Shops should sell what they want, and consumers buy what they want. I don't think a shop should be compelled to serve non-Halal food. If the majority of potential customers want pork products and the pizza restaurant refuses to sell them, they'll go out of business. That's the market.

But customers must be made aware of what they're buying. A customer may object to ritually slaughtered beef on grounds of animal cruelty, and there should be clear information on menus to enable customers to make an informed choice. My friends who feel that way choose fish or vegetarian dishes when eating at Moroccan restaurants, for instance.

A general point. It's always easier to get your way if you say it's your religion, much harder if it's based on personal ethics. Most airlines will provide Muslim, Kosher and Hindu meals if booked in advance. None will yet provide, say, a fair trade meal. If you can't give a rational justification for your food taboo, it's respected. If you can, it's not. Go figure.

Felipe Fernandez-Armesto:

"Food taboos bind those who respect them and brand those who break them. If the rules made sense, outsiders would follow them - but they exist precisely to exclude outsiders and give coherence to the group. Permitted foods feed identity; excluded foods help to define it."

Two questions. Who took the decision to strike the mother off the list? Who has the power to sack them?

There are two things which make meat Halal. First, the method of killing the animal. Is bleeding an animal to death less humane than captive bolt stunning? It's a scientific question, and science might yet give us a clear answer - even though the religious may not like it, and will simply ignore it if it conflicts with religious prescription. A recent German study claims that the traditional bronze age ritual slaughter methods used by orthodox Jews and pious Muslims cause no more suffering to a dying animal than modern lab-tested methods. I find this unlikely, but not impossible.

But there's a second thing which makes meat Halal. This is the Muslim prayer of dedication which must be pronounced over the animal as it is killed. The prayer makes no difference in terms of animal welfare. Show a scientist two dead cows, both bled to death, but only one receiving the Muslim prayer. He won't be able to tell you which one was dedicated to Allah as it was being killed. Nor will an Imam, if he wasn't present when the killing occurred.

On the face of it, the prayer is simply a bit of voodoo silliness, as absurd and harmless as homeopathy. But the prayer is very problematic for social cohesion in any multi-ethnic, multi-faith society. It makes it almost impossible for a Muslim to accept hospitality from a non-Muslim, unless the non-Muslim effectively agrees to feign Islamic belief and "act Muslim". This is not an accidental byproduct of the Halal system. It's actually the principal reason for it. It's unfair and unequal to non-Muslims, and it's intended to be unfair and unequal to them. It's an assertion of superiority. That's the point. It's really this aspect of Halal that the non-Muslim parents are objecting to - that their kids should be forced to eat food specifically dedicated to a religious viewpoint they don't hold, and may well oppose.