EU Court upholds Belgian ban on kosher and halal slaughter

[stvdv]

This whole thing isn’t really about religious slaughter versus “stunning” slaughter at all. Suppose it is simply about protecting Belgian meat producers. The EU doesn’t prohibit kosher slaughter. Apparently they don’t buy the arguments that “stunning” slaughter is better morally. But if the Belgians prohibit all meat from countries that don’t prohibit non-stunning slaughter than its market is closed and local producers are protected. So what if the rights of some minorities are thrown under the bus? Europeans have excluded Jews from ways of making a living for centuries. It’s an old story. Plus it exploits the prejudices of anti-Semites and those that hate Jewish kosher slaughter for more benign reasons. Could be. Not saying it is. But it could be.

Usually such decisions are all about money, so your idea makes most sense to me. Although I think the percentage of Belgium meat producers is much higher than Halal/Kosher (only 500.000 Muslims of the total 11.500.000 people; ca. 4%). So, it can't be about the money (Belgium vs Halal) I think

Furthermore such laws are already in other countries in Europe, and those countries are quite open to other cultures I think (esp. Sweden)

Animal slaughter without prior stunning is already banned in several E.U. countries, such as Sweden and Denmark, and other nations in Europe, including Switzerland and Norway.

And I know that in Holland they (government) mentioned some month ago, that it would be better that we (in Holland) shift towards vegetarianism. And since a few month all the supermarkets tripled (or more) their vegetarian assortment. So, this for once might be a genuine "care for animals", although that's hard to believe for me. Esp. knowing that In Holland anesthesia is not required

From Hinduism POV I learned that vegetarianism is best for spiritual minded people, although one can't tell e.g. Eskimos to eat vegetarian of course

I was curious which countries killed animals with/without anesthesia (lists in spoiler)

Spoiler: Countries with/without anesthesia when killing animals (in EU)

Spoiler: Countries with/without anesthesia when killing animals (other countries)

 

[McBell]

Usually such decisions are all about money, so your idea makes most sense to me. Although I think the percentage of Belgium meat producers is much higher than Halal/Kosher (only 500.000 Muslims of the total 11.500.000 people; ca. 4%). So, it can't be about the money (Belgium vs Halal) I think

Furthermore such laws are already in other countries in Europe, and those countries are quite open to other cultures I think (esp. Sweden)


And I know that in Holland they (government) mentioned some month ago, that it would be better that we (in Holland) shift towards vegetarianism. And since a few month all the supermarkets tripled (or more) their vegetarian assortment. So, this for once might be a genuine "care for animals", although that's hard to believe for me. Esp. knowing that In Holland anesthesia is not required

From Hinduism POV I learned that vegetarianism is best for spiritual minded people, although one can't tell e.g. Eskimos to eat vegetarian of course

I was curious which countries killed animals with/without anesthesia (lists in spoiler)

Spoiler: Countries with/without anesthesia when killing animals (in EU)

View attachment 46267

Spoiler: Countries with/without anesthesia when killing animals (other countries)

View attachment 46266

what happened in 1958?

 

[stvdv]

what happened in 1958?

I had to Google it, probably they refer to the below (from this link it seems USA was early with this Law to decrease suffering; ??error in list in spoiler it seems??)

The Humane Slaughter Act, or the Humane Methods of Livestock Slaughter Act (P.L. 85-765; 7 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.) is a United States federal law designed to decrease suffering of livestock during slaughter. It was approved on August 27, 1958

 

[firedragon]

This was posted in an Abrahamic Religion DIR thread by #Shaul - I thought it needed a wider audience.

The EU Court has upheld a Belgian law which requires an animal be stunned before being slaughtered. Such stunning violates the rules of kosher and halal slaughter.

EU court upholds Belgian ban on kosher ritual slaughter

Not mentioned in the article, such stunning of the animal is NOT more humane. The stunned animal experiences more pain that way according to Jewish experts, not less.

1. Cant the animal be tranquillised or something?
2. Also, why would this go against the Halal system?

I am no expert on this topic, that's why I am asking.

 

[McBell]

I had to Google it, probably they refer to the below (from this link it seems USA was early with this Law to decrease suffering)

Your first source says that in the US anesthesia has not been required since 1958 and yet the act you presented requiring anesthesia went into effect in 1958.....

