Responsible Regulation of the Religious Slaughter of Animals

Liverpool Law Review, 2020

In February 2019, The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) and the British Veterinary Association (BVA) published a joint open letter to the British Government calling for a repeal of a legal exemption that permits the slaughter of animals without prior stunning. The RSPCA and BVA argue that repealing the exemption is required on grounds of animal welfare, claiming that non-stun slaughter causes unnecessary pain and suffering. By contrast, Islamic and Jewish groups assert that non-stun slaughter, when properly conducted, is both humane and a religious requirement for least some followers of their faiths. This article considers whether imposing a ban on non-stun slaughter is compatible with obligations to protect religious freedom and non-discrimination under the European Convention of Human Rights. It will conclude that it can be and, when done to protect animal welfare, falls within Contracting States' margin of appreciation.

Agriculture, 2021

Human rights, such as to non-discrimination and freedom of religion, are internationally recognized. In the meantime, the so-called global animal law is becoming more and more important. In this context, religious slaughter is increasingly becoming a matter for debate as a number of special procedures, which avoid stunning methods, may lead to greater suffering for animals. Such procedures are common to Judaism and Islam and involve 25% of the global population, almost 2 billion people. Considering that about 94% of European public opinion in 2015 expressed concern over animal welfare, it is time to evaluate the legal perspective of these special treatments. Indeed, although they seem to violate animal welfare policies, at the same time states have a duty to uphold religious freedom (and its forms of expression) under International and European law. The aim of this study is to evaluate, through a multidisciplinary approach, the complex balance between human rights in general and ani...

The paper discusses the problem of the legal duty to stun animals when slaughtered in the context of specific religious rites to kill animals practiced by Jewish and Muslim communities. After Polish law had abolished exception from mandatory stunning existing for ritual methods of killing farm animals the exceptionless duty of stunning animals when killed has been reviewed by the Polish Constitutional Tribunal which resolved that it violates the constitutional freedom of religious practices. The reasoning of the Tribunal as well as some critical comments over the judgment are presented and critically appraised. The authors advocate the view that the deliberate infliction of pain or suffering on sentient creatures is a legitimate ground to limit the freedom to practice religious beliefs.

2017

The Jewish and Muslim communities have a set of dietary laws that control the food they eat. One of the most important components of these laws is how an animal is killed for food. In both communities there has been well-documented interest and concern for animal welfare, long before such concerns were fashionable in the Western world. Both groups traditionally use a cut at the neck to make the animal unconscious. The religious slaughter of animals is sometimes a challenge for the modern meat slaughter industry because the process is slower, requires more skill on the part of slaughterhouse and the slaughterman, requires more attention to the details of animal handling, and needs specialized equipment that is often expensive, especially for higher line speeds. But religious slaughter of animals also has some benefits such as the fact that the animal is killed by someone with religious training who cares about the animal, using a razor sharp knife that is free of nicks. Working with ...

Animal Frontiers, 2012

Meat Science, 2014

As part of the project "Religious slaughter (DIALREL): improving knowledge and expertise through dialogue and debate on issues of welfare, legislation and socioeconomic aspects", this paper discusses an evaluation of current practices during Halal and Shechita slaughter in cattle, sheep, goats and poultry. During religious slaughter, animals are killed with and without stunning by a transverse incision across the neck that is cutting the skin, muscles (brachiocephalic, sternocephalic, sternohyoid, and sternothyroid), trachea, esophagus, carotid arteries, jugular veins and the major, superficial and deep nerves of the cervical plexus. In this report, the restraint methods, stunning, neck cutting, exsanguination, slaughter techniques and postcut handling in the abattoir were assessed for religious slaughter. Information about the procedures used during religious slaughter in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, the UK, Turkey and Australia was collected by means of spot visits to abattoirs. To standardize the information gathered during the spot visits three guidelines were designed, one for each species, and translated into the national languages of the countries involved. The document included questions on the handling and restraint methods (stunning, neck cutting/exsanguination/slaughter techniques and postcut handling performed under religious practices) and for pain and distress of the animal during the restraint, neck cutting and induction to death in each abattoir. Results showed differences in the time from restraining to stun and to cut in the neck cutting procedures and in the time from cut to death.

Journal of agricultural and environmental ethics, 2012

Human beings have engaged in animal husbandry and have slaughtered animals for food for thousands of years. During the majority of that time most societies had no animal welfare regulations that governed the care or slaughter of animals. Judaism is a notable exception in that from its earliest days it has included such rules. Among the Jewish dietary laws is a prohibition to consume meat from an animal that dies in any manner other than through the rigorously defined method of slaughter known as shechita. In recent decades more and more attempts have been initiated by governments around the world to either outright ban or to control and modify the practice of shechita. This paper presents the requisite background about shechita and then analyzes the ethics of some of the recent legislation. The analysis includes a rebuttal of the assertion that shechita is an inhumane method of slaughter. It further presents the consequences on the Jewish community of legislation to impose pre-slaughter stunning and explains why such legislation is unethical. The actual effect of labeling laws is discussed and it is shown why such laws are also un-ethical.

Society & Animals, 2013

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 2007

The production and consumption of halal meat products, i.e. deriving from Islamic ritual slaughter, have grown steadily over the last 15 years. Today the global halal market is estimated at US $150 billion per year. In this paper I describe the main steps in the integration of ‘Muslim ritual slaughter’ into the national legislation of Western European countries, and present an analysis of the economic and political issues involved. Once the subject of dispute between animal welfare organisations and religious groups, the arguments surrounding slaughter ritual have, more recently, particularly in the aftermath of the BSE crisis, evolved to become an issue of consumer rights. To illustrate this evolution, I examine two specific cases: Switzerland, as a European country, and the UK as a member-state of the European Union.

Journal of Religion in Europe, 2015

In 2011, the Dutch House of Representatives voted for the first time in its history for banning the practice of unstunned ritual slaughter in accordance to Jewish and Islamic rites. How should this remarkable vote be understood? In order to answer this question, a critical discourse analysis has been carried out. Three discourses are discerned in the debate: ‘unstunned ritual slaughter as an outdated practice,’ ‘ritual slaughter as a form of ritual torture’ and ‘unstunned ritual slaughter as a legitimate religious practice.’ The growing parliamentary support for the first two mentioned discourses is related to recent changes in the Dutch political landscape. In a wider context, it is related to a shift in the national self-conception of the Netherlands and, linked to that, to a change in the perceived position of traditional religious minorities within Dutch society in the aftermath of 9/11 and the ‘Fortuyn revolt.’