet a farmer can kill anyway he likes. Hunters can kill anyway they like. People can home kill anyway they like.

    Get with the programme and focus on some real issues.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Southern Raider (1,590 comments) says:

    And a sheep being marched through the stock yards and up a crowed ramp into a freezing works isn’t stressed?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Johnboy (15,007 comments) says:

    “Judaic law probits animal cruelty in any way which is why we are forbidden to eat animals that have been hunted.”

    Funny fellers you Jews.

    Whats cruel about 150 grains of lead at 3000fps taking out a deer.

    Its just like someone has kicked the legs out from under them SR.

    If I was a deer I would far prefer that to a Rabbi slitting my gizzard with a blunt knife even if he was reciting suitable passages from the Talmud at the time. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Southern Raider (1,590 comments) says:

    So you can guarantee a clean kill everytime?

    Also you obviously can’t read if you think a blunt knife is involved

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Johnboy (15,007 comments) says:

    Never shoot till I can place my shot SR. Learned that a long time ago. Rather let one go than live with the thought of causing an animal lingering pain and death.

    I was merely assuming that the knife may have got a tad blunted while taking the belly pork off the previous beast. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    There is nothing mystical about killing an animal by slitting its throat. As a kid, I used to assist my dad often as he did just that, with a highly sharpened blade and a well-practised technique. Did the animal suffer? Of course it did. I could see it in their eyes, in their dying moments, as I gripped their hind legs.

    Do the animals suffer when being led to the slaughter in the killing factories? Of course they do, but one suffering we can alleviate, the other we can’t.

    I find it difficult to believe that a National cabinet minister, in a government led by a (non-praticising) Jew, would actually seek to impose this ban for any reason other than animal welfare – I hope Carter sticks to his guns.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    This is where my blood boils. That it appears it was not animal welfare, but appeasing foreign Governments, that was part of the motivation for the law change. Now the Minister can’t control what people who lobby him say in their submissions to him, but what is disappointing is that he then referred to those concerns in documents to other Ministers

    If this is true then Carter needs to resign.
    How can we ever trust him to make the right decision for us ever again?
    Whether it is Islamic countries or not, the principle is he made a decision to favour them against New Zealand citizens and He broke our NZBora into the bargain as a minister of the crown.

    Now lets see (Mr 80%) John Key deal to him as swiftly as he did Pansy Wong.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Chris Diack (723 comments) says:

    Matt:

    “Chris: While it’s clear that Carter has been incredibly stupid in seeking advice from a company he owns part of, that doesn’t affect the fact that shechita is an unjustified exception to the rules. The Bill of Rights religious provision is intended to ensure freedom of religion, not to be a loophole to allow cruelty to animals.”

    You are totally wrong on the Bill of Rights issue. The issue has been judicially considered elsewhere: shechita is a ritual of jewish faith. That issue should have be weighed by the Minister when considering his responsibilities under the Animal Welfare Act. There is ZERO evidence he did this seriously. Instead it was trade which is an irrelivant consideration. Remember he went against official advice of the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee to make an exemption for shechita.

    Furthermore there is no evidence that shechita as practiced in New Zealand resulted in animal cruelty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.