Overkill: The Polemic Against Ritual Slaughter

Animal Frontiers, 2012

Society & Animals, 2013

Patterns of prejudice, 1989

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 ...

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.

2022

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.

Derecho Animal. Forum of Animal Law Studies

One of the more intractable issues associated with animal law and ethics concerns responsibly regulating the slaughter of animals according to the requirements of the Jewish religious tradition and some interpretations of the Islamic religious tradition. Most Western liberal democratic societies require animals to be stunned before slaughter to ensure they are insensible when killed. However, the Jewish tradition and many interpretations of the Islamic tradition prohibit pre-slaughter stunning. In these traditions, animals are killed according to specific religious rituals that involve cutting the animal's throat and permitting it to exsanguinate without prior stunning. These requirements therefore come into direct conflict with Statutes, Codes and Regulations of many Western countries intending to give expression to animal welfare policies by requiring pre-slaughter stunning. However, such practices are also protected by international and domestic human rights instruments guaranteeing freedom of religious practice and expression. Recent decisions of European Courts demonstrate the difficulties that arise when countries attempt to regulate this conflict. In exploring several of these recent decisions, this article intends to outline the parameters of this conflict and to suggest a potential way forward to responsible regulation of such practices.

UniSA Student Law Review, 2015

This is a comment on Seamus Brand’s article in this volume entitled ‘Australian Live Animal Export: A Comparative Examination of Viable Alternatives’. It summarises current scientific evidence of the pain and suffering that is experienced by animals during slaughter. The comment begins by surveying the different measures of pain and distress in animals before moving on to present an overview of the halal, kosher and commercial methods used to kill animals. It argues that while the available evidence confirms that direct incisional killing causes pain and may lead to significant suffering in some animals, the deeper issue that must be confronted arises from the fact that even when best commercial practices are followed, enormous numbers of animals experience pain or distress in the final period of their life regardless of whether they are killed by halal, kosher or secular methods of slaughter.

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.’