Translate

Saturday, 9 November 2013

If you had to be executed and could only choose one of these methods, which would it be?

You are about to be executed. Which would you choose if you can only choose from the following?


  • A four-inch bolt to be shot into my brain and then my throat cut
  • Just my throat cut



I know some of you will not answer this question honestly or at all, because it would have implications for the validity of your opinion against halal slaughter and your inconsistent position exposed.

I do believe that if halal slaughter decreed that the animal has to have a 4 inch bolt shot into its head before its throat is cut these animal sentimentalists would say that was cruel and unnatural and want to ban it. They are just taking the animal rightist stance because they see it as a stick with which to beat those pesky Muslims.

I am assuming that meat-eating Islamophobes would consider their own comfort and dignity more than some dumb animal they would only eat, and would choose the least painful or most dignified method of execution for themselves, or what they would perceive to be the most dignified and least painful method. 

Halal slaughter 'consists of using a well-sharpened knife to make a swift, deep incision that cuts the front of the throat, the carotid artery, windpipe, and jugular veins. The head of an animal that is slaughtered using halal methods is aligned with the qiblah [ie facing Mecca]. In addition to the direction, permitted animals should be slaughtered upon utterance of the Islamic prayer "in the name of God." '


If I were a rational animal I would choose this method of slaughter.

Non-halal slaughter is described thus:

The slaughterhouse process differs by species and region and may be controlled by civil law as well as religious laws such as Kosher and Halal laws. A typical U.S. procedure follows:

  1. Cattle (mostly steers and heifers, some cows, and even fewer bulls) arrive via truck or rail from a ranch, farm, or feedlot.
  2. Place animals in holding pens.
  3. Incapacitate them by applying an electric shock of 300 volts and 2 amps to the back of the head, effectively stunning them, or by use of a captive bolt pistol to the front of the cow's head (a pneumatic or cartridge-fired captive bolt). Swine can be rendered unconscious by CO2/inert gas stunning. (This step is prohibited under strict application of Halal and Kashrut codes.)
  4. Hang them upside down by both of their hind legs and place them on the processing line.
  5. Sever the carotid artery and jugular vein with a knife. The blood drains from the body, causing death through exsanguination.
  6. Remove the head and feet.

Personally, I would prefer to be dead before I was hung upside down.  Dunno about Islamophobes though.  

It is assumed that throat-cutting is the quickest and most irreversible way of ending the life of a living creature.


Female ritual suicide known as Jigai was practiced by the wives of samurai who have committed seppuku or brought dishonor.

Some females belonging to samurai families committed suicide by cutting the arteries of the neck with one stroke, using a knife such as a tantō or kaiken. The main purpose was to achieve a quick and certain death in order to avoid capture. Women were carefully taught jigaki as children. Before committing suicide, a woman would often tie her knees together so her body would be found in a dignified pose, despite the convulsions of death. 

This idea of a quick death through throat-cutting is confirmed by Tennyson, writing of  Iphigenia's ritual sacrifice:

"I was cut off from hope in that sad place, [12]
  Which yet to name my spirit loathes and fears: [13]
  My father held his hand upon his face;
  I, blinded with my tears,

  "Still strove to speak: my voice was thick with sighs
  As in a dream. Dimly I could descry
  The stern black-bearded kings with wolfish eyes,
  Waiting to see me die.

  "The high masts flicker'd as they lay afloat;
  The crowds, the temples, waver'd, and the shore;
  The bright death quiver'd at the victim's throat;
  Touch'd; and I knew no more." [14]


Would you prefer to be subjected two violent life-terminating procedures when just one of them would by itself be enough to send you into the next world, or would you prefer just one?

Would you rather be both stabbed in the heart and then have your head cut off, or would you prefer to have either, but not both?

Which would be choose if you were trying to choose the method with the least pain and the most dignity?

Those choosing to be stunned should bear in mind that it does not always work:

10 November 14:59
"Bolt/stun guns don't always work - the worst thing I've ever seen as far as animal suffering is concerned was a bullock shot with a bolt gun which for some reason didn't work right - this poor beast is howling and kicking and shaking the whole cage, truely sickening, grown men in tears, nasty."

If I had to have my throat cut I would rather have it cut facing Mecca in an upright position with a prayer said for me, than to have it cut when I was hanging upside down insensible, with no prayer said for me at all.  

If the Koran said stun the animals and then cut their throats, can you imagine the Islamophobes saying this should be banned because both stunning and throat-cutting is unusual and unnecessary cruelty?  I can.

There really is one correct and rational answer only, isn't there, as to which method you would choose for yourself if you had to choose?  Not that I would expect an Islamophobe to see it or ever answer the question honestly.

The ideal form of halal slaughter I propose: the animal proceeds through a passage towards a pleasant and clean room facing Mecca. A kindly slaughter man greets it and says the usual prayer, its throat is cut and it dies quickly.

No comments: