I had a reply from my own MP this morning. It's fair to characterise it as broadly sympathetic, I think, but he also proffers the 'religious tolerance' argument. As an atheist and a humanist, I replied thus:
Thank you for your letter dated 21 May 2009 in response to my correspondence concerning the derogations afforded to shechita and halal slaughter practices.
As you rightly remark, ‘tolerance of minorities and their freedom to pursue activities that we do not necessarily agree with is a fundamental principle underpinning our liberal democratic traditions’. Another such fundamental principle is abhorrence – and proscription – of gratuitous cruelty. Slaughter without pre-stunning is an atavistic practice the origins of which far predate our modern science-based understanding of animals’ emotions and physical pain.
I fully appreciate that an elected representative is subject to a range of arguments and pressures from disparate sources, including those of religious groups. But we do not tolerate other traditions, such as child marriage and female genital mutilation, that are in contravention of our moral consensus, nor do we engage in persuasion: we enforce compliance.
May I urge you to reflect further on this issue?
Kind regards
[My full contact details]
Another thing I urge is that members who feel strongly about this write to their own MPs. Please...
Edited for spelling