Atheist Nexus Logo

Dutch Muslims are feeling under siege, with proposed legislation that would ban the ritual slaughter of animals for halal meat because it's been argued that it causes the animals unnecessary pain.

According to this article, the Dutch government is also intent on imposing conditions on new immigrants, among which are learning the Dutch language and accepting Dutch values. In addition, legislation is being drawn up that will make wearing the veil illegal after January first.

I have mixed feelings about this. On one level I see it as Dutch society setting ground rules that say "If you want to live here, you have to live according to our values", and that seems perfectly reasonable to me. On another level, many ordinary Muslims are bound to interpret it as a "You're not welcome here" message, as illustrated in the article, and I think that's sad.

I suppose it's all grist to the mill of the growing clash of cultures in Europe.

Tags: Dutch values, Islam, Muslims, Netherlands, halal meat

Views: 20

Replies to This Discussion


The Dutch are known for being a very open and tolerant society. Excellent social care, hospitals education, public transport etc. Open minded attitudes towards prostitution and drugs.


However what has rubbed the Dutch up the wrong way is that Muslims have (or at least been perceived to be) taking advantage of the freedoms afforded by the Dutch state but not reciprocating, either in their relationship to the Native population (we have our way, you have yours), or within the immigrant population (freedom to wear what you want means we have the freedom to dictate to our kids what to wear). 


If you want examples look at :







The amendments say the government can't stop the freedom of press, or religion, or speech.  It does not say you have to take part in those freedoms.  You can hold to a strict religion, or none at all.


Those ARE American values, man ... as are the things you mentioned in the rest of the paragraph that I didn't quote.  While we have freedom of religious belief, we have restrictions on religious actions.


If you blow up an abortion clinic, we will arrest you.  If you beat your wife, we will arrest you (assuming it wasn't part of sex, or something along those lines).  Those are values.  Values include both thou-shalts and though-shalt-nots.

Testify brother.  I agree with you.  Some values are laws (not murdering people for example), but not all laws are values (ie traffic laws).

a hair very well split Joseph.

anything goes in the theater of the mind.

bring that into reality and you "gota deal wit some social shit..brotha".



its the outward actions that effect others around you.

the ingrained genetic propensity we have to be gregarious group oriented mammals

also includes things like " dont kill those that are like you in your tribr"..."its socialy and physicaly destructive to"marry" and fuck a 9yr old grl"... "the golden rule".

religion comes in and tells us to do things that we know, genetically, either dont make any sense or are just outright destructive.





forgive my spelling today...the dyslexcia is realy bad this morning.

No worries.  I generally blame it on lack of caffeine.
Halal simply means the proper way to act or things proper to use - the opposite being Haraam. The proper method of slaughter (death by bleeding) is called Dhabihah.
Dhabīḥah or Zabiha is, in Islamic law, the prescribed method of ritual slaughter of all animals excluding camels, locusts, fish and most sea-life. This method of slaughtering animals consists of a swift, deep incision with a sharp knife on the neck, cutting the jugular veins and carotid arteries of both sides but leaving the spinal cord intact. It must be done with respect and compassion; avoiding as much as possible any animal pain or discomfort.

I don't see how this differs from the USDA prescribed method of killing or a Kosher method of dispatching the animal. I understand many European's desire to curtail the Islamic intrusion into their cultural identity but this seems to be a really weak issue.
That surprised me as well.  It isn't like Sharia.

hmm    you might think of it as a small "foothold" intrusion. nothing in and of itself but a slippery slope typ of argument.

I consider all forms of "ritual" killing of food anomals rather stresfull on the animal.

I want my food animals to not know whats comming as much as possible.

a stressed food animal is secreting loads of endorphins and adrenaline.

adrenaline makes the meat tuff, even if its in the last few min before slaughter.


BUT.....and I have a big me,

like jefferson said..." it neither breaks my legs nor picks my pocket"...

the only thing that bugs me at all is the way its done. its just old and barbaric.

on a strange note...has anyone else heard about that synthetic meat in japan?.mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm  hyperspam!

I don't know how you kill your animals in the US, Jim, but the common practice in Europe is to stun the animal first. For some reason, stunning the animal is not acceptable either to Muslims or Kosher Jews, and this is what the debate hinges on.

I tend to agree with you. There's some evidence (but maybe not convincing enough for the animal rights lobby) that a swift cut to the throat with a sharp knife is barely registered by the animal. And anyway, even if it was, it would very soon be unconscious so any pain would be fleeting.

I don't think the issue is just about making life difficult for Muslims and Jews as most of the lobbying is coming from animal rights activists. It was something that they seemed happy to overlook for a long time because only a small percentage of animals were being killed in this way, but it was recently revealed that the practice has become much more widespread. Huge amounts of meat are being slaughtered in the Muslim way because it makes it easier for restaurants, school canteens, etc to just buy in halal meat and feed it to everybody rather than having a small supply just to cater to their Muslim customers.

I recall that there were massive protests in the UK a couple of decades ago because sheep sold to Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries were being transported alive to those countries in terrible conditions. I don't recall that any of the protests were anti-Islamic in nature - the protesters' concerns seemed to be all about animal cruelty.

"a swift cut to the throat with a sharp knife is barely registered by the animal."

I believe that's true.  As a wood carver I've inflected some serious wounds on my fingers, but as my knives are razor sharp it takes a while for any pain to register and  fingers have a lot more nerve endings than the throat area has.  Cutting both carotid arteries would render the animal unconcious within seconds and dead seconds after that.  Crushing their skull before cutting the throat doesn't seem to be any more "compassionate".

This may be true, but i would base any legislation on scientifically verifiable data rather than on 6000 year old mythology.



I thought the lack of stunning was so the animal could see the killer recite a prayer. If so, talk about anthropomorphism!


Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today



Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon


Nexus on Social Media:

© 2015   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service