Today’s first letter details the Government response to a Petition on ending the cruelty of halal slaughter – a petition which was set up by our correspondent Ceri Jayes and which was published here on UKIP Daily. Our correspondent Jack Thomas reports:


Today I received the government’s response to a petition on ending halal slaughter which I had supported.

This is the response:

“The Government would like all animals stunned at slaughter. However, we also respect the rights of the Jewish and Muslim communities to eat meat prepared in accordance with their religious beliefs.

Current national regulations on religious slaughter have a long history. The issue was first debated in Parliament in 1875. The Slaughter of Animals Act 1933 introduced a legal requirement for stunning of animals prior to slaughter but contained an exemption where animals were slaughtered for consumption by Jewish and Muslim communities. Over the years the national rules governing religious slaughter have developed to provide additional protection to animals that are slaughtered in accordance with religious rites.

EU Regulation 1099/2009, on the protection of animals at time of killing, requires all animals to be stunned before slaughter except where animals are slaughtered in accordance with religious rites. The EU Regulation and the Welfare of Animals at Time of Killing (England) Regulations 2015 (WATOK) include strict requirements on where, how and who can slaughter animals in accordance with religious rites. These requirements are monitored and enforced by Official Veterinarians of the Food Standards Agency to ensure that animals are spared unnecessary suffering, distress or pain during the slaughter process.

The legislation also requires each person either handling or carrying out slaughter operations, including religious slaughter, to hold a Certificate of Competence. A person must undergo formal training, understand their responsibilities for the protection of animal welfare during slaughter operations and consistently demonstrate competent performance in order to pass the independent examination to obtain a Certificate of Competence.

Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs”

Why must we oppose it?

The Muslim population is growing much faster than our own, native white British, population. Of course along with that the demand for Halal products is increasing, so much so that certain food outlets already provide exclusively Halal meat and the pressure on the others to follow suit will grow in order to reduce costs.

For a start we could boycott Halal products, even boycott completely the suppliers of them but we don’t know for sure which products are compliant and those which are not. There is another petition that calls for clear labelling and might be an easier first objective; at least we could then make an informed choice.

We must ensure that EU Regulation 1099/2009 in its present form is excluded from the provisions of May’s Great Repeal Bill too.

Every time that our government panders to Muslim sensibilities we lose out in respect of our values which have developed over many years. That population senses weakness every time that this happens and it gives them confidence that, in the long term, they will win.

We will not defeat the invader by head on confrontation unless / until we get a government which supports us, so we must work incrementally.  Banning Halal slaughter will receive widespread support from all hues of the political spectrum so is a good starting point. Once we have the law then it must be enforced – Live in our Country, Live by our Rules. That is how the law is applied in the invaders’ own countries so why not ours?

The growth of Islam is a clear and present danger to us and the lives of our descendants. Its followers have been waging war against us for centuries, both openly and surreptitiously. Our exit from the EU is an essential battle in the war against Islam but there is much more required if we are to avoid subjugation to it.

Respectfully, Jack Thomas

Today’s second letter is an encouragement for members. During the leadership elections and the fallout after the result, it was easy to lose sight of what we have achieved and what we still can and indeed must achieve. Our contributor Jim Makin writes:


Woe, Woe, and thrice Woe!

Labour are resurgent, the Tories are imploding, the Lib-Dems have evaporated (temporarily – being undead they will return) and UKIP is . . . actually, relative speaking, in passable nick.

Our policy stance is sensible, traditional, and long awaited (thank you Steve Crowther, we owe you), our leader is elected by a handsome vote, presentable, articulate and experienced (if yet untried), and our brand (some would say unnecessarily revised) survives in slightly amended form. But UKIP is already indelibly branded into the public consciousness.

Unlike the Tories, we know what we are for, unlike Labour we are not led by a relic of the past pursuing the failed policies of the past, unlike the Lib-Dems we strive for a cause rather than for a Party.

Most importantly, the miraculous vision of Mrs May calmly at the helm of the good ship Brexit, which led to our wipe-out at the general election, is now blown away by her Florentine capitulation to the EU’s non-negotiating tactic, and her disastrous performance as captain of a crew in disarray seemingly on course to go down even before the ship itself sinks.

The stage is set if we care to take our eyes away from our own infighting.

It’s true that we still have the same old UKIP for now, with its opaque leadership (and we look to Henry to insist upon change in due course). Some who implacably wanted their own candidate to triumph have left us (it’s a free country) and we who remain (sorry about that word) are free to put UKIP back on the political map.

No UKIP isn’t perfect but look at the competition.

What are we waiting for?

Respectfully, Jim Makin


Print Friendly, PDF & Email