Readers of these pages know that contributors have been writing often and powerfully on the scandal that is halal slaughter in our country. The authorities are closing their eyes to it because of ‘religious freedom’. Those who are not familiar with this barbaric method accept that spurious reasoning. But then we read this article published yesterday:

UK Vets Demand Halal Meat Exports Be Banned as Saudi Arabia Trade Surges

It is beyond belief that halal slaughter here in the UK, of our animals, is used not to feed our muslim population – but to export this meat to Saudi Arabia! As if that country couldn’t source their meat from somewhere else! I am incandescent, and am not alone in my anger. Read the following letters, the first from our contributor Hugo Jenks:

Sir,

What is it that around three quarters of the general public want, and also the vast majority of UKIP grass-roots members want?  

Over a year ago I spoke at three different branch meetings, to put the case for the party to adopt a humane animal welfare policy, calling for the abolition of non-stun and inadequate “stun to stun” religious slaughter of farm animals.  By show of hands all attendees, bar one (who said he did not care) indicated that they wanted such a humane policy.

It is shamefully the case that despite the hard work of a number of good people within UKIP, that such a policy has still not been adopted.

Now we read in the news that Halal slaughtered meat is to be exported to Saudi Arabia. How can it be that the UK, a nation which prides itself on its principles of decency and humaneness, which many years ago put an end to the cruelty of slavery, should have sunk so low as to pander to the demands of a nation with an abysmal human rights record, and if it was conceivable, an animal rights record which is even lower?

If UKIP is to stand for the important principle of “one law for all” – and without which democracy itself is failing, then it must urgently change its policy. There can be no concessions or exceptions.  The law as it stands makes exceptions for religious inspired animal cruelty, using the wishy washy term “intended for”. A law should be imperative. What does this wording even mean in practice? As it currently exists there seems to be nothing illegal in sending cruelly slaughtered meat to morally backward countries.  Will UKIP make a principled stand or not?

Respectfully, Hugo Jenks

Ceri Jayes, Totnes Branch, also sent us her letter, immediately:

Sir,

This news is appalling. I am outraged and disgusted.

We have the opportunity to call for ‘One Law For All’, as number one on our list of UKIP policies on the discussion paper that has been sent out by the Party Chairman. The tragedy is that we won’t hear of these policies until they are announced at the Conference at the end of September. That will mean that the Party has been drifting aimlessly for 2 years and 3 months (since the Referendum).

I am one of the regular volunteers who helps out at Lexdrum House in phoning lapsed members to encourage them to rejoin the party. Many lapsed members indicate that they think that UKIP’s job is done or say that they haven’t seen UKIP in the press so think that it has gone home, demob happy. Having punchy policies would help enormously in giving us something to shout from the rooftops.

One law for all would, in fact, mean the end of the religious exemption given to ritual slaughter houses from the animal welfare laws that apply to all of the others in the UK.

We continue to share the Petition 218343 which calls for animal welfare to take priority over faith tradition. It reached 12,000 signatories swiftly but it has lost traction in the last fortnight.

Keep sharing it please! [Ed: and sign it if you haven’t done so yet!]

Also, could people write to Neil Parish, Chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, HoC, London SW1 0AA, calling for stun to kill to be mandatory in every slaughter house.

And of course it would be wonderful to hear the views of UKIP Animal Welfare spokesperson, Jane Collins MEP. I won’t hold my breath as I am still waiting for replies to my 2 emails to her about her views on ritual slaughter when she was a leadership contender last Autumn.

She has not replied to my request that she sign the petition either. There really seems to be less to most MEPs than meets the eye.

Respectfully, Ceri Jayes

And finally, because Brexit is – or ought to be – still our top issue, here’s a reminder, a letter from our correspondent Roger Arthur:

Sir,

As Andrew Wauchope says in his letter in the DT of 12th June, it was made clear before the EU referendum that a vote to leave the EU would mean leaving the customs union.

What was not made clear was the risk arising from Mr Cameron’s failure to obtain a binding agreement from the EU on treaty change. Without that the UK would be far from certain of avoiding ever closer union and the continued emasculation of Parliament.

So if anything was missing from the ballot paper, it was the advice that, “if you vote to remain then you should accept the risk of remaining in the EU – as it progresses towards ever closer Fiscal, Political and Military union.”

That omission was as serious as the deception in 1975 referendum that people were voting to remain in a common market.

Why do some MPs chose to ignore the fact that the British people have never voted for the powers of Parliament (including its vetoes) to be removed? Let them once and for all expose the deception!

The EU has made clear in so many different ways that the era of the nation state is over, for countries which remain in the EU. Those MPs who remain silent on that issue are complicit in the deception and should hang their heads in shame.

Respectfully, Roger Arthur

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email