Another misleading thing about your first source is that said source makes it appear that before 1958 the US had some form of anesthesia and it was removed in 1958

 

[stvdv]

That act seems to be in complete contradiction to what your source is claiming..

Yes, I saw that too. It's not the first time I see errors on the Internet (at least the year was correct, so the smart reader can find the error)

 

[McBell]

Yes, I saw that too. It's not the first time I see errors on the Internet (at least the year was correct, so the smart reader can find the error)

Was your source translated to English before you posted it?

 

[Heyo]

Religious freedom is not a privilege, it is a fundamental right.

Religious freedom is a right in the EU, getting exceptions built in otherwise universal laws is a privilege. It's in the name, privus legis, private law. And that privilege can be revoked, as Belgium did and the EU court of Justice has confirmed that Belgium's action was lawful.

The state has no place dictating what is and is not acceptable religious practice unless there is exceptionally good reason.

The state has every right to introduce new laws. Sometimes religions are granted the privilege to disobey a law without repercussion, sometimes not. To get an exception requires exceptionally good reasons.

And in my opinion, saving livestock from the potential of ephemeral suffering in the slaughtering act is not an adequate reason.

I agree that it's not a good reason. But that's not the point. The point is that you think you are entitled to an exception because you are such a special snowflake. You are not.

 

[stvdv]

Was your source translated to English before you posted it?

It was a Dutch wiki, and I copy/Pasted the link in Google Translate, to make it easier for English people to read (Dutch site had the error)

 

[rosends]

Perhaps the difference is simply semantic, so let me try this ...

If the new law was solely motivated by concern over animal suffering, one would reasonably expect to see a comparable concern manifesting itself in areas such as hunting regulations. To the best of my knowledge, it is not, and the fact that this wellspring of righteous indignation appears to be directed against Jews and Muslims is noteworthy and worrisome.

At the same time, I would hope that we prove committed to an honest re-evaluation of ritual slaughter which is both respectful of our traditions and informed by the best science.

I agree and stress the balance you indicate -- "informed by the science we have now" cannot mean automatically shifting from tradition. It can mean a bunch of things and might include making changes, but not as a matter of an imperative or obligation. There seems to be discussion over whether an animal can be properly schechted when asleep. If the answer is "yes" then I would just bring the cows into my 12th grade elective class and they should be asleep (based on my students' reactions) in a couple of minutes.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I agree and stress the balance you indicate -- "informed by the science we have now" cannot mean automatically shifting from tradition. It can mean a bunch of things and might include making changes, but not as a matter of an imperative or obligation. There seems to be discussion over whether an animal can be properly schechted when asleep. If the answer is "yes" then I would just bring the cows into my 12th grade elective class and they should be asleep (based on my students' reactions) in a couple of minutes.

In all honesty, I think we all agree that all of this discussion pertains to the proper treatment of dumb animals, and that no one who has benefitted from one of your 12th grade classes could possibly fall into that category.

On the other hand, perhaps, when balancing science and tradition, the idea of khumrah might suggest extra caution when it comes to inflicting pain and taking life.

 

[McBell]

It was a Dutch wiki, and I copy/Pasted the link in Google Translate, to make it easier for English people to read (Dutch site had the error)

I was wondering if the confusion was caused by the translation....

 

[1213]

...
EU court upholds Belgian ban on kosher ritual slaughter...

I think that is wrong.

It would be interesting to know, how it is measured how painful something is for animal.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think that is wrong.

It would be interesting to know, how it is measured how painful something is for animal.

I found this.
But it's beyond me to read & digest it all.
Assessment of Stress During Handling and Transport

 

[Altfish]

I think that is wrong.

It would be interesting to know, how it is measured how painful something is for animal.

I'm no expert at this but surely, speed of death has a lot to do with it and 'bleeding out' is not fast.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This was posted in an Abrahamic Religion DIR thread by #Shaul - I thought it needed a wider audience.

The EU Court has upheld a Belgian law which requires an animal be stunned before being slaughtered. Such stunning violates the rules of kosher and halal slaughter.

EU court upholds Belgian ban on kosher ritual slaughter

Good.

Not mentioned in the article, such stunning of the animal is NOT more humane. The stunned animal experiences more pain that way according to Jewish experts, not less.

No comment.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But to prohibit something you don’t understand (such as kosher slaughter) simply for profits or animus against religion is repugnant.

Neither of these two are actually used as an argument to justify the ban.

Try again.