Halal and the freedom to choose - an issue that will not go away

Once again the halal meat issue is raising temperatures.

This time it was in Parliament where progress was almost made today in introducing new legislation on labelling.

To be precise, that means clearly marking halal foods in supermarkets, restaurants and other food outlets so people can make a decision whether to buy or not.

The debate centres around the rights of consumers to make an informed decision whether to eat meat which has been ritually slaughtered in accordance with Islamic teachings.

This often involves slicing through the animal’s neck without prior stunning, a practice which to some is unacceptable.

Traditional British abattoirs stun animals before slaughter so they are unconscious when the are killed.

Whatever your views on animal welfare, there is still the issue of choice, and that affects everybody.

It became the topic of heated debate after it emerged halal meat was being secretly “slipped” into food products without clear labelling.

People, such as myself with no religious persuasion, were unwittingly eating halal in a move to apparently suit one ethnic group.

I take issue with this because I am not a Muslim, and furthermore, I favour a method of slaughter which involves minimal distress to the animal.

And however un-PC that may sound, that is my choice.

Today Tory MP Philip Davies (right) lost an attempt to launch a new law introducing compulsory labelling of halal and kosher meat.

Although he had no desire to stop halal meat being sold, he wanted customers  UK to be fully informed about the products, he said in a speech to parliament.

It was not long before he was beaten down by Labour MP Sir Gerald Kaufman who forced a vote in the Commons to halt the Bill at the first hurdle.

Mr Davies argued while Muslims make up three per cent  of the  population, halal meat accounted for around 25 per cent of meat sales.

He said: “There are some people in this country who would wish to ban halal and kosher meat on animal welfare grounds. 

“I am not one of those people - I’m happy for people to make the decision themselves - but they should be allowed to make an informed decision.

“My Bill does not favour one or the other - it is to help everybody.”

Sir Gerald opposed the Bill because it picked out “only the practices of Muslims and Jews”.

He told the Commons: “This has profound connotations of religious feelings and I would be letting my own faith down, my family, I would be letting my many, many good decent, fine religious Muslims in my constituency down if I did not state my total opposition to this Bill.”

I can’t help thinking he is missing the point.

People are still being denied the right to make an informed choice on whether they eat halal if labelling is not made clearer.

And whether you like it or not, there is no issue with Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Shinto, Wicca or any other religious foodstuff.

The issue is with halal, and the ongoing refusal to allow people to make the choice whether to eat it or not.