Several days after publishing the post entitled Breakfast At Tiffany’s, CCTV footage has come to light showing staff at the Bowood Lamb abattoir in North Yorkshire submitting animals under their care to shocking levels of cruelty.  Acts caught on camera included the kicking, throwing and punching of lambs waiting to meet their maker as well as appearing to use one as a space hopper.

As disgusting as the images undoubtedly are, they’ve served one purpose in helping to publicise the campaign to ban the religious slaughter of animals without first stunning them.  The campaign (which admittedly is in need of a catchier title) is gaining a broader base of support as well as the favour of influential politicians such as Sir Roger Gale MP and members of the Commons Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

However, it’s been largely overlooked that much of the footage is irrelevant to the campaign.  There’s no obvious reason why the sight of dim-witted animals blindly following each other in carrying out acts of baabarity (sorry) is more likely to be seen in a halal abattoir than any other type of slaughterhouse.

If this were the sole concern, it could be assuaged by giving the employees the chop, considering criminal charges and following Animal Aid’s call for the compulsory installation of CCTV in abattoirs (a move that, sensibly, the Muslim Council of Britain seems to be supporting).

The footage that is relevant to the debate is that showing someone hacking away at a lamb’s neck four or five times before its throat is effectively slit.  This risks ridiculing the suggestion that animals suffer no greater pain during non-stun slaughter.

Members of the Muslim community have responded by denying that the conduct caught on camera complies with Islamic practice.  However, it seems impossible to deny that this particular lamb would have experienced less of an ordeal had it been stunned before falling into the hands of a cack-handed killer.

Although calls to ban non-stun slaughter are getting louder, there’s still a fair amount of opposition for the campaign to overcome in the religious communities themselves and more unexpected places. For example, East Devon.  To be more precise, the constituency of Tiverton and Honiton where incumbent MP, Neil Parish, has made a strong early claim to win the much-coveted gong for “STUPIDEST ARGUMENT OF THE YEAR”.

Looking nervously at a group of local farmers making throat-slitting gestures with their hands, Parish voiced his concern that “an outright ban on religious slaughter would not improve the welfare of animals at the point of slaughter.  Driving our halal meat industry abroad to countries without our robust animal welfare standards and our supply chain traceability might result in more animals being slaughtered without stunning.”

So, Neil – just so I’ve got this right – what you’re saying is “We oughtn’t ban something them thar foreigners are doin’ anyways ‘cos it might mean the lads I share a jar with down the local get less for their livestock.  And I buy enough rounds as it is!“?

Astonishing stuff.  Whatever next?  BoJo calling for drug use to be legalised as Clapton crack-kitchens manufacture the purest highs and our capital’s junkies need the money? I wouldn’t rule it out.