Ukip wants to ban non-stun slaughter. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Ukip's position on halal and kosher meat is about stoking division, not animal welfare

Judging by Ukip's poor show on wildlife issues in the European Parliament, its latest proposal is more about exploiting xenophobia than protecting animals.

Another week, another controversial Ukip policy. This time, Ukip has rocked the boat by announcing that it would outlaw religious slaughter for halal and kosher meat that requires animals to be killed without being stunned. Conveniently, and perhaps not coincidentally, the policy announcement came on the same day as shocking footage emerged of sheep being horrifically mistreated at an abattoir in Yorkshire, in complete contravention of animal welfare standards and Islamic practice.

Ukip justifies its proposed ban in terms of animal welfare, referring to the need to put the "ethical treatment of animals" above the beliefs of religious groups. This is all well and good, and as it happens it is something I agree with. Yet Ukip deliberately uses divisive language that sets the "silent majority" against minority Jewish and Muslim communities.

It is worth remembering that as well as revealing shocking mistreatment of animals at a Halal abattoir, Animal Aid also uncovered appalling abuse in a number of other abattoirs that did use stunning, including footage of animals being punched in the head, burnt with cigarettes and given electric shocks.

Moreover, when Ukip talks about upholding the "UK's compassionate traditions of animal welfare", I assume it isn't referring to its desire to reintroduce fox-hunting, which, let's remember, involves a pack of dogs tearing a frightened animal to pieces. One cannot help but suspect that the party's proposed ban on religious slaughter is more about courting anti-Islamic sentiment and the far right vote than standing up for the ethical and humane treatment of animals.

Ukip's sudden concern for animal welfare rings particularly false when you consider its dreadful record on animal welfare issues in the European Parliament. Just take the fight against wildlife crime and illegal poaching. Last January, Ukip MEPs voted against measures to protect elephants and crack down on the illegal ivory trade. And when a few months ago I invited MEPs to co-sign my letter to the European Commission demanding an EU action plan against wildlife crime, I received 82 signatures from across the political spectrum yet not a single one of Ukip's 23 MEPs voiced their support.

Ukip has also voted against an EU ban on importing seal fur, with Ukip MEP Roger Helmer claiming that dumb seal cubs deserve to be killed and that, "it's mawkish, sentimental and unhelpful to adopt a Bambi attitude to animals".

So I would argue that Ukip's latest proposal has more to do with the politics of division and fear than animal welfare. Like most people, I was sickened by the footage of animals being routinely abused in slaughterhouses. I want to see a lot more being done to clamp down on this cruel treatment. That is why I'm calling for stricter enforcement of EU animal welfare laws that specify animals slaughtered without pre-stunning should be spared any avoidable suffering.

Improving the treatment of animals can be done without stirring up tensions or singling out particular communities. This is a problem for all of us, and the best way to address it is by working together, across Britain and across the EU.

Catherine Bearder is the Liberal Democrat MEP for the South East. She tweets at @catherinemep

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

The buck doesn't stop with Grant Shapps - and probably shouldn't stop with Lord Feldman, either

The question of "who knew what, and when?" shouldn't stop with the Conservative peer.

If Grant Shapps’ enforced resignation as a minister was intended to draw a line under the Mark Clarke affair, it has had the reverse effect. Attention is now shifting to Lord Feldman, who was joint chair during Shapps’  tenure at the top of CCHQ.  It is not just the allegations of sexual harrassment, bullying, and extortion against Mark Clarke, but the question of who knew what, and when.

Although Shapps’ resignation letter says that “the buck” stops with him, his allies are privately furious at his de facto sacking, and they are pointing the finger at Feldman. They point out that not only was Feldman the senior partner on paper, but when the rewards for the unexpected election victory were handed out, it was Feldman who was held up as the key man, while Shapps was given what they see as a relatively lowly position in the Department for International Development.  Yet Feldman is still in post while Shapps was effectively forced out by David Cameron. Once again, says one, “the PM’s mates are protected, the rest of us shafted”.

As Simon Walters reports in this morning’s Mail on Sunday, the focus is turning onto Feldman, while Paul Goodman, the editor of the influential grassroots website ConservativeHome has piled further pressure on the peer by calling for him to go.

But even Feldman’s resignation is unlikely to be the end of the matter. Although the scope of the allegations against Clarke were unknown to many, questions about his behaviour were widespread, and fears about the conduct of elections in the party’s youth wing are also longstanding. Shortly after the 2010 election, Conservative student activists told me they’d cheered when Sadiq Khan defeated Clarke in Tooting, while a group of Conservative staffers were said to be part of the “Six per cent club” – they wanted a swing big enough for a Tory majority, but too small for Clarke to win his seat. The viciousness of Conservative Future’s internal elections is sufficiently well-known, meanwhile, to be a repeated refrain among defenders of the notoriously opaque democratic process in Labour Students, with supporters of a one member one vote system asked if they would risk elections as vicious as those in their Tory equivalent.

Just as it seems unlikely that Feldman remained ignorant of allegations against Clarke if Shapps knew, it feels untenable to argue that Clarke’s defeat could be cheered by both student Conservatives and Tory staffers and the unpleasantness of the party’s internal election sufficiently well-known by its opponents, without coming across the desk of Conservative politicians above even the chair of CCHQ’s paygrade.

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.