Not another one

This isn’t about the ‘generalection’, but I’m stealing the phrase in this title from Brenda from Bristol as a nod to people who are truly fed up with seeing articles about antisemitism.

Scroll past, those people.

This is only very tangentially connected to the BBC. In fact, some people may not see any connection at all to our national broadcaster. Of course, some of us may feel that attitudes to practically everything under the sun are affected by the Beeb.

This concerns Stephen Daisley’s piece - I spotted it in our sidebar, so it was more or less a case of ‘in yer face’. What I’m saying is -I didn’t trawl through the www for an excuse to wang on and on about my specialist subject. 

Banning Halal and Kosher slaughter would be un-British   (It’s already been displaced I see. So much for my excuse) 

When I first read it I found some outstanding paragraphs. The problem was that Daisley did the very thing that (I think) is completely misconceived. He lumped Jews and Muslims together. And he did so without even acknowledging the fact that on the whole, your average Muslim in the Clapham omni-mosque dislikes Jews. There are some notable exceptions to that rule, whom I salute.

If you can’t be bothered to read it, I’ll select a couple of the ‘best bits’

“There is a balance to strike between animal rights and the religious freedom of human beings but where the two are irreconcilable, the latter should generally be accorded more weight than the former. That does not excuse wanton or negligent cruelty but it acknowledges that people are a higher priority than animals. 

Mother nature says we’re carnivores; ‘tooth and claw’ and that. So if vegetarians and vegans refrain from eating flesh, that’s fine, good on them.  But it seems anthropomorphic rather than fundamentally righteous to me.

“Dogmatic secularists are far from the only ones lining up to give Jews and Muslims a kicking. The Labour Party, once home to lively philosemitic and Zionist tendencies, now threatens British Jews with a horrific prospect: an antisemitic political party on the brink of government.

Yes indeed. That is a genuine fear, which I share. And I’m secular through and through. 

“Right-wingers, meanwhile, take a peevish satisfaction in making Muslims feel unwelcome while demanding they fit in. This is the Muslim assimilation paradox: self-segregate and you threaten social cohesion, become too involved in public life and you are taking over.

Stephen, if you read the comments below your article you’ll see that right-wing antisemitism is alive and kicking. I was truly appalled by it - and I’m the one who usually says it’s really the absurd left-wing / Islam coalition that we need to worry our pretty little heads about. Now I’m not so sure.

“Ending the religious exemption to stunning would send devout Muslims and Jews a message that they do no belong here and that their way of life is inconsistent with British values. It would make it substantively more difficult to be a Muslim or Jew in the UK, all without appeasing those bent on eradicating public accommodations of religion. Ban non-stun slaughter and its opponents will return soon for a ban on importing its products. The slippery slope is not always a logical fallacy. It is a plain description of how authoritarians operate.

Ok, we know that there are a number of ultra-religious Jews in Britain who would feel unable to exist without their kosher supplies. I have no idea how many of them there are. But I imagine there are far more British Jews whose dietary habits are flexible. Wasn’t Ed Miliband neutralised by his fondness for a bacon sandwich? It seems extra cruel to shoo the ultra-orthodox off to Israel at the same time as encouraging the non-existence of that country.

Anyway, it’s the lumping together that always disturbs me. It seems completely disingenuous. The white supremacists over on the Spectator are truly out and proud. Rampant actually. They’re “weaponising” (silly term but you know what I mean) cruelty to animals as if the fine line was between ‘stunning’ and ‘not stunning’, rather than 'killing' and 'not killing'. I mean once you’ve decided to be a carnivore, you have to kill an animal. Unless you wait till it expires through natural causes - not especially appetising probably. Confining oneself to roadkill might get around that I suppose. I understand there are people who do that. Squashed badger for tea again darling?

If the issue boils down to ‘humane’ slaughter versus ‘inhumane’, then we must examine our ordinary slaughterhouses and our Halal and Shechita methods of dispatch. I freely admit that I am an ignoramus on this issue. I saw an undercover documentary about a Halal slaughterhouse, which might not be truly representative, but it did indicate that sloppy and extremely inhumane practices are real and commonplace. The same applies to your common or garden non-religious slaughterhouses. Animals sometimes fail to get stunned and so on. Animal ‘husbandry’ in general is not always up to scratch. 

What about the Jewish method? I have only read defensive articles about it. They claim it is quick, scrupulously ‘respectful’ and as humane as any other killing. I’d like to believe it, but I’m not prepared to stick up for something I know little about. Unlike the commenters below Stephen Daisley’s piece.

Nowadays you have to limit your speech. If you say the wrong thing, avalanches of bile spew forth. I only wish I hadn’t felt the need to write this piece, and I kind of wish Stephen Daisley hadn’t, either. That’s how bad it is.