Non-stun slaughter debate is an attack on minority morals

When my father arrived in the UK in the late 1950s to work in the east London docks, part of the early wave of Bangladeshi men who came after the Second World War, there was no halal meat available, so he went without for years. Halal meat refers to meat prepared according to Islamic law, which requires a swift cut to the throat while invoking the name of God as part of religious observance.

- RABINA KHAN

He first settled in Tower Hamlets – a borough of crumbling terraces and gruelling, low-paid labour – where he and other men from Sylhet would occasionally buy chickens to slaughter themselves, following halal principles. In those small, overcrowded flats, they cooked and ate together – not just for sustenance, but to preserve their dignity, faith, and a fragile sense of home in an unfamiliar land.

Today, parliament will debate a public petition to ban non-stun slaughter. Framed as a matter of animal welfare, the petition raises a deeper issue around the cultural othering of Muslim and Jewish communities in Britain. Jewish dietary law, or kashrut, includes shechita – a method of slaughter that also prohibits stunning. The petition’s use of words such as “barbaric” and appeals made to “modern British values” suggest that certain minorities are incompatible with national identity – and effectively challenges both halal and kosher practices.

In Islam, we are taught to treat animals with compassion and care. Islamic law sets out clear guidelines to ensure that animals are not subjected to unnecessary suffering, even at the point of slaughter. For centuries, across cultures and faiths, animals have provided food, clothing, transportation, protection, and emotional companionship. This shared history carries a shared responsibility.