I confess I have never been to Oxford, and have no personal interest in the city. However, I find myself writing about it for the fourth time in the past few months. It certainly seems to be hitting the news recently (see here and here and here).
The latest row has been caused by a headteacher making a decision about food served to the children in her school. Because of the increasing number of Muslim children attending Rose Hill Primary School, Ms Mortimer decided that the canteen should switch to serving all halal food, claiming, rather naïvely that halal meat is “not forbidden by any religion or culture”. It feels like a pragmatic decision made by an overworked headteacher.
The decision has caused a growing uproar, and I think there are at least five things wrong with it.
First, the decision was made without reference to the parents. They were neither consulted nor told. I do not doubt that the headteacher had the right to make such a decision, but given the sensitivity concerning religion in the city at the moment (see stories referred to above), it may have been wiser to at least give information, or better to canvass opinion. Often autocracy doesn’t work, and a consensual management style is the only way forward.
Secondly, if I were a Muslim, I may be pleased. However, I may equally be alarmed that given the present religious climate regarding Islam (at best, suspicious, at worst, hostile) I could see the move as just another stick for my opponents to beat me with. I may be tempted to make alternative dining arrangements for my children rather than risk the outcry that has happened.
Thirdly, if I were a Christian (regardless of the humane slaughter issue which I will come to below) I would probably have serious theological objections to it. As well as New Testament space devoted to the topic, there is a strong history of Christian martyrdom where people preferred to die rather than eat food offered to idols. From a Christian perspective, knowingly eating food that has been killed in a way that honours the Prophet Mohammad could be construed as participating in that ‘heretical’ faith. I certainly know some fundamentalists who would see it in that way and they would not wish to subject their children to such spiritual peril.
Fourthly, there is the animal cruelty argument. I know that for vegetarians and vegans it is a bit surreal to talk about making sure that the animals you are going to eat are well cared for, but the fact is that a large number of human carnivores do have concerns that their food should be treated well prior to death. Halal animals have been bled to death after the animals throat has been cut without stunning. Four years ago the Farm Animal Welfare Council called for this slaughter method to be banned because of the suffering it causes; Defra guidelines permit it, by licensed slaughtermen (who are supposed to stun the animal first), but many individuals have strong views against it and should have been asked about it.
Brain Sewell describes the process. If the animal is conscious and the loss of blood is slow a big animal, gurgling horribly, will drown in its own blood. The figures, reported by Sewell, for the halal slaughter of calves average 215 seconds between the cut and unconsciousness, the best figure 132 seconds (more than two minutes), the worst 297.
If I were an Oxford parent I would wish to know what guarantees were in place that the food my children were eating had been slaughtered as humanely as possible. This should, at the very least, have been discussed.
Fifthly, there is the creeping culture argument. If the decision was taken to appease an outcry from a religious minority, it was wrong. Multiculturalism must mean mutual respect, not the surrender of the customs of the majority to those of the incoming minority, especially when the animal slaughter method of the former is more humane than that of the latter.
Very informative and well written blog thinkingman.
I have learnt a lot here, especially about the food practice -Hanal which I knew nothing about.
I am not a vegetarian but do care about the way animals are treated and killed. The recent chicken reports about battery farming have caught my attention.
I do not, will not eat KFC because the way the chickens are treated and killed- even the companies own animal rights welfare employees have resigned over the way KFC treats its birds. I won’t go into the horrible detail here.
As a parent I would be complaning about this practice and decision. I completely agree with all the excellent points raised.
As far as Oxford and you never having been, I am surprised. Do go, you would like it very much, of that I am sure. The photographic opportunities are splendid. I have as yet to really capture the place in print.
Congratulations ATM on yet another very well argued blog. As is so often the case, I suspect that this head teacher was acting with the best of intentions, but I think the decision was wrong and I could not add to the very convincing case you have put.
I write this with difficulty because my emotions urge me to rant angrily but my intellect forbids it to do so.
I am a vegetarian, what you might call a vegetarian of conscience. The thought of harming animals in any way causes me emotional distress. This is as true of animal experiments as of the horrific practices in slaughterhouses.
If I am tolerant of meat eaters, it is only because I believe that loving kindness to animals includes humans who are also animals but the exploitation of animals in any form deeply upsets me. I do not claim the moral high ground for myself (I used to eat meat) but I do feel that non-vegetarians are culpable. At the very least they are culpable of not thinking and quite often of refusing to think. I cannot understand how anyone with a brain can know what goes on in farming and in slaughterhouses and can still eat meat.
I don’t care about religious tolerance in this instance. I strongly believe that the government should ban the slaughter of animals as practised in Muslim and Jewish slaughterhouses. Until they do I regard them as accessories to the crime of cruelty.
I think people who eat meat should wake up and face their responsibilities. You cannot call yourself truly human - let alone humane - until you do.
I will not write any more as I do not like feeling as angry as I am feeling right now.
This situation highlights very well the difficulties of achieving multicultural ideals. Oxford seems to be the well-publicized site of a number of controversies in this area, but it probably is not the only such site. Thanks for another articulate, sensitive post.
The whole purpose of rituals, proscribed food etc like Halal is to separate the faithful from infidels. Making everybody eat Halal seems to me to be going against the spirit, if not the letter, of the Koranic law.
Also, don’t forget that Jews have their own dietary laws, as do Hindus and some Christians. You’ll never please all the religious people all of the time… Religions are designed to compartmentalise society - they’re fundamentally incompatible with modern notions of everybody rubbing up together in shared communities (unless everyone has the same religion).
Halal also forbids certain food types - pork of course but also prawns and other shellfish.
Islamically - There is a difference between Halal and Zabiha meat. Halal means permissable. Zabiha means slaughtered according to scripture.
At least here in the US, I know that if the term Halal is used it does not mean that the meat is Zabiha. Some Muslims will not eat meat that are halal but not zabiha. So my question is two fold: even though the teacher has stated in the letter that halal means that the animal was slaughtered in a certain manner - does this mean that when the caterers were given instruction to use only halal meat, were they actually using halal meat or zabiha meat. Secondly would anyone have problems with meals being served that were halal only and not slaughtered according to scripture?
I’m really curious as to how this all turns out. Personally, and this is comming to you from a Muslim - yes, I would be outraged over zabiha meat being served as I do believe that there would be those who would be offended by it as it not only includes the slaughter to be performed in a certain manner but it requires a blessing upon the animal - it is pushing one religion’s rights over others. There are other ways of going about it - they could offer zabiha and non-zabiha options. However from a different perspective - I see no problem with Halal (especially in cases where there is a large population of Muslims) - as it means that no pork products were used to prepare the food - in other words it could be the same meat that you buy in the grocery store (killed in the same inhumane manner as PETA will be sure to tell you) except that the meat was kept free of pork products (not in the same grinder, blood not mixed, or a meat provider that does not provide pork products).
samaha: Thanks for pointing out the distinction between Halal and Zabiha which I confess, I was unaware of.
I don’t yet know what the outcome will be, but I will be watching out for further information with interest, and will publish anything that I find.
I suspect that the main cause of unease is only partially to do with the technical way the animal is slaughtered, but more to do with the emotive issue of the threat that some feel as a quintessentially English City such as Oxford is feeling the need to appease a minority culture.
I really hope that the main cause of it is not an emotive issue that stems from having to appease a minority culture. As I said and others have pointed out .. there really is an issue if the meat is zabiha as other faiths could be offended by it. While I have no problems eating products that are labeled kosher it is because I believe that Islam and Judaism and Christianity are followers of the same faith (so the blessing that is done upon the animal is acceptable) .. as Christianity accepts Judaism in the same fashion. However .. Judaism does not consider neither Christianity nor Islam to be of the same faith nor does Christianity see Islam to be part of the same faith - so theological reasons would apply and from that point of view the protest is completely understandable.
In regards to the inhumane practices of slaughter - quite honestly - why accept any form of killing an animal? Let’s let the school menus go vegan then and everyone would be the healthier and happier for it.
Whenever I run accross issues of halal - I think back to my school days and remember just how hard it was to make sure that I was eating halal meats (not zabiha) and a while back I wrote about it - thought you might get a kick out of it: http://samaha.wordpress.com/2007/07/25/pizza-philosophy/