David Vance SubstackRead More
There are few people who haven’t heard of John Cleese. Ex-Python, and co-creator of the legendary Fawlty Towers, I personally think he is one the funniest writers and performers we have even seen. Now Cleese has been evolving in recent times on social media, asking some big questions, and I wanted to talk to you about his thinking on the controversial topic of Halal.
You see Cleese has recently set out strong objections to halal and kosher slaughter, arguing that both practices are incompatible with what he regards as core British animal‑welfare values. He very specifically frames the issue not as hostility to religious communities, but as a question of whether any cultural or religious tradition should override legal and ethical standards on how animals are killed for food.
He has now publicly backed calls for a legal ban on halal and kosher slaughter methods in the UK. This reflects the views of campaigners who want religious exemptions from standard stunning requirements removed. In his view, these methods amount to avoidable cruelty, and he contends that the law should be applied consistently to all slaughterhouses, regardless of faith‑based practices.
Cleese rightly argues that long‑standing British rules and norms were designed to minimise suffering at the point of slaughter and that these religious derogations undermine those principles.
In a series of social‑media posts and media appearances, Cleese has described halal slaughter in particular as running “contrary to old established British principles about not torturing animals.” This language reflects his insistence that the core issue is animal pain and distress, rather than any bias toward Muslims or Jews. He has suggested that if more people saw unedited footage of halal killing, (and believe me, it is really horrible) public opinion would harden decisively against allowing it to continue here.
Cleese has also responded to claims that banning halal meat might lead some Muslims to leave the United Kingdom. By reposting a question that asked whether halal should be outlawed even if it led to a “mass exodus,” he signalled that, for him, animal‑welfare concerns outweigh such warnings. Let them leave and take their cruelty towards animals with them.
He believes that the protection of animals is a non‑negotiable standard of a “civilised” society, one that he believes should not be compromised for religious accommodation.
Equally importantly, Cleese has connected his criticism of halal to his long‑standing defence of robust free speech and his resistance to the term “Islamophobia.” He argues that objections to religious doctrines and practices should be understood as cultural or ethical critique, not as racism, and has floated alternative labels such as “Islamosceptic” to capture this distinction. Cleese challenged Christianity in the hilarious “The Life of Brian” and all he is doing is seeking to logically apply such thinking to all religion. Cleese presents his opposition to halal and kosher slaughter as part of a wider argument about the right to question religion, even when that criticism causes controversy.
It is fascinating to see his political views evolve in real time. I was absolutely honoured last month when he subtweeted me THREE times on the Iran issue where he supports my calls for the Mullahs to be removed.
He may be 86 but there is nothing fawlty about his thinking on many issues!